Jean S revisited “Black Tuesday” with a post on Climate Audit. Even though I’ve seen these graphs before. It is still so arresting:
(Click to enlarge) Graphs from a Richard Muller presentation
People can debate the finer details of “splicing” but ultimately the second graph is deceptive. Do tree rings work, or don’t they?
When it comes to “tricks”, this is not like a trick to get the photocopier to work. It’s a trick to hide something (see that famous quote below). We don’t need a committee report to tell us whether it’s OK. It’s not science.
Climate Audit has well written a minute by minute breakdown of the emails at the time. (It was Barry Woods suggestion to add the graphs but they finish up at the end of the post.)
MBH means Mann, Bradley, Hughes.
Jones writes to the MBH crew (cc Briffa and Osborn) explaining WMO plans and exactly what the graph will look like.
Jones explained that the graph was intended for the cover of the WMO annual statement, which had a print run of 10,000. Jones said that he had voted against using the millennial series in the promotion because he knew that he had “oversold the advances in paleoclimate”:
The pertinent item from Geneva concerns the WMO statement on the Climate of 1999. WMO has been issuing these for the past 6 years. There are 10,000 printed each time. There were two possibilities for the front cover (1998’s showed the instrumental record from 1856) – the millennial long temperature series or the contrasting storm tracks for 1998 and 1999. I was the only one voting for the latter – partly personal as I knew I would have to organise the former. I was outvoted 12-1, maybe because in a brief presentation I oversold the advances made in paleoclimate studies over the last few years !
Jones explained the planned figure to MBH saying that the WMO wanted to use the millenial series on the cover and saying that each will be extended to 1999 with “instrumental data”. He also bragged about how important the widely distributed report would be “we are talking about 25,000 copies!”
After that Jones apparently begins to work with the times series. He’s ready 1:30 PM and sends the now infamous trick email. (Bradley appears to have commented already, but the email is not in the dossier.)
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Note that Jones clearly explained what he means by “Mike’s Nature trick”. Mann has claimed that his “Nature trick” was nothing more than clearly showing observations and reconstructions on the same graphic with proper labeling. But the direct comparison of observations to reconstructions is as old as statistics – and Jones and Briffa had themselves made such comparisons in prior articles without regarding clear labeling as anything more than elementary hygiene. In this email (which is often shortened in quotation), Jones says that Mann’s “Nature trick” is “adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s”, as originally explained in November 2009 here.
Two hours later Michael Mann, who according to his legal documents “had absolutely nothing to do” with the graph (that is still worth a mention in his CV ), responds. He completely agrees with the text adding that it will “help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC [AR3]“:
The text looks good, and I agree w/ everything that is said. I think its a strong but defensible statement, and will help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC. The ’99 numbers are very interesting, and should help thwart the dubious claims sometimes made that El Nino is the sole culprit in the anomalous recent warmth.
Read it all at the emails of Black Tuesday
UPDATE: Added quote marks to the graph and headline to make it clear I am referring to the quote by Phil Jones of “mike’s trick”.
Thanks for this post Jo.
It is a while since I watched the Muller presentation and saw those compelling and condemning graphics. His eventual comment that when something like this is revealed the only ethical stance is to never read any paper authored by the person/s again. Such is their corruption, they become ‘non scientists’ in an Orwellian but quite legitimate and quite proper sense.
The issue is no longer the science per se but the credit of the author/s in question as a witness to the science and that credit is utterly destroyed. If one were to get sprung over such a [snip… “thing”] giving evidence in a court case, the judge would:-
a) give you pretty short shrift after cross examining counsel were finished with you and then
b) do you for perjury.
How on earth Mann et al are even listened to by anyone is utterly beyond me.
614
“How on earth Mann et al are even listened to by anyone is utterly beyond me.”
Powerful friends at the top might help.
162
In Andrew Monfords book “The Hockey stick illusion”, there is a Dr. Mann email(not one of the climategate emails)in which he refers to “Higher ups”.
This is some indication that there may have been some higher authority guiding the “Team” in their efforts for “The Cause”.
71
The young are always full of idealism and naivete and can very easily be seduced be such claims as climate change. And if you can add in some reality like the diminishing availability of electricity then it becomes all the easier to get enthusiastic embrace of your position. See my comment here about emPower.
102
follow the money.
Lindzen’s listing of all the special interests inclined to support Mann is informative:
“The current issue of global warming/climate change is extreme in terms of the number of special interests that opportunistically have strong interests in believing in the claims of catastrophe despite the lack of evidence. In no particular order, there are the leftist economists for whom global warming represents a market failure, there are the UN apparatchiks for whom global warming is the route to global governance, there are third world dictators who see guilt over global warming as providing a convenient claim on aid (ie, the transfer of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the wealthy in poor countries), there are the environmental activists who love any issue that has the capacity to frighten the gullible into making hefty contributions to their numerous NGOs, there are the crony capitalists who see the opportunity to cash in on the immense sums being made available for ‘sustainable’ energy, there are the government regulators for whom the control of a natural product of breathing is a dream come true, there are newly minted billionaires who find the issue of ‘saving the planet’ appropriately suitable to their grandiose pretensions, etc., etc.”
302
A very good summary of vested interests, there are even more. And on the other side I’m not sure who because the coal and oil crowd are supporting clean energy as well. We’re on our own, with the truth.
21
“How on earth Mann et al are even listened to by anyone is utterly beyond me.”
Maybe because in the wake of the “hockey stick” controversy, the US Congress asked the the National Research Council of the National Academies to investigate the matter.
The report came back supporting broadly supporting Mann and the temperature reconstructions.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
The real fraud about this episode was by “skeptics” who misrepresented what the “nature trick” and the “decline” which was being “hidden” were.
The “divergence problem” was well known and much discussed in the literature.
This is the fact that tree ring data for certain species, which had matched other temperature proxy data and the instrumental data suddenly and dramatically ceased to do so in the 1960s.
The reasons are still not clear. Some suggested anthropogenic causes, such as acid rain or particulate pollution, others natural causes. But the fact is that as a reliable measure of temperature, tree rings no longer worked after 1960.
So when knocking up a cover for a world meteorological society, it was decided to repeat Mann’s solution to the problem as published and explained in a Nature article. Use the proxy data where known to be reliable in addition to the instrumental data to show how temperature had changed over the instrumental and pre-instrumental record.
In an email to people who knew what this was about and not expecting it to be stolen and misrepresented, Jones refer to this as a “trick” which can mean nothing more than a neat solution to a difficulty, but was represented as a deception.
Similarly the reference to “hiding the decline” was misrepresented as meaning hiding a decline in actual temperature, when it actually means deleting a short section of one particular class of proxy data which is known to be wrong in order to show the temperature change for the last several centuries.
Unsurprisingly every investigation into this matter, including the to congress understood this and exhonerated Mann et al.
The real deceit was and is the beat up and misrepresentation, which continues.
And remember folks after trawling through all those thousands of emails, this misrepresentation is the closest the hackers and their clients could come to a ‘smoking gun’, and which was beaten up mercilessly under the similarly overhyped banner of “climategate.”
325
Philip, you say it yourself, no one knows why tree rings work before 1961 and then “stop” afterwards. Therefore there is no scientific reason to truncate the graph, and no scientific reason to assume the same tree rings would accurately represent earlier hot periods.
You have no evidence that the emails were stolen. The police investigated and found nothing to support that. Whistleblowers are protected by UK legislation. You gullibly accept committee reports and unsubstantiated claims of “theft” or “hacking” — hardly a scientific attitude. Where’s the evidence?
The public viewing this graph would not know that tree rings were so unreliable, and would not know that the same scientists advertised as being “95% confident” have no idea why the tree rings didn’t show warmth from 1961 onwards.
221
Ms Nova, The tree ring data prior to the 60’s match instrumental data but they are not the only proxy data used. If you wish to throw the baby out with the bath water, hockey sticks based on numerous other proxies which match the pre 60s tree ring data and instrumental data will stand.
In fact I distinctly remember when these emails were originally dumped and they had not been properly sorted and cherry picked by skeptics looking for a smoking gun, Andrew Bolt put up a bunch of them.
Some were specifically about tree ring data, and there was a suggestion by one of the correspondents that the tree ring data should be dumped entirely and just use the other data.
I remember thinking at the time “What’s this about tree ring data? What’s the big deal here?” It was difficult to work out, until skeptics pointed out the skulduggery afoot insisting their spin was the only possible interpretation (I mean trick and hiding declines etc can only have one meaning, what was supposed to be the problem.
I have not since seen these emails reproduced, as the supply context for the discussion of the trick and hiding declines that the skeptics don’t find helpful.
As for the “stolen” Yes, well, apologies. Of course skeptics never make accusations based on supposition, but I was under the impression that an internet trail led to Russia, where a lot of hackers for hire operate. But not evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
So I will correct the sentence to: “In an email to people who knew what this was about and not expecting it to be hacked or leaked and misrepresented, Jones refer to this as a “trick” which can mean nothing more than a neat solution to a difficulty, but was represented as a deception.
As for this:
“You gullibly accept committee reports”
I suggest that accusing me of being gullible for having read and evaluated the evidence in a report to congress by a committee of the US National Academy of Science and failing to reject it is not exactly scientific either.
As I wrote above: “Of course skeptics never make accusations based on supposition.”
And it’s not as if there have not been numerous other investigations into this matter which have cleared Mann et al of scientific fraud or misconduct, and published papers supporting Mann’s findings , and others finding errors in McItrick and McIntyres “red noise” criticism of Mann’s statistical methods.
But according to fair minded skeptics, anything not finding Mann guilty is ipso facto only for the gullible and a result of all those corrupt warmists on the commitees covering up Mann’s crimes.
319
If any of those well funded reports had found the scientific reason to justify the truncation you would have told me all about it, so we both know they didn’t. Otherwise, it’s just their opinions…
202
The scientific reason is that the data matches both the other proxy data and the temperature data prior to the 1960′ and that reasons exist as to why the divergence problem appeared then.
To quote from the Wikipedia article on the divergence problem:
The explanation for the divergence problem is still unclear, but is likely to represent the impact of some other climatic variable that is important to modern northern hemisphere forests but not significant before the 1950s. Rosanne D’Arrigo, senior research scientist at the Tree Ring Lab at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, hypothesises that “beyond a certain threshold level of temperature the trees may become more stressed physiologically, especially if moisture availability does not increase at the same time.” Signs suggestive of such stress are visible from space, where satellite pictures show “evidence of browning in some northern vegetation despite recent warming.” [5]
Other possible explanations include that the response to recent rapid global warming might be delayed or nonlinear in some fashion. The divergence might represent changes to other climatic variables to which tree rings are sensitive, such as delayed snowmelt and changes in seasonality. Growth rates could depend more on annual maximum or minimum temperatures, especially in temperature limited growth regions (i.e. high latitudes and altitudes). Another possible explanation is global dimming due to atmospheric aerosols.[2]
In 2012, Brienen et al. proposed that the divergence problem was largely an artefact of sampling large living trees.[6]
This may be “just opinion” and it may be wrong, but it is not unreasonable, and acting on it while retaining tree ring data from periods where it is validated by other proxies and instrumental data is a long way from engaging in deliberate fraud and misconduct.
410
Telling the world you are 95% certain that “we have unprecedented warming” and that it’s “hotter than ever” when your front page cover graph is based on a dataset that inexplicably does not work at all during the “unprecedented warming” is misleading.
183
Ms Nova,
Again I can only say that the graph was not relying on proxy data to establish unprecedented warming for this period. It is clearly relying on greatly superior instrumental data.
The proxy data is used to cover the pre-instrumental period. Again if you wish to make an argument that all the tree ring data should have been discarded because of known problems for the latter part of the record, fine by me. You have a valid scientific point.
However as I noted those who think that there is enough evidence in the form of other proxy and instrumental data and sound hypotheses as to why the data is unreliable recently but reliable prior to 1960 also have a reasonable scientific argument. I can well imagine a spirited discussion along these lines in the questions session following a talk on the subject or at a poster session at a conference. Happens all the time. It’s part of the fun of science.
But the fact that with or without the tree ring data whole or complete with or without an asterisk attached to the graph explaining the divergence problem (and some latitude is to be expected with a report cover compared to a figure in a refereed paper) would look essentially the same does not, in my opinion, justify the claim that it is misleading in the essential point it conveys.
In fact it is probably more ‘misleading’ that the graph does not convey information on the increasing uncertainties in the data as one goes further back, which in fact Mann points out over and over again in the peer reviewed papers.
But like I said, it’s just a cover illustration, you can’t really put in all the caveats you would find in the figure legend in a paper.
I acknowledge your points about the validity of including the tree ring data. I thus decline to defend the inclusion to the death, without accepting that the inclusion is the result of of an intention to deceive or mislead, or even that the result of the inclusion is really misleading by changing the whole character of the graph.
But thank you sincerely for your input. You have made entirely valid points politely. It is the kind of discussion I come here for and unfortunately unlike many of the comments I get here.
34
You can choose to accurately convey what we know about modern temps v older one, or you can choose to mislead…
Whatever caused those trees to diverge during the current hotter time may also have caused those trees to diverge during hotter times in the past.
It isn’t science. It isn’t accurate.
122
Philip,
you really do seem a bit obsessive and long winded about this in stark contrast to Jo’s responses.
The facts are that tree rings can be a reasonable proxy for temperature all other things reasonably constant. If however, for example, water supply diminishes such as during a drought then the tree rings will reduce in width and it may appear that low temperatures were evident. I understand this was the cause of the ‘decline’. There may be other factors in play also. There is not much tree growth in deserts and what trees that do grow do so fairly slowly, as a rule.
Since tree rings (and other proxies) are generally only used in lieu of instrument records (there being no instruments in existence or otherwise available at the time and place) it is moot as to whether they are all that reliable in the absence of qualifying data regarding water supply and other material factors.
Regarding, ‘hiding the decline’, if the reliability is there then why clip the tree ring graph? It appears like there is something to hide and lets face it the ‘decline’ does raise questions.
The only thing I can think of on a Sunday afternoon is re the break in reliability between tree rings and instruments circa 1961, as against drought say, has to do with Area 51 but that is from a whole other planet…… 🙂
72
Ursus,
If I am “long winded” it is because I am trying to give a comprehensive answer which responds to objections which have been repeated and answered many times but people don’t seem to get it, and anticipates other objections. I will be short here then.
First para. Have repeatedly stated tree ring data pre 60’s matches other proxy data including lake bed sediments, corals, bore holes etc etc which are unlikely to be affected by drought etc which you postulate may affect tree rings, and also instrumental data. So there are many cross reference calibrations that seem to validate the tree ring proxy until the 1960s.
second para. As above.
Third para. As above.
Fourth para. Explanations for divergence given in my first post, repeated in another later in italics. Area 51 not among them.
So In spite of having gone over these things repeatedly, I have had to do it again here.
Thus as I said, the reason for the “lengthy” posts in the apparently vain hope I had adequately explained things.
35
Ms Nova. I can only refer you to my answer to Ursus concerning “First para” and say that in my opinion this paes the scientific test, although I do acknowledge and agree with the remarks in the report to congress concerning the uncertainties involved as one goes further back in time.
35
Climatologists pre-select the data based on it’s “hockey stickness” for use in their studies.
Data without the required shape is excluded.
This strategy taints all proxy studies produced by the HCRU team, and modern AGW temp proxy studies.
Until you can explain why the “tree” (or any other instance of a class of proxies) sitting next to the “thermometer” tree has a different set off rings without a hockey stick shape is excluded – and is deemed not to be a temp proxy. Your methodology will continue to lack credibility.
Confirmation bias, & cherry picking rule in modern paleoclimate.
122
Just backing up what I wrote above.
From the horses mouth.
Esper 2003 TRR
Authors Jan Esper, Edward R. Cook, Paul J. Krusik, Kenneth Peters & Fritz H. Schweingruber – professional workers in the field of paleoclimatology describing the standard operations for Cherrypicking their data to reveal the desired signal.
Lets just say that one more time – “desired signal”
Lest just say that one more time – “The ability to pick and choose which samples to use”
Desired signal = Hockeystick = preselected data = exclusion of refuting data = pseudoscience.
The ability to pick & choose = Cherrypicking = pseudoscience.
Are you reading this Philip?
51
Ex warmist. Dinner time. I will read the paper later and get back to you but I would not approve of removing data just because it does not fit.
If this is what they are doing I would not trust their conclusions.
Before I read the paper I cannot say whether this is standard procedure by all dendrochronologists, let alone all groups who use other proxy data.
04
The paper is 18 pages long so it will take me some time to go through it thoroughly but at first glance it appears that it is examining whether rigorous statistical methods can be used to to weed out anomalous data.
This appears legitimate and certainly does not constitute “cherry picking” data to achieve a particular result.
04
I will just add here that the ‘desired result’ appears to be the production of reliable data, not any particular result with regard to what the proxy temperatures are.
05
Ex warmist I have a more detailed reply but I suspect this is a dead thread so I will save it for when I see a comment from you in a later thread.
03
Yes, and I can show you a relationship between Pirating and temperatures from 1850 to 2005. After 2005, it stops. So are we to say that the temperatures are wrong because pirating has decreased in the last 10 years? And what is the relationship between pirates of 1850 and temperature?
If the relationship does not hold, then it is suspect for the entire time – what you have is a correlation between pirates and temperatures.
And that is called Science.
51
M Jourdan. Can you show me the correlation between pirating and temperatures from 1850 to 2005, and offer a reasonble hypothesis for a cause and effect relationship?
210
I would not waste my time. I merely pointed out the correlation. But since you are so into time wasting, you can regale all of us with your excuses on why proxies only work when no one is looking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PiratesVsTemp%28en%29.svg
72
Oh please, not another “I know the answer, but I can’t be bothered wasting my time.”
You are seriously in danger of looking like as big [snip] as G.
05
I think you are wasting your time, Phil. Mr Shehan neither understands subtlety nor nuance.
71
A Hierodule suffering from quantophrenia!
31
Yes well, if the object was to cause me to reach for the dictionary you have succeeded, (but after dinner) not that any people still reading will do that before giving you the thumbs up.
14
There is no danger for you – you already are.
However, I gave you the link. Your post clearly indicates a link impairment Sheehan. I suggest you learn to read. And stop lying! You do not do it even remotely convincingly.
21
That seems to be the one activity you do consistently Sheehan.
11
M. Jourdan, you gave me a link showing a correlation.
The fact is that given the myriad of data on a myriad of subjects, you could pick a gigantic number of data sets that increase with time, and thus produce an entirely coincidental correlation with temperature, which also increases with time.
What you have not done is produce any sort of reasonable hypothesis accounting for a cause and effect relationship between piracy and temperature.
Just like Griss, who when challenged cannot give explanations.
13
Sheehan, basically what you have done. Which is all I claimed to do. Show you the shallowness of your own faith.
YOu can create any rationale you want. The challenge was to show a relationship. I did that. Then you want to move the goal posts, and I said I could not be bothered. You do not like that. Fine – waste your own time. I am not your toady and will not play your stupid games.
Your challenge was answered. You are free to create your own myth. Frankly, given your ignorance of the subject, I do not care what you want to do. But your pettiness is not my problem. So take your juvenile dares with you as you go search for your own hypothesis. You bore me.
12
The pirate correlation is a good one. In the WSJ recently a noted left-wing climate statistics professor from American U, who seems to know what he is talking about regarding climate models, says he can do the job using baseball scores from 1850 to present.
As an old hand at designing big statistical models myself, I say he is right on the money. He didn’t bother doing the calculations either. Why waste time on the obvious? If someone already doesn’t understand the obvious opportunities of analyzing the input data, fiddling with the assumptions, ignoring sensitivities and confidence levels with these enormous expensive political apparatuses, nothing is going to change their minds.
51
It is amusing. But only mildly so.
21
Is it even possible that a Democratic Senate would issue a report that would undercut their entire climate change leviathan? Does anyone seriously believe this?
(I hope this isn’t political because a lot of this discussion turns on this point. It could just as easily be a Republican majority and a Republican strategy.)
11
Yes, thank you, Jo. I had often wondered what the expression “hide the decline” referred to. Now I know – and now I know just how much of a lie the whole scheme is, and what liars they are who are being lauded as scientists!
31
Mann-ipulation of data is de rigeur for climate science, so it would seem.
354
Even more shocking is that Mann still cannot recognize that that the hockey stick graph is false. For an SkS Consensus Project campaign earlier this month he wrote:-
Even the Sks article on the medieval warm period shows graphs that do not hockey stick shapes, including a later Mann one. I looked at “Mann’s bias here.
284
May I respectfully disagree, Kevin. He made the thing and certainly knows what went into it. He participated in all the email exchanges with Jones and certainly knew what was going on. So he knows without a doubt in my mind that it’s false. He just can’t admit it for fear of losing not only face with his peers but employment employment as well if he can be vindicated by his court actions.
He single handedly made global warming the best thing since invention of the wheel with what he did. It enabled everyone else to jump easily on the global warming bandwagon.
142
He lost face with his peers anyway.
What a waste of someone with probably a lot on the ball who could have contributed something useful.
44
If he lost so much face with his peers, why are there so many other studies that validate the Hockey stick, and why have so many investigations cleared him of misconduct?
010
Name one investigation, Phil.
30
Think about it. Why do so many people want to be part of something (anything) ? What motivates people to do the things they do? What motivates you yourself to so blindly support bad science?
30
Note: Ms Nova has commented that the original version contained a word that is a legal term and so my comment would not be published.
I would simply like to point out that scientific XXXX is a well recognised and accepted term in science, and that is the context in which I used it.
However, so as not to offend I have masked the offending term here:
Think about it.
Why do so many “skeptics” want so desperately to believe that so many scientists and organisations that have examined the matter and found no evidence of XXXX or misrepresentation are being dishonest.
Why do so many people want to believe and repeat against all the evidence that the “decline” being “hidden” is that of the temperature, when it is tree ring widths”
What makes people like Watts XXXXulently redraw a line on a graph because it does not support the pause he is pushing?
What motivates you yourself to so blindly support bad science?
08
The pause is real.. you are in EXTREME DENIAL. !!!
Get mental help… son !!!
51
Just a bit of support for my post above on the use of the XXXX word in science:
http://listverse.com/2008/04/09/top-10-scientific-frauds-and-hoaxes/
https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/92prom.html
05
There are no studies that validate it. There are others that tried to imitate it, but no other study used the same proxies with the same weighting.
Stop lying Sheehan.
30
Roy,
Those who attended Mann’s at his talk at Bristol University on Tuesday evening thought he came across as a believing in what he says. But it does not matter to me whether Mann truly believes in what he says, or he is a bare-faced liar. Maybe their are elements of both. Those who are active participants in authoritarian regimes tried to rationalize what they did in terms of a higher ideal and of having access to a superior form of knowledge. They always end up viewing their opponents as lower than they are.
What is important to me is encouraging others to compare what Mann says against the actual evidence and other viewpoints. If as a result, I turn out to be wrong, I will still have furthered debate. By refuting me others will have to raised their game. If Mann turns out to be correct, or even mostly right, on hockey sticks, he still will have done damage to our understanding of the world through breeding distrust in genuine expert opinion and in the discovery of the world around us through comparison with current wisdom. But his very techniques mean he will be mostly or completely wrong.
162
“If Mann turns out to be correct, or even mostly right, on hockey sticks, he still will have done damage to our understanding of the world through breeding distrust in genuine expert opinion…”
I see. So the damage won’t have been done by “skeptics” who have been misrepresenting this whole episode?
118
Speaking purely hypothetically, the damage will have be done by those who “know the truth” not using their expertise to shut down those who are wrong.
An analogy. The trial by jury system evolved over a thousand years ago to allow for people dogmatically defending untenable positions, whilst giving the public confidence in the outcomes. A prosecution must present their case, and the defendent can rebut it. Then the defendent can present a counter case. A good court will try to keep out predjudices, such as the defendants past convictions, concentrating on the evidence. The collation of evidence, its admissability, its quality and its relevency are not decided upon by the prosecution. All this has evolved to counter natural human predjudice against those accussed of crimes and the propensity of people to jump to conclusions. Do away with the system and the innocent will be found guilty based on predjudice and the guilty will go free. Undermine it and the the same happens.
By doing away with the debate, the so-called scientists stop asking the questions that will rebut or weaken their arguments, and stop substantiating their claims. Instead of science we have noisy people with PhDs giving opinions as baseless as somebody at the ending of a heavy drinking session. For example, compare Mann’s claims on hockey sticks with the actual evidence. The more recent reconstructions are not hockey stick shaped.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2014/09/16/michael-manns-bias-on-hockey-sticks/
100
Kevin,
You make an excellent point with your analogy. If that same system of looking at fact rather than prejudice could work in all aspects of life this would be a quite different world. But we are what we are.
Having been foreman of a jury and seen what a fight it was among jurors as to guilt or innocence I know quite well how precarious even the well founded and refined justice system can be. I had to fight just to keep the discussion on topic. I think we reached the right decision on 3 of the 4 counts against the defendant. But looking back I can’t understand the reluctance of several jurors to convict on the 4th count because the same evidence either had to convict on all 4 or acquit on all 4. As I remember we were 9 to 3 for conviction.
We are what we are — imperfect at the very best and sometimes much worse.
I try not to judge anyone. But some people force us to make judgments about them because we have to decide to follow or reject what they say we should do or want our vote or to sell us something.
Michael Mann is one who forces us to judge him. I’ve used all the evidence available to make my judgment and it’s inescapable to conclude that he knew he was wrong.
40
Yes Kevin I have explained our adversarial legal system to Michael P below. I have in fact successfully represented myself in court. I know the drill.
As for your comment:
“Instead of science we have noisy people with PhDs giving opinions as baseless.”
I refer you to Ms Nova who correctly pulled me up for making statements that have not been found to be correct in court, and making “unscientific” statements.
Ditto for Roy’s comment:
“Michael Mann is one who forces us to judge him. I’ve used all the evidence available to make my judgment and it’s inescapable to conclude that he knew he was wrong.”
Michael is forcing noone to judge him.
In science we judge his work.
Roy like everyone else is free to judge this, but his speculaltion as to Mann’s mens rea (more fully actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea),is just that, and again I refer him to Ms nova’s comments.
And again I point to the many reports on Mann’s papers that conclude he is free of scientific fraud or misconduct with regard to the hockey stick which would seem to refute Roy’s mind reading concerning his intent to do so.
07
Mr GB (and it does not stand for Great Britain)
Have you bothered to read the NSF report?
06
Philip,
You speak as if I had a personal grudge against Michael Mann. While that’s tempting and I admit it, I do not. I have nothing of or about him that I can judge except his work. And since he puts that work forward as justification for all sorts of global warming mitigation actions by government, yes, he does force me to judge him because there’s potential harm to me from what he’s done.
As the man acts, so he is. I know of no other way to make any judgment concerning anyone, king or peasant, Engineer or janitor.
40
I will be very hard to convince that he thought he was correct about his hockey stick when so much evidence says he was working to prove a preconceived point rather than doing unbiased investigation.
40
Philip
I made the comment
The bit in italics you miss out. You then say that the shortened statement would not stand up in court. By shortening my statement you alter the meaning. When I wrote it I had in mind William Connolley and Michael Mann
You also say
No you don’t point – you make the claim. Pointing here is making a link. Such as this link to a discussion at Climate Audit that contradicts your statement.
30
Kevin, pardon me for the truncation of your statement. You may notice that in the rush to answer the many posts here I often make typos lousy unchecked spelling mistakes and editing errors and maybe my cut and paste here did not work as I intended as the whole sentence still backs my point.
“Instead of science we have noisy people with PhDs giving opinions as baseless as somebody at the ending of a heavy drinking session.”
This is indeed a scattergun ad hominem attack saying that, well, instead of science we have noisy people with PhD’s giving baseless opinions. The colourful phrase likening them to pub drunks is redundant as far as your accusation goes.
It is an ad hominem attack unbacked by any supporting evidence (it is in fact ‘an opinions as baseless as somebody at the ending of a heavy drinking session’) and is therefore thoroughly unscientific.
04
Sorry missed the second part of your comment.
My statement that there are ‘many reports on Mann’s papers that conclude he is free of scientific fraud or misconduct with regard to the hockey stick’ is indeed a claim but is factual claim and I have given indeed given links to these reports in other comments here which is why I use the word Again I point…
The fact the McIntyre or you dispute the conclusions or have a different opinion does not alter the FACT that these reports conclude he is free of scientific fraud or misconduct with regard to the hockey stick.
03
Moderators. I note my comment above is awaiting moderation.
I have noticed that my earlier repost where I was discussing scientific fraud has been removed , even though I replaced the the objected to word fraud with XXXX.
The objection was that ‘fraud’ is a legal term. I objected that this is a very narrow and specific use of the term fraud.
I pointed out that scientific fraud is a thoroughly well recognised and used term in that context.
I even gave a couple of links to back my claim.
I will link one of them again here:
Scientific fraud and the power structure of science
Brian Martin
Published in Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 1992, pp. 83-98.
https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/92prom.html
I will be very unhappy if my comment is not allowed on this basis, which frankly I regard as ‘precious’. (Not a legal term.)
[Philip, the word “fraud” trips the filter automatically. This forces us moderators to make judgement calls before allowing a post to go through and will slow down the conversation. ] ED
03
Ed. Thank you for the explanation. My apologies for sounding a bit snippy.
01
Oh, so that’s how you roll, Phil, don’t ask questions, just follow blindly, do what you’re told and drink the coolaid.
21
No James, I read the arguments look at the evidence for myself and draw conclusions.
All so many of you “skeptics” can do in reply is write comment after comment of meaningless fact free personal remarks like yours.
Much easier I know but pretty pathetic none the less.
06
“comment after comment of meaningless fact free“….. blah.. blah… blarghh….
Oh look, Phillip has been looking in the mirror, yet again. !! 🙂
41
Global warming has been per se a global companion since the LIA has it not?
What Mann [allegedly] undertook through flawed mathematics and selective data use was the unique creation of the Hockey Stick, identifying it as the irrefutable fingerprint of twentieth century anthropogenic global warming, one that was adopted then later discarded by the IPCC.
In doing so, the opportunity he deliberately provided, either singly or in concert with the dovetailing interests of green, progressive politicians and financiers, was a means to render socially acceptable the subsequent crushingly absurd, freedom debilitating, impoverishing notion of ‘carbon taxation’ and regulation.
I don’t doubt for a single moment that Mann exercised conscious choice and full awareness of all his actions and their potential consequences in this regard. He may however, have underestimated the vigour with which his spurious Schtick has been turned into a Trojan Horse for societal dominance and control from the UN down.
122
Manfred, I don’t know what expert panels McItrick is talking about in your link:
Steve and I showed that the mathematics behind the Mann Hockey Stick were badly flawed, such that its shape was determined by suspect bristlecone tree ring data. Controversies quickly piled up: Two expert panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media followed the story around the world.
The expert reports upheld all of our criticisms of the Mann Hockey Stick, both of the mathematics and of its reliance on flawed bristlecone pine data.t
But it wasn’t this one By the National academy of Scinces to US Congress:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=112
Page 112:
A second area of criticism focuses on statistical validation and robustness. McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a,b) question the choice and application of statistical methods, notably principal component analysis; the metric used in the validation step of the reconstruction exercise; and the selection of proxies, especially the bristlecone pine data used in some of the original temperature reconstruction studies…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. (Crowley and Lowery 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press).
Nor were the criticisms of use of Bristlecone pine data upheld.
111
Phillip I suggest that you read the CEI response brief in which they make the point that
It’s available at http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Mann%20-%20Think%20Tank%20Defendants%20Reply.pdf
30
Michael P,
You are quoting from the brief prepared by lawyers defending their clients against Mann’s law suit.
The legal system is adversarial. It is their job to put their clients’ case in the best possible light and their the opponent’s case in as poor a light as possible. It is nothing like an objective assessment, nor should it be.
The same goes for Mann’s brief.
It will be up to the courts to decide whose version best matches the facts.
07
But it does not include falsifying any presentation to the court! Period!
20
Yes, Phil, the facts still need to be presented otherwise it’s called perjury or perverting the course of justice, now where the heck have all Mann’s supporters gone and why is he kicking and screaming all the way?
An honest person would not waste time getting to court to prove his story.
After all, that is what Mark Steyn is trying to do…
40
And such facts are not used in legal briefs without the facts to back them up. Mr Mann seems to attempting to re-define the facts to suit him,as he contradicts himself on multiple statements. I’d imagine ajudge would have a very low tolerance level of such things.
20
Mr GB is a fan of the Code Napoleon and all things frog so I don’t know why he is commenting on the common law.
Mr Bradley and Michael P are not interested in seeing the evidence evaluated in a court they are just branding it false and perjured before a word of it has been uttered in court.
Mr Bradley says that Mann is kicking and screaming all the way and Steyn is trying to get to court to prove his story.
You do understand it is Mann who brought the legal action and Steyn who is defending, and his side are trying to get the proceedings dismissed as a SLAPP suit precisely to avoid the evidence being evaluated.
And Mann’s supporters are all there.
You plainly have fallen for the ‘no amicus briefs no friends’ line of argument.
This is total BS.
An amicus brief is an indulgence filed by parties with very deep pockets and the time and effort as well as the money to devote to the case.
Are they afraid that Steyn’s lawyers cannot present all the facts and legal arguments themselves without the amicus lawyers ‘me tooing’ them?
If Ms Nova and you lot are so into amicus briefs, why are you not all filing them?
06
Phillip. The facts are not on your side here. Michael Mann has been stonewalling in the case of Mann vs Tim Ball,where he was ordered to present certain documents under discovery to the court and he refuses to do so. Are these the actions of a sane man,that discovery apparently doesn’t apply for him,as he attempted the same thing against Steyn,that discovery apparently
Are these the actions of a Mann that wants the evidence “evaluated in a court”?
Furthermore If as you put it “
maybe you could explain why there are no supporting amicus briefs on his behalf? Wouldn’t someone those supporters are all there,as you put it,expect such things?
30
Michael, at the risk of repeating myself:
“An amicus brief is an indulgence filed by parties with very deep pockets and the time and effort as well as the money to devote to the case.
Are they afraid that Steyn’s lawyers cannot present all the facts and legal arguments themselves without the amicus lawyers ‘me tooing’ them?
If Ms Nova and you lot are so into amicus briefs, why are you not all filing them?”
I take it you have not filed an amicus brief, but that does not mean you do not support Steyn et al.
05
More ignorance from Sheehan. Steyn is NOT a party to getting the suit thrown out. The cases have been severed and Steyn WANTS his day in court. So you are not only stupid and ignorant, you are a liar.
And of course the fact that you think I care about your juvenile ad hominems merely reflects your lack of intelligence – as do the ad hominems themselves.
Can you get any more juvenile Sheehan?
20
Kevin thanks for your insights of your recent experience from the climate coalface so to speak, it’s fascinating to read a first hand account of people we never get to meet.
I believe this era of CAGW has morphed into a movement where people excited about being one of the founders or notables fall into the trap of Pathological Lying in it’s many variations depending on the individual’s mindset, justified lying has been a cornerstone of many low points in human history and CAGW will be no exception.
62
A few more of those false hockey sticks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#mediaviewer/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
013
‘false hockey sticks’ spot on Phillip it’s not difficult to see the predicted spikes in temperature from the 1990’s fail when compared to the actual raw data collected since.
Once again well spotted.
70
Yonniestone. They are not predictions they are proxy and instrumental temperature data and they look like hockey sticks to me.
And which temperature since the 90’s would that be?
Here is McItrick’s data, which he says is evidence of a pause. Lord knows what warming would look like.
http://tinyurl.com/mensqqf
011
You have AGAIN shown that you do NOT understand the basics of statistical significance.
Well done 🙂
And yes, the Lord does understand, because he has more than a basic 1st/2nd year uni knowledge of statistics. 🙂
70
So G, once again I ask you to explain why the trend lines on these graphs, which represent McItrick’s trends as given in his paper, represent a pause.
09
So G, you explain how statistical significance relates to McItrick’s trend lines. Because I have. I will explain it to you as simply as I can.
A moderator pointed out to me in a very polite and intelligent but unpublished post that McItrick talks about his ‘pause’ trends being “trendless intervals”. The abstract states that his methods are valid if the data is “trend stationary”.
This latter sttement looks perilously close to assuming what he is trying to demonstrate by his methods. It’s called ‘begging the question’. It’s not allowed.
The “trendless intervals”, although showing warming, are the points at which his error margins begin to include negative values.
In other words he is claiming that data which no longer show statistically significant warming is showing a statistically significant pause.
This is simply not how statistical significance works.
He also notes that at some point, as yo move forward in time to the present, any data will cease to show statistically significant warming (or cooling) because short data sets mean that the noise will override the signal. He is correct about this.
For example, he states that the trendless intervals for Hadcrut4 data begin in 1995 for which he says the trend is 0.925 C/decade, (which Watts was not game to put up, so he invented one with a negative slope) with 95% error margins varying between cooling of 0.0063 and warming of 0.1913 C/decade. (And yes this compares to values of 0.093 with margins between cooling of 0.007 and warming of 0.193 as given by Cowtan’s algorithm, which you insist must be rubbish because it appears on the SkS website. Never mind that it is essentially the same as Mcitrick’s results. As Ms Nova would say, this is not a very scientific viewpoint.)
This data is shown graphically in Fig 4 of the paper.
This is not statistically significant evidence of a pause.
But again, feel free to tell me where I am wrong.
And my understanding of statistics is not based solely on undergraduate stats courses I took, but also on 3 decades applying stats to biomedical research data.
Unless you have anything constructive to add I will have to end the discussion here lest Ms Nova again declare that we are off topic.
08
Shehan re McKitrick
Since you cannot even spell the man’s name correctly, it is probably not worth spending too much time on this. But you do not understand trend stationary. This means non-random trend plus stationary noise – nothing to do with trendless.
McKitrick runs a sequential test for trend backwards from 2012 to get his results. There’s no point in showing plots extrapolating forwards – it’s not what he’s doing.
41
Well Pardon me for the typo. I believe you will find I have spelled his name correctly on multiple occasions.
Now that we have the inconsequential trivia out of the way, since G is to proud to do so, can you explain where the points I make concerning error margins and the difference between not statistically significant warming (or cooling) and a statistically significance pause, and explain how McItrick’s trend lines as shown in my earlier link represent a pause.
You misunderstand my agument. I did not mention anything about McItrick extrapolating forwards.
What I said was that viewing McItrick’s data in his tables and his figures forward in time, it is apparent that he has decided the ‘hiatus’begins where the error margins take on negative values, which as he himself points out will happen with any set of data simply because the noise starts to dominate the signal when the time period reaches a sufficiently short period.
Again, this does not in any sense provide evidence that a statistically significant pause is occurring from this point in time forward. The error margins provide for the possibility of very high warming, very small cooling and, yes, logically a pause in between. But it does not provide evidence of a pause, either prima facie or statistically.
Please comment on these specific points if you like, but thank you sincerely for at least providing a meaningful argument, when G and no one else can.
15
If you had any idea what you were doing, you could verify that Ross is CORRECT, just by using your SkS trend calculator.
The results he gets are CORRECT for the question asked.. Live with it. 🙂
You really have to get used to the idea that the VERY SLIGHT temperature rise of the late 2000’s has ‘levelled out’, and is showing signs of starting to decline.
Your dogmatic denial, backed by your low level statistical understanding, is getting to be quite a joke. 🙂
31
PS basicstats. Pardon me for getting his name wrong again. I keep conflating it with his twin McIntyre.
Thank you for the comment on trend stationary.
Now if you could comment on McKitrick’s use of the term “trendless interval”. I assume this has something to do with trendless.
05
G, well, thank you for finally acknowledging the validity of Cowtan’s trend calculator. I expect to not have to put up with any more criticism of it from you.
Now, if you read my other comments here, you will notice I have no problem with the results of McKitrick’s calculations. Although I do wonder why he went through such a complicated set of calculations to arrive at the same results he could have obtained by using a straightforward OLS calculation like Cowtan’s.
My problem is with his interpretation of his results, briefly, the idea that data which no longer shows statistically significant warming but shows a large range of values including very high warming constitutes a statistically significant pause.
Please feel free to comment on this, if you can spare the time and effort.
06
I am afraid that on reflection, I have made a false and misleading statement above.
I fully expect G to continue his complants about Cowtan’s trend calculator in spite of him acknowledging it’s validity.
Mea culpa.
06
You have also shown that you are prepared to use any underhanded statistical farce to try to fool those that don’t understand simple statistics.
That is you. That is who you are.
A propaganda monk….
71
No Griss the underhanded statistical farce was Watts substituting McItricks trend line for a bogus one, as he could no more explain how McItrick’s line represented a pause than you can.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/01/new-paper-on-the-pause-says-it-is-19-years-at-surface-and-16-26-years-at-the-lower-troposphere/
17
roflmao..
You know you are statistically ignorant and have zero understanding of Ross’s statistical procedures.
Your bluster and carrying on doesn’t overcome that. Your lack of understanding aches, doesn’t it. 🙂
..and I am not about to waste my time trying to teach someone who doesn’t want to know.
Live with it, child. 🙂
51
I don’t think you even understand the question Ross is answering.
You can even use your little SkS calculator to come to the same answer as Ross does, if you had even an inking what it was all about.
Soooo funny, to see you floundering… as usual. 🙂
41
Yes G, I have heard this argument of yours over and over again.
You understand McItrick’s argument perfectly. You just continue to refuse to explain your understanding or point out where mine is wrong. Because it is beneath you.
spomlatmir.
yaagof.
I have repeatedly stated my understanding of McItrick’s paper, and not one person here has been able to explain where it is wrong. Neither for that matter, has McItrick.
16
The fact that you continue to post your irrelevant pre-1979 Hadcrap shows that you have zero understanding and zero scientific integrity.
All you do is post the same continued propaganda pap, [Snip speculation about intent]
It also displays that, for all your [snip “claims”] about understanding statistical significance, your actual understanding is [snip “poor”]
And, as I said, even your SkS trend calculator can be easily used to verify the CORRECTNESS of Ross’s calculations….
… IF you had the slightest clue what any of it was all about.. BUT YOU DON’T, and you keep proving that fact. 🙂
[snip – inflammatory tone]
41
Poor Phillip, McKitrick will always be several levels beyond your statistical comprehension ability 🙂
41
G,
“The fact that you continue to post your irrelevant pre-1979 Hadcrap shows that you have zero understanding and zero scientific integrity.”
If you had any understanding of the paper, or even skimmed it, you would understand that McItrick, who you are supposedly defending, is the one using the pre-1979 Hadcrap which you claim shows he has zero understanding and zero scientific integrity.
I am merely commenting on his use of this data.
With friends like you, McItrick would embrace “enemies” like me like a long lost brother.
16
Gees, but you are seriously dumb.
Ross DOES NOT use the pre 1979 HadCrut data for anything more than an illustration of similar dips and pauses over history.
He does not use it for any calculations.
If you had read the paper, you would know that..
…or are you just pushing the lies and propaganda envelope even further than your usual nonsense. !
31
Geez have you read the paper at all?
Even the abstract makes it perfectly clear that it is about an analysis of Hadcrut4, UAH and RSS data, on which he draws conclusions about the length of the current “hiatus”.
ABSTRACT
The IPCC has drawn attention to an apparent leveling-off of globally-averaged temperatures over the past 15 years or so. Measuring the duration of the hiatus has implications for determining if the underlying trend has changed, and for evaluating climate models. Here, I propose a method for estimating the duration of the hiatus that is robust to unknown forms of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation (HAC) in the temperature series and to cherry-picking of endpoints. For the specific case of global average temperatures I also add the requirement of spatial consistency between hemispheres. The method makes use of the Vogelsang-Franses (2005) HAC-robust trend variance estimator which is valid as long as the underlying series is trend stationary, which is the case for the data used herein. Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 – 26 years in the lower troposphere. Use of a simple AR1 trend model suggests a shorter hiatus of 14 – 20 years but is likely unreliable.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=49307#.VCZ8yWeSz4W
No wonder you can’t answer my question.
16
Yes dumbo.. Hadcrut AFTER 1979…. you know, the period its been at least a bit controlled by the satellite record.
Even after Phil Jones’ “attention ” HadCrut STILL shows NO WARMING FOR 19 YEARS !!!
Get used to it.!! And buy some more blankets, fool, or move to warmer climes !
Your limited statistical understanding plagues your feeble mind, propaganda monk… !
51
And WOW !!..
You final found the paper, and managed to cut/paste the intro..
WELL DONE.. you are making good progress.. especially for your limited ability.
Now try reading it and COM..PRE..HEND..ING !!!
31
HadCrut STILL shows NO WARMING FOR 19 YEARS !!!
So again, please explain the green line here, which represents McKitrick’s calculation of the Hadcrut4 trend for the last 19 years which McKitrick calculates as 0.0925 c/decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1914/to:2014.25/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2014.25/trend/mean:1/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2014.5/trend/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1988/to:2014.25/trend
14
OMG….your ignorance.. it must truly hurt you.
Still the same propaganda misleading PAP !!
You really do not have even a basic understanding of Ross’s paper, do you.. !!!
Truly HILARIOUS, child-mind ! 🙂 🙂
32
So G, that would be another no to my multiple requests that you explain how the line constitutes a pause, and how McKitrick’s own 95% error margins for this trend varying between cooling of 0.0063 and warming of 0.1913 C/decade constitutes a statistically significant pause.
In all your many many posts on this you have not given a scintilla of a substantive argument or evidence that you understand those points or any other parts of the paper.
You are all P and W.
15
G, I have given several lengthy analyses of the material in the paper.
In spite of my repeated requests, and your avalanche of comments, you have not given the slightest indication that you have understood or thought about any of it.
Once again a substantive comment in response to these central points which you have ducked over and over again would be a good start.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/manns-trick-to-hide-the-decline-still-shocking/#comment-1575093
14
And so what if you have spent a lot of time analysing the paper.
Doesn’t mean you have understood.
All indication are to the contrary. 🙂
21
The fact that you continue to post the WFT graph is absolute proof you have not understood the paper.
And to also include HadCrap back to 1914 shows it is purely a PROPAGANDA mis-direction exercise.
That’s all you have.. because that all you have ever had.
31
Again, it is so funny to watch you run away from “significance” calculations now that that they don’t suit your lies.
Ross’s calculations are TOTALLY CORRECT for the question he asks, and can be easily verified with you little SkS trend calculator.
(IF you knew how to do it)
You have yabbered on continually about “significance”, and have now been hoisted on your own petard. 🙂
So hilarious to watch you squirming to escape. 🙂 🙂
21
G: (And mods my apologies for this I know it became utterly tiresome a long time ago, but as long as he keeps putting this nonsense up, I will respond as his continued refusal to answer shows a heck of a lot more about him than his abuse shows about me. This will be my last comment on this subject, unless by some miracle, he finally gives a substantive answer this time which is worthy of discussion.)
For the nth time,I have not run away from the significance question.
I have repeatedly addressed it specifically and you have over and over and over again failed to respond to my question concerning it.
Because (And this must be obvious to the most fanatical skeptic here; who do you think you are fooling?),you have no answer.
Explain how McKitrick’s own 95% error margins for this trend varying between cooling of 0.0063 and warming of 0.1913 C/decade constitutes a statistically significant pause.
And again. For the nth time (and you accuse me of lacking reading comprehension!!)
I am not criticising McK’s calculations. You have said more than once that I could confirm them myself using Cowtan’s algorithm (which you have previously condemned as rubbish.)
The very first post I wrote on this subject did exactly that, and you dismissed it as meaningless waffle.
For the nth time: I have no problem with McK’s calculations and results as represented in the Tables and figures of his paper.
I have a definite problem with his conclusion that they represent a statistically difficult pause.
And for the nth time, explain where my argument on this is wrong. (Knowing, for the nth time, that you do not have the ability to do so.)
14
Oh, it’s a Wiki article therefore it must be true.
40
No. But what is your problem with wiki articles that are adequately sourced and referenced?
A study found that overall they are only marginally less accurate than the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
15
My problem with wikipedia is general is that the articles can be,and often are re-written to reflect what people want them to read,and not the truth of the matter.it’s more of a groupthink site,and most universities don’t allow it to be used as a source,in any respect for the reason above,that it can’t be trusted. There was also the incident of one Connelly re-writing 31,00 articles,until he was removed from being able to do so. Also maybe you could provide a link to the study you refer to,as I doubt that statement is accurate.
40
Universities do not allow references to Wikipedia any more than they allow references to the Encyclopedia Britannica, but it has nothing to do with believing these to be unreliable.
Universities require references to the original sources. They want students to demonstrate they are able to track down and read the original material, understand it and are not simply regurgitating a summary which is what appears in encyclopedias. They even hope that the student may be able to demonstrate some insightful analysis of the material they are are supposed to have read and thought about. Of course they may still be regurgitating stuff from the original sources but at least that is a step up for the better and examiners look for other signs that students have understood the material.
I have been a university examiner.
Wikipedia references the sources in its articles. In this respect it is superior to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
I have looked at many of these but the quote from Wikipedia is a very good summary, which is why I did indeed quote it.
This is an informal discussion site where most comments do not contain any references at all.
In fact an unfortunately large proportion contain nothing more than name calling and nothing of substance.
14
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/
Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikipropaganda-on-global-warming/
Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.
Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of “administrator” is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party.
And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry.
Trumping Wikipedia’s stated rules, Connelley used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding.
http://www.dba-oracle.com/oracle_news/news_law_ban_wikipedia.htm
“Wikipedia has long been banned as a credible source for schools and universities…”
School officials unite in banning Wikipedia (The Seattle Times)
Wikipedia banned from UCSC class (Vallejo Times Hearald)
A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source (The New York Times)
Fake Wikipedia prof altered 20,000 entries (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar (Canada Free Press)
Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems (The Register)
Dutch Justice Ministry to Block 30,000 Workers From Using Wikipedia (FOX News)
Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia ‘littered with inaccuracies’ (The Scotsman, UK)
Insider Editing at Wikipedia (The New York Times)
Judges told repeatedly to stop using Wikipedia (ArsTechnica)
Congress caught making false entries in Wikipedia (CNET News)
Australian politicians ‘doctor Wikipedia entries’ (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
51
Kenneth,
Yes there are instances of barrow pushing and simple vandalism of some Wikipedia articles. But controversial topics or articles that may contain dodgy opinions are flagged, notes demanding that references be cited or the topic or statement will be removed are to be seen in the wiki articles.
Readers of the site not only correct or add to articles, they may note to the editors where problems appear to be occurring.
Critical thought, skepticism and common sense must be used when looking at wikipedia articles, (or any other cyber or old fashionedhard copy material on anything for that matter.)
It is precisely these self correcting mechanisms that led to Connolley losing his special privileges. But just to show that Connolley’s critics may not themselves be paragons of objectivity on him or his opinions here is a quote from your link:
Do you want to know just how ugly? I’ve been saving the worst till last. Here it is: William Connelley’s Wikipedia photograph.
Your complaint about Gore is rather weak considering the consensus claims come from surveys by people other than Gore. And there are no doubt many climate skeptics doing their own bits of editing and commenting, but these would be objective, entirely lacking in bias of course, yet the articles seem to pass muster.
And in fact I would like to use precisely this topic to illustrate my points. I typed 97% consensus wikipedia into google which returned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Note the flag at the top of the article:
This article is about scientific opinion on the current climate change, or global warming. For public perception and controversy, see Public opinion on climate change and Global warming controversy.
And numerous other notes cross references in the article, and the referencing of statements.
But no it would not be acceptable for a student or anyone else to reference wikipedia in a formal situation. (I am gobsmacked at one item on your list – Judges told repeatedly to stop using Wikipedia.)
The student or anyone else could however profitably use the article to read critique and cite the original sources and follow the trail to other sources. Like we used to have to do in an actual library with actual books that had to be looked up in a catalogue, found, got off the shelves read and/or photocopied when I was a pre-internet student in the goose quill pen days. These kids today don’t know what hard… but don’t get me started.
Another article returned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
Again note the references, the prompts for additional citations, and the discussion of criticism of the surveys others (notably for Cook et al 2013, where the critics opinions get as much if not more space than the authors.
04
PS Kenneth, just for a bit of perspective on dodgy entries like your example Fake Wikipedia prof altered 20,000 entries (The Daily Telegraph, UK), if you would give me a pass here on the irony of referencing wikipedia on the reliability of wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia
04
Wikipedia is not a scientific source, especially when it comes to climate science. It’s like using the skepticalscience blog as a reference. John Cook is an activist who will use deceptive means to further his agenda. He’s not unlike William Connelley, as he simply deletes inconvenient data, misrepresents skeptical positions purposely, and, of course, his 2013 paper was a sham—he intentionally lumped those who agree that humans play a tiny role in climate change (who doesn’t agree that humans can affect the climate even a little?) in with those who agree that humans “mostly” (more than half) cause the climate to change, thereby artificially increasing the numbers to reach a pre-determined conclusion. Not only that, but he deliberately excluded hundreds of skeptical papers from even being considered for the study, which again ensured that he’d get the results he was after (97%).
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/response-to-skeptical-science-on-a-series-of-weblog-posts/
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/skeptical-quote-surgery-pat-michaels/
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/01/17/a-response-to-serial-deleter/
But, of course, if you wish to get your information from dubious sources such as SkS and Wikipedia, you are welcome to. Just don’t expect others to take you all that seriously.
——————————————–
But to get onto the subject of this thread (Michael Mann’s data manipulation), see if you can answer this question.
You claim that Mann’s MBH98/99 reconstruction, which was prominently featured in the 2001 IPCC report…
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/research/res_pages/IPCC_2001_3rd%20Assessment_Report_SPM.png
…has been validated. If you’ll notice, it has the Medieval Warm Period as -0.8 C colder than the late 20th century.
In the 2013 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm Period has returned to being comparably as warm (within 0.1 C rather than -0.8 C colder) as the 2000s. Why do you think it is that the IPCC no longer recognizes Mann’s MBH98/99 reconstruction?
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig5-7.jpg
And, of course, there are literally hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that show the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now…not -0.8 C colder. Do you deny this?
40
Kenneth.
Again. Wikipedia is a much a ‘scientific source’ or not as any other encyclopedia or source which summarises what is known about a particular subject, and the articles stand or fall on the quality and quantity of the cited references on which the summary is based. And again I note Wiki is superior to many traditional encyclopedias and other sources in that it tells you exactly where the statements it makes come with frequent citations to the original sources and demands that such citations be provided if they are not there.
Your observations about Cook support my claim. You are arguing about the merits of his peer reviewed published paper. You don’t like it. You think it seriously flawed. Fine. Plenty of people agree with you.
And as I noted Wiki gives as much space to this aspect of his opinions as to his opinions themselves.
What you seem to be demanding is that Wiki ignore Cook’s peer reviewed published work because he has his critics. That certainly would be bias in action.
The fact that they do not simply report his findings but give the objections to them is evidence of Wikis reliability.
With regard to Mann’s 98/99.
The fact that other graphs result in more or less prominent MWE or LI bumps or dips has nothing to do with the claim that his work is the result of misconduct or deliberate intent to mislead, still less that it refutes the essential finding that warming in the 20th century is higher than in the past.
Yes different groups using different methods will come to slightly different results. Never the less Mann’s work fits in well with the results from other groups.
Excuse me if this graph shows a later paper by Mann, or contain more studies but it illustrates my point.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=2
03
Forgot the bit about SkS. Yes “skeptics” don’t like it. I get that.
I do not myself visit there very often. I sometimes us it to check on claims made on “skeptic” blogs like this one, to see what the counterarguments and evidence are. And again I don’t rely on the summary, I check the refs.
the Griss is typical of the the “skeptic” attitude to SkS. I do often use the trend calculator by Kevin Cowtan which appears on SkS. It is very useful when trends are being discussed. For this I am attacked by G and others. Anything on SkS must be rubbish. The fact that I use it is a demonstration of my irredeemable lack of scientific integrity and competence.
Never mind that I have been involved in lengthy discussions here and elshere on the evidence for its validity.
Never mind that on one occasion Lord Monckton did his own calculations to support an argument of his. I pointed out the Cowtan’s algorithm gave the same results.
Never mind that in this thread G has told me more than once that if I had bothered to use the SkS calculator, they would see they agree with McK’s results.
I replied that I had indeed done so and he was right. (But I was not disputing the results, but the interpretation.)
I also thanked him for his expression of confidence in the SkS trend calculator, but noted this would not stop him from abusing me if I use it again to make an argument he does not like (and he never does, on principle.)
03
Mann has the Medieval Warm Period as -0.8 C colder than late 20th century temperatures. There are literally hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that show the Medieval Warm Period (900-1250 AD) was at least as warm as, if not significantly warmer than, the late 20th century (and now). Do you deny all of them in favor of Mann’s reconstruction?
——————————
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Tyson.pdf
The Little Ice Age in South Africa, from around AD 1300 to 1800, and medieval warming, from before 1000 to about 1300, are shown to be distinctive features of the regional climate of the last millennium. The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1°C cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period.
——————————
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/cookpalmer.pdf
Overall, this translates to a MWP that was probably 0.3– 0.5C warmer than the overall 20th century average at Hokitika [New Zealand] and, for the A.D. 1210–1260 period, comparable to the warming that has occurred since 1950. The identification of a MWP sensu lato in New Zealand adds an important new datum to the debate concerning its large-scale occurrence and supports Broecker’s [2001] argument that it was indeed global.
——————————-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589409000775
“Late Holocene sea-surface temperature and precipitation variability in northern Patagonia,Chile”
“[A] relatively dry/warm period before 900 cal yr BP (higher runoff and average SST 1°C warmer than present day [Medieval Warm Period])and a wet/cold period after 750 cal yr BP (higher runoff and average SST 1°C colder than present day [Little Ice Age])”
—————————————
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/19/6/873.short
We present a pigment-based quantitative high-resolution (five years) austral summer DJF (December to February) temperature reconstruction for Central Chile back to AD 850. Quantitative evidence for the presence of a Medieval Climate Anomaly (in this case, warm summers between AD 1150 and 1350; ΔT = +0.27 to +0.37°C with respect to (wrt) twentieth century) and a very cool period synchronous to the ‘Little Ice Age’ starting with a sharp drop between AD 1350 and AD 1400 (-0.3°C/10 years, decadal trend) followed by constantly cool (ΔT = -0.70 to -0.90°C wrt twentieth century) summers until AD 1750.”
—————————————-
http://www.marine.usf.edu/PPBlaboratory/paleolab_pdfs/Richey_etal_2007.pdf
“Two multi-decadal intervals of sustained high Mg/Ca indicate that Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures [SST] were as warm or warmer than near-modern conditions between 1000 and 1400 yr [before present]. Foraminiferal Mg/Ca during the coolest interval of the Little Ice Age (ca. 250 yr B.P.) indicate that SST was 2–2.5 °C below modern SST.
—————————————–
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X11002925
Bertler, N.A.N., Mayewski, P.A. and Carter, L. 2011. Cold conditions in Antarctica during the Little Ice Age — Implications for abrupt climate change mechanisms. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 308: 41-51.
Here we present new data from the Ross Sea, Antarctica, that indicates surface temperatures were ~ 2 °C colder during the LIA, with colder sea surface temperatures in the Southern Ocean and/or increased sea-ice extent, stronger katabatic winds, and decreased snow accumulation. The McMurdo Dry Valleys [Antarctica] were 0.35°C warmer during the MWP than during ME [modern era], accompanied by warmer conditions in the Ross Sea. A magnetic susceptibility record from Palmer Deep marine core (PD92 30MS) also supports warmer MWP conditions, this time in Drake Passage (Domack and Mayewski, 1999).
—————————————-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659
This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.
—————————————
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818114000253?np=y
“[T]emperatures were as much as 0.5c warmer in the Arctic during the MWP than today.”
—————————————-
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Glacial.pdf
[I]t is possible to survey available information concerning the timing of the medieval warm period. The results suggest that it was a global event [European Alps, Norway, Alaska, Canada, South America, New Zealand] occurring between about 900 and 1250 A.D.
————————————–
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024008/article
“…the warmer medieval climate anomaly (MCA; about 750–1100 CE). The 9th and the 11th century are the warmest centuries and they constitute the core of the MCA in our reconstruction.” [North America]
————————————-
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.
————————————–
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-007-0358-2
The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century(p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia [Arctic] was much warmer than previously recognized.
————————————–
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS001679321003014X
The temperature maximum, the amplitude of which is larger than the present-day rise of temperature, is determined about 1000 years ago. The appearance of this maximum corresponds to the time interval of a long-term increase in solar activity according to the data of the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotopes.
————————————–
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01092419
[T]he annual mean temperature in south Henan Province (China) in the thirteenth century was 0.9–1.0°C higher than at present.
————————————–
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X05003195
Temperature maxima during the Medieval Warm Period between 800 and 1300 AD are in average about 1.7 °C higher than the minima in the Little Ice Age and similar to present-day values. The high correlation of this record to Δ14C suggests that solar variability was a major driver of climate in Central Europe during the past 2 millennia.
————————————–
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/274/5292/1504
Results from a radiocarbonated box score [in the North Atlantic] show that SST was ~1°C cooler ~400 years ago (The Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and ~1°C warmer than today in 1,000 years ago (The Medieval Warm Period). Thus, at least some of the warming since the Little Ice Age appears to be part of a natural oscillation.
————————————–
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10020070612331343185#.U2Lj7_ldWSo
All of the temperature reconstructions by different authors demonstrate the occurence of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) and LIA (Little Ice Age) in low frequency band of temperature variations, though the peak in the MWP and trough in LIA varies from one reconstruction to the others.
————————————–
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
Our reconstructions indicate – in agreement with the results of Moberg et al. (2005); Ljungqvist (2010), and Loehle and McCulloch (2008) – that the first millennium [1000] AD was generally significantly warmer than the second millennium [2000] AD. The two-millennia long reconstruction shows a well defined Medieval Warm Period, with a peak warming ca. 950–1050 AD reaching 0.6 °C relative to the reference period 1880–1960 AD. The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th century, equalling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005), Mann et al. (2008, 2009), Ljungqvist (2010), and Ljungqvist et al. (2012).
10
Please identify which “groups” Mann’s MBH98/99 reconstruction fits in with. Hint: no other reconstruction looks anything like the hockey stick graph that appeared in TAR. Making 1,000 AD -0.8 C colder than the late 20th century has never been reproduced again—even by Mann himself.
Here are some of the McKitrick and McIntyre papers. They were considered so robust in undermining Mann’s data-manipulated claims (that the Medieval Warm Period was -0.8 C colder than the late 20th century) that both men were made expert reviewers for the 2007 and 2013 IPCC reports on paleoclimate reconstructions…and, of course, by 2013, the Medieval Warm Period had reappeared as similarly as warm as 21st century temperatures. The -0.8 C colder MWP no longer exists. Why do you think that is, Philip?
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf
The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.
———————————————–
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL021750/abstract
The “hockey stick” shaped temperature reconstruction of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) has been widely applied. However it has not been previously noted in print that, prior to their principal components (PCs) analysis on tree ring networks,they carried out an unusual data transformation which strongly affects the resulting PCs. Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1) and overstates the first eigenvalue. In the controversial 15th century period, the MBH98 method effectively selects only one species (bristlecone pine) into the critical North American PC1, making it implausible to describe it as the “dominant pattern of variance”. Through Monte Carlo analysis, we show that MBH98 benchmarks for significance of the Reduction of Error (RE) statistic are substantially under-stated and, using a range of cross-validation statistics, we show that the MBH98 15th century reconstruction lacks statistical significance.
————————————————–
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
MBH98 modified the PC algorithm so that the calculation was no longer centered, but claimed that the calculation was “conventional”. The modification caused the PC1 to be dominated by a subset of bristlecone pine ring width series which are widely doubted to be reliable temperature proxies. In the case of the Gaspé cedars,MBH98 did not use archived data, but made an extrapolation, unique within the corpus of over 350 series, and misrepresented the start date of the series.The recent Corrigendum by Mann et al. denied that these differences between the stated methods and actual methods have any effect, a claim we show is false. We also refute the various arguments by Mann et al. purporting to salvage their reconstruction, including their claims of robustness and statistical skill.
10
William Connolley – the weasel.
At least TRY to stay current in your knowledge. If you cannot find it anywhere but ON Wiki, then it is not worth linking to as wiki is unreliable. And if you CAN find it elsewhere, why use wiki when it has been proven to be suspect?
Sometimes one wonders if anything you say is accurate as it is clear your knowledge is lacking.
10
O/T but I see South Australia is pushing the renewable targets to new heights (of lunacy):
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-23/sa-commits-to-50-per-cent-renewable-energy-target/5763640
Sorry Tony, if you were having a nice day so far… no doubt you will feel an urge to spend an hour or two to debunk this rubbish 🙂
233
It is largely wishful thinking(?) on the part of the ABC and a bit of kite flying from the Premier of SA.
For a start Jay Wishywashy confused nominal capacity for wind turbines with the actual performance. As you, and everyone except a few trolls knows, a 500MW conventional power station delivers just that amount at any time you need it. 500MW of wind turbines delivers a variable amount averaging over a year of about a quarter of that, and usually not when needed.
Premier Jay also hasn’t grasped the law of supply and demand. He doesn’t understand that if the grid is running smoothly with demand and supply even matched, that the only way wind farmers can sell a sudden burst of power is to drop the price (and make it up with subsidies). To Premier Jay this means that wind power is cheaper, rather than being 4 times the cost of coal fired.
He has managed to understand that any new wind farms depend on the RET subsidy scheme being retained. Jay thinks that SA can have wind and NSW and Victorian consumers will be delighted to pay more for electricity to make it profitable.
Lastly, he thinks that wind blows all the time and that there is no need to add to the transmission lines delivering coal fired electricity to make up for the 30% of the time the turbines don’t work. Mind you, after 12 years of Labor there isn’t any money left and they couldn’t build those transmission lines in any case.
I think it was a case of Premier Jay issuing a press release as a distraction from the actual mess he and his cabinet are making. The ABC has shown its usual gullibility. Without the RET the whole idea becomes a Norwegian Blue power supply.
Out of respect for JoAnne I won’t make my usual comparison of Jay Wetherill’s brain capacity with that of a raspberry seed.
262
Dear Leader Premier Jay need only do two things to stop me laughing.
Go and turn off Northern Power Station at Port Augusta, and turn it off forever.
Then get in his Government car and drive to the Victorian border and shut off the Victorian Interchange forever.
The only reason I would stop laughing is because the poor people of South Australia would immediately be plunged into the dark, also forever.
The chances of that happening are the same as Premier Jay winning every seat in the State at the next State election with 100% of the legitimate vote.
Tony.
243
Tony,
Not SA but
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/we-dont-need-no-445.html#comments
71
People see this ….. the STATE of South Australia, and quite naturally, the thinking is that STATE means BIG.
The whole State of South Australia consumes just a tad more power than Newcastle.
So Dear Leader Premier Jay has a piddling little total for a piddling little consumption.
Tony.
123
Arnt they going to run SA from Habanero 1?
http://www.geodynamics.com.au/Our-Projects/Innamincka-Deeps.aspx
51
Even Sarah Hanson Young wouldn’t do that Tony. Which makes the Greens even more laughable when you realise the gap between their ideals and their reality.
51
I don’t understand why Premier Jay doesn’t lead by example and do the right thing by the environment, and raise the RET to 200% or 300% and export all that extra cheap power to the other States.
Surely that is what any rational person would do given his premise.
Regards.
132
No courage of his convictions Renato, like most of them. If they were genuine they would have shut down all coal power when Gillard was riding the bike.
71
The cut-and-shut of climate pseudo-science.
143
Blogger Greg Laden wrote a response to this where he said
Some people just cannot accept the evidence, no matter how strong it is.
353
Mark Steyn noted that Laden expressed faux outrage, when Steyn drew attention to Mann’s preposterous #HowDareYouAskMe “conversation”. This was supposedly some kind of outrageous persecution. Since a goldfish could have predicted that Mann was never going to answer any questions, anyway, Laden was being a bit of a primadonna. In any case, it’s interesting that Laden’s solidarity with the Mann of the Moment doesn’t extend to wanting to give him any kind of testimonial in court.
263
Could it be that all Mann’s supporters and colleagues are so sure of the overwhelming strength of Mann’s case that they feel that no Amicus brief is required?
164
No, they have placed their faith (and let’s face it: we are talking about people of faith) in the flexibility of their financial backers to be able to postpone any actual court proceedings, virtually sine die, until Mark Steyn has run out of cash. It’s the tactic beloved of Robert Maxwell and Mohammed Al-Fayed (and of the UK Guardian, as it happens). The last thing Mann wants is ever to have to answer questions on the stand.
203
Pretty much
Apparently what is known in the US as anti-SLAPP legislation is designed to prevent this, but the legislature overlooked allowing a provision for a pro anti-SLAPP decision to be appealed, so the court procedures are currently sitting on their collective hands, doing absolutely nothing of consequence while they decide if they’re going to decide, or something
I’ve always thought Steyn doesn’t have the cash for any real chance
123
“I’ve always thought Steyn doesn’t have the cash for any real chance”
Well, he’s still standing, after three whole years of procrastination by Mann, and, for all of Mann’s conveniently subsidised legal devices, Mann is running out of options for postponing the proceeedings any longer. Mann got to select the jurisdiction in which the case was to be heard. He didn’t quite get to pick the judge, too, although he may as well have done, but she, fortunately, is no longer involved. Finally, Mann’s backers won’t be able to keep him out of the witness-box and he won’t be able to dodge answers.
162
Wishful thinking, I’m afraid. The current situation appears to be that other “co-defendants” (supposedly Steyn’s allies) are playing legal tricksies that Steyn wants no part of. Nobody can predict where all that will go and how long it will take – the legislation is that incoherent
Steyn himself has also said on his website that when the sales of his bric-a-brac drop off, he’ll quit
31
I think you might be grossly underestimating the financial resources of the litigation funders. (At least I hope you are.)
If Steyn runs out of money he can fall into their hands and lose a big share of the big payout coming, but he will still do OK. I hope he scores it all, but as long as he wins I won’t be too upset if he is forced to share.
122
Do tree rings work, or don’t they?
Well it depends on question you are asking. Can they tell you how old a tree is, or was when it stopped growing (died)? Probably give a good estimate.
Can they tell you much about past climate? NO.
The rate a tree grows can be influenced by any number of non climate related factors. Things like soil type, microbial activity, insect activity etc. Even if you can account for the effect these have on your particular species of tree you would need to take huge numbers of samples, and in the case of global climate questions, you would also need to sample from across the globe. Given that tree species change from place to place around the world you would need a pretty good understanding of the physiology and growth habit of each species you used.
As you can imagine any study on this scale would require large amounts of money, lots of time and would not provide results that could answer questions involving changes in temperatures of 3 -5 degrees, which is what the pro global warming crowd predict as worst case.
Most studies I’ve seen using tree rings involve use of less than 50 samples from one location with the data fed into a you beaut model that always seems to give the results that the researchers were predicting before they started. Funny that.
233
As Prof Plimer pointed out, Mann’s original thesis was based on a single tree. Outrageous. Can you imagine that, predicting the world’s climate based on one tree, of course in just one location on the planet?
Even the BOM reject data from specially designed Stevenson screens as they are affected by their environment and have to estimate the temperature from hundreds of kilometers away as they do not trust the thermometer? I guess the tree never moved though.
Any news on the Steyn case would be good, but I suppose it just grinds on, chewing up cash and time to keep lawyers and judges in a job. To think scientific truth is being judged in a court? Amicus briefs? Unlikely. No one wants to be part of what is coming with Mann far out on a limb of his one tree.
173
Ken Briffa had YAD 06.
I wonder what happens to a tree if a bear happens to die next to it – does it get a great burst of growth and turn into a Thermogeddonmeter?
Not saying a bear did die – but why pick the tree with an 8 sigma deviation – wouldn’t that disqualify it as thermometer???
Unless – you picked it because it supported your pet hypothesis and supporting your pet hypothesis means future grant money.
193
Tree rings can give a some indication of past temperature changes if the sample size is large enough and if you are very careful with the data. Before Climategate broke, Steve McIntyre was quoting Keith Briffa’s textbook on paleoclimate explaining this techniques, then showing Briffa’s Yamal hockey stick was reliant on a single tree.
Jo explains
153
I believe Mann only uses trees from the Arecaceae family for his Dendrochronology attempts, nothing like a blank canvas to carve out a hockey stick, even a scientific noob can see Mann is running a tree ring circus.
183
Palm trees in Siberia? Monocot dendrochronology?
I confess I don’t bother to follow the convolutions of Mannian science, but I think he probably uses pines rather than palms. Does he use bristlecones? The bristlecone pine is in Pinaceae.
113
DonS: Regarding your comment “The rate a tree grows can be influenced by any number of non climate related factors. Things like soil type, microbial activity, insect activity etc. Even if you can account for the effect these have on your particular species of tree you would need to take huge numbers of samples, and in the case of global climate questions, you would also need to sample from across the globe. Given that tree species change from place to place around the world you would need a pretty good understanding of the physiology and growth habit of each species you used.”
Well said! What makes the whole business even more ridiculous is that this method purports to be good enough to demonstrate fraction of a degree temperature changes which occurred a thousand years ago – how could anyone believe for an instant that this is remotely plausible? It seems clear that Mann and his colleagues didn’t talk to a biochemist or plant physiologist (just as they didn’t talk to professional statisticians). Enzymes for example act within a range of temperatures – there’s a biological advantage to this! This suggests that they just blundered ahead with their pet project without much (if any) understanding of biological science.
82
Thanks Carbon500, I hadn’t even considered the role of plant enzymes. That opens up even more room for doubt in my mind.
Also, as there are few tree species that live for a thousand years any study going back more than about 500 years would be using long dead and somehow preserved material. Which raises more questions like where exactly did the tree grow? When was it growing? Unless you know for sure it’s useless.
When you go even further back and start using fossilised material the very processes of fossilisation would distort and blur any useful information. Then again, unless it was fossilised in the same place it grew then you can not be sure where it came from. Dead trees can by washed 100s of km down rivers before they come to rest in a place that allows fossilisation to occur.
No, I just can not see how tree rings would be of much use, at least not in way some climate studies use them.
102
Alarmists try to obfuscate and distract from the relevant issues by using every unsound reasoning trick known to create an almost impenetrable muddle of half-truths, irrelevancies, ambiguities and outright lies.
Human CO2 emissions before ~1940 were insignificant.
The simple fact is that if human emissions have affected the atmospheric temperature since 1950, that effect is impossible to identify and can’t be very significant in any case.
It’s refreshing to refer back to the history of where the CAGW hysteria began, at least in the public mind.
The alarmists have never moved on.
164
It may be stubborn incompetence.
If the mind begins with unsound reasoning, and never develops, than the …
Becomes inevitable.
The
Requires awareness of what the real facts are, and a deliberate attempt to obfuscate them.
For the “Hide the Decline” crew – it could really be incompetence.
Much of what passes for Paleoclimate appears to be a marriage of fringe dwelling science incompetent hacks who couldn’t make it in real scientific or engineering disciplines, who stumbled into political usefulness which immediately went to their heads as their swelling egos overwhelmed their meagre intellects.
It’s a discipline that looks for data to confirm it’s hypothesis, and ignores any refuting data. A tree ring proxy, or bore well proxy, or any pick-a-proxy that provides the right “result” is immediately deemed valid data, and yet samples taken from the next tree, the next bore hole, the next pick-a-proxy that doesn’t have the desired “signal” is left out and left completely unexplained by the hypothesis.
This is no better than my “All cats are black” hypothesis. If I find a non-black “cat” – I just deem it not to be a cat, and exclude the datum from my data set. I can’t fail to find what I’m looking for with such a methodology.
233
While it is said “never ascribe to malice that which is more reasonably explained by incompetence”, in the global warming hoax there is too much evidence that many of the players knew what they were doing was wrong. (although most appear to have been “useful idiots”) We may like to believe it was all just fellow travellers suffering from groupthink, but the probability that many knew they were lying cannot be dismissed.
There are too many points of evidence….
The 1985 paper by Tom Karl on TOB adjustment for surface station data that just happens to mention “global warming”. (US surface station warming starts here)
The 1995 tropospheric circulation paper by Pierrehumbert. (erasing radiative subsidence and introducing ERL game starts here)
2001. Ben Santer’s IPCC report “editing”. (keeping the scare alive when it was about to die)
Michael Mann short centring data prior to principle component analysis. (He knew it was wrong, but the “Team” had to show AGW was happening and that pesky “putative” MWP just had to go. Every subsequent paleo “hockey stick” has be shown to be junk.)
The birth and premature death of the “high altitude ice cloud” papers. (Someone knew that any discussion of radiative process and vertical circulation had to be suppressed)
The attack on the M2010 discussion paper. (Again diabatic process and atmospheric circulation must be suppressed).
“Travesty” Trenberth’s 2010 pole-wise energy flow paper. (again trying to “disappear” radiative subsidence)
Studies by the truckload into the apparent emissivity of the oceans. (desperately trying to covert up apparent/effective emissivity issues. They knew they had got it wrong with the “near blackbody” thing)
Incompetence and groupthink may initially seem a reasonable answer, but there is too much evidence to the contrary. The reality is many must have known they were lying. And when I say lying I do not mean “exaggerating the warming”. I am talking of those who had worked out that there could be no net radiative GHE on this ocean planet.
31
And where, Ex warmist, is your evidence that “A tree ring proxy, or bore well proxy, or any pick-a-proxy that provides the right “result” is immediately deemed valid data, and yet samples taken from the next tree, the next bore hole, the next pick-a-proxy that doesn’t have the desired “signal” is left out and left completely unexplained by the hypothesis.”
And as for Konrad, here again is the skeptic misrepresentation of Trenberths travesty comment. Trenberth was pressing for a greater effort to get instruments capable of measuring heat content in the ocean depths:
Trenberth states:
“It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.”
When instruments were able measure temperatures at depths below 700 metres, much of Trenberths concerns were answered.
06
Philip Shehan,
Serious question. Just how are the proxies validated and calibrated? And furthermore why did proxies start failing in 1960?
00
Ghengis I thought this thread “dead” so I am waiting for Ex warmist to post in a more recent thread toanswer his question.
The paper covers just this question.
02
I was under the impression that altering original data to achieve a preconceived outcome without explaining in detail the reason,
would be considered deceptive at the very least.
Similar to what has been happening at the BOM.
143
One of the worst pieces of ‘science’ ever.
153
I read the entry by Jean S at Climate Audit a few days ago. Jo’s slightly edited version is clearer, especially with the comparison of the tree ring graph vs [SNIP – the other graph]
Either I did not quite follow what the “Hide the Decline” fuss was about at the time, or I had forgotten in the meantime. It is clear to me now that the tree ring graph showed a decline in temperature in recent times (post 1950) and that was what Mann (and Jones) changed by deleting the last downward part of the graph and substituting the upward going instrumental record. If that is not deception I don’t know what is.
It is shameful that 2 enquiries did not expose all this and call for Jones and a few others to be sacked at the very least. Yet he is still in his well paid job.
Michael Mann is claiming that the enquiries exonerated him as well. We will eventually see if the court agrees with him.
This video by the Minnesotans was popular at the time. “Hide the Decline”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
183
The problem is that nobody ever exonerated Mann. I think it was all in his head. Many posts on that from Steve McIntyre here.
93
Wrong.
In response to the hockey stick controversy, the US congress commissioned a thorough investigation of temperature reconstruction by the National Research Council of the National Academies. This comprehensive report weighed in at 160 pages.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
With regard to the criticisms of MIntyre and McKitrick the report states:
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.
Far from demolishing hockey sticks produced by a number of groups using a number of proxies the report broadly accepts their validity (Chapter 11):
Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents.
One published paper in particular deals with the methods used by Mann et al:
Wahl and Amman;
Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence
The results presented here show no evidence for removing the MBH [Mann, Bradley, Hughes] Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction from the list of important climate reconstructions of the past six centuries, on the basis of alleged “flaws” in its use of proxy data or underlying methodology. Indeed, our analyses act as an overall indication of the robustness of the MBH reconstruction to a variety of issues raised concerning its methods of assimilating proxy data, and also to two significant simplifications of the MBH method that we have introduced. The shape of a single-bladed “hockey stick”-like evolution of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the last 600 years is strongly confirmed within the MBH reconstruction framework (general algorithm and proxy data).
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/cv/cv_pubs/wahl/NH-and-Climate-Field-Reconstruction-Papers/Wahl_Ammann_ClimChange2007.pdf
114
James Delingpole, 18 August 2014;
Which side are you on Phillip?
151
How do I give Peter C 100 green thumbs?
Tony.
72
Peter, I am on the side of those who evaluate the scientific evidence and come to a conclusion based on that.
I was on that side when I felt that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that AGW was happening, and I remained on that side when the evidence reached the point that I concluded it did.
06
Wrong.
At McIntyre, JD, a lawyer, notes the exoneration trail claimed by Mann:
60
Thanks, you saved me looking that up. I guess a Climateer’s definition of “exonerate” is kinda like their version of “peer review.” You know, where you just say “peer reviewed” and the data and hypotheses are automatically assumed to be valid and true for all eternity… just like in every other religious sect out there.
30
Gosh, well Niels good to see Cohenite’s comprehensive post quoting the opinion of some anonymous lawyer has relieved you of the effort to check the National Science Foundation report to US congress. It is after all a little lentghy, but you could read the conclusions. Still too hard?
Or any of the following:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VCWmGmeSz4U
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/independentreviews
Because you are nothing like those you claim refuse to consider information that does not suit their prejudices.
06
So quoting an unnamed lawyer about the legal term “exonerate” (which has the same definition in all legal actions) is bad. Linking to statements written by the politically driven media hacks of the oft debunked “Union of Concerned Scientists” that still do not show a single independent investigation validating Mann’s work is good. OK, I understand now. How about some thinking from you: Can you give me a valid scientific reason to radically bias a temperature proxy based on a single set of tree rings from a statistical outlier? How about just adding a little padding to the end of a series, got a scientific justification for that? Those are the real issues… the rest is hand waving and obfuscation…
40
NZ I am not referring to an unnamed lawyer’s opinion of legal actions (and there is no evidence that he is referring to legal actions), but the many reports by many identifiable scientists conducting numerous investigations for different institutions which I have linked on this thread.
Mann is discussing these investigations by scientists and presumably neither is the lawyer. Mind you I am left to assume this because the unnamed lawyer says nothing about what investigations he is talking about nor does he give any reference or quote from any investigations legal or otherwise to back his statement.
Your attempt to say that Mann and the rest of us must bound by the use of the word “exonerate” in legal setting (and in his defence, that is not a claim he makes, it is one you are attempting to make for him) is nonsense.
You put up this statement by the Lawyer:
‘Not One of the Post-Climategate Reports “Exonerated” Mann’
This is provably false.
Start with the comprehensive 160 page report to the US Congress by the US National Academy of Sciences.
The controversy is not about any padding of tree ring series nor was there any accusation that the tree ring data biased anything, radically or otherwise.
The controversy is about the accuracy of the proxy data, and a narrow aspect is whether or not the tree ring proxy data (proxies being a fall back means of estimating the temperature when instrumental data is not available) since 1960, which clearly does not match the instrumental data available for that period should have been included in the graph put on thereport cover.
The report to congress also covers the question whether many other studies which give similar results to Mann’s study are a valid representation of the temperature record for the last two thousand years.
Shortr answer: Yes.
It is also about whether McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticisms of the statistial analysis methods used by Mann give incorrect conclusions is justified.
Short answer: No.
See my conversations with Ms Nova on this at the top of this thread.
06
Did you read what you posted? You could drive several trucks through those statements.
One says the lousy statistics Mann used “… does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature…” over 6 centuries. The fraud and flaws in question were limited to the means in the last couple of decades of a chart that is a millennium long.
The next one makes generic references to proxy data… that exonerates Mann how? I’m sure some proxies work just fine if one doesn’t rig them to get the answer you want… which is what these clowns did.
The last one is similarly weasel worded. “Proxies are good… Mann used proxies… Mann is good.” You consider this a valid review of the MBH work and the lie it presents? Wow!
30
Jo mentions that the graphs come from a presentation by Richard Muller. Well here it is, and worth a look in my view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
83
“it is still so arresting.”
And an arrest is most likely in order.
123
But, but… this is from a Nobel Laureate. OK then, from the world’s very first self-appointed Nobel Laureate.
No need to travel to Stockholm when you can do it all in your own kitchen. No need to even search around in the cereal packet for that special piece of paper. Now there’s a Mann who likes reducing emissions.
What better measure of integrity? Would such a richly decorated Mann fiddle the data?
133
I see the phantom red hander has been through the site. What a sad individual. A sad troll.
183
Hi TdeF,
Just noticed your post as I posted my observation of the same phenomenon.
113
Ha! We have both been red handed. Must be better than watching free to air TV.
113
Maybe Jo could implement a 30 second delay between successive red hands? Trolls are lazy.
52
Can I use the “f” word now Jo?
There simply is no other discription that can be attributed to what they are doing.
This Jo is but another “classic” example of “peer reviewed world’s best practice at it’s very very best”.
This paragraph should have had them all in the dock years ago.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
That it didn’t speaks volumes for what they continue to pass off as science.
It is a sad sad day when the public and reputable scientists have to rely on the courts to expose these “mad scientists” for what they are.
153
Looks like we have a wondering “down ticker” that doesn’t have the gumption to post a refutation of what is being said.
Philip Shehan is that you lurking out there?
144
Lurking is all they can do. No information, no counter-argument. Just: “I’m out here and I don’t agree because that’s what they pay me to do – so there.”
133
Could be one person – first with his laptop, then with his phone.
Like a frill neck lizard – looks bigger than he is.
71
Michael Mann – is that you down ticking us?
92
Ex Warmist I do not tick, I write. But as far as this remark goes:
“Looks like we have a wondering “down ticker” that doesn’t have the gumption to post a refutation of what is being said.”
I have these characters by the dozens and have encouraged them to actually write something, even if they hide behind screen names.
04
The problem is that the bloody politicians cannot be seen to be actually admitting that they have been conned, have made a huge mistake, and the retractions, the abandonment of billions in subsidies, the draw-back from acceptance of a fraudulent policy, the repudiation of the millionaires who run the IPCC……………….Never ever happen!
102
Just need to get to retirement with reputations intact.
Many $$$ post to be had.
72
Michael Mann and James Hansen do not understand thermodynamics. Neither does Robert G Brown whose very weak attempt to refute the gravito-thermal effect completely overlooked the fact that the gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. If you add a wire between the top and bottom of a cylinder of gas, you merely make a different composite system which then has a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium, and certainly no perpetual cycle of thermal energy. As Loschmidt explained, the temperature gradient has a propensity to form in solids, liquids and gases, but it is reduced in magnitude by intermolecular radiation, and probably obliterated altogether with all the radiation in liquid water. It is also over-ridden by excessive absorption of new energy such as in the stratosphere and the ocean thermocline.
These are the facts (based on correct physics and empirical evidence) which smash the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture …
(1) Gravity forms a temperature gradient (and a density gradient) in the tropospheres of all planets with significant atmospheres, including gas giants. This is a direct corollary of the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
(2) Back radiation can only slow radiative cooling back to the atmosphere. The thin surface layer of the oceans in non-polar regions also cools by non-radiative processes both into the atmosphere and, as usually overlooked, also by downward diffusion and convection which are both towards the colder regions found at the base of the ocean thermocline. That energy only gets back to the surface in polar regions, and so it does not affect the temperature of the ocean surfaces in non-polar regions – probably about half of Earth’s surface.
(3) Solar radiation cannot possibly raise the temperature of that thin surface layer of the ocean to the observed temperatures, because over 90% of the radiative flux is warming layers below that, and you can’t double count it. You must only enter into Stefan-Boltzmann calculations less than 10% of the solar flux reaching the surface, which is about 10% of 161W/m^2 on average. In fact, that mean flux of 161W/m^2 would only support a temperature of about 235K even if the Earth were paved in black asphalt for which emissivity is 0.93. Check it with an on-line Stefan Boltzmann calculator. Back radiation cannot be added to solar flux when determining the surface temperature and, in fact, it does not penetrate warmer water by more than a few nanometres. Its electro-magnetic energy is pseudo scattered and is never converted to thermal energy in the warmer water.
(4) Empirical evidence proves the existence of the gravito-thermal effect, and it would warm the Earth’s surface to a mean of about 295K to 300K but for the fact that water vapour reduces the magnitude of the gradient (aka dry/wet adiabatic lapse rate) and leads to supported temperatures about 10 to 12 degrees cooler. These temperatures in the base of the troposphere slow down and even stop the surface cooling in the early pre-dawn hours, regardless of radiation losses which are balanced by “heat creep” diffusion and conduction back into the surface. These non-radiative transfers of thermal energy occur as a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as they are restoring thermodynamic equilibrium. They are most prevalent into the ocean surfaces during sunlit hours and especially on cloudy days.
71
The work McIntyre and Jean S are doing now is not going to make it into any Journals or persuade any alarmists. But it is going to have a damning effect on Mann’s suits. It is going to kill the one he brought against everyone (including Ball) and strengthen Steyn’s against him.
83
And now, in spite of all the exposure of this dishonesty, climate change is a “fact”, not because of science but because of politics.
We live in county territory and the board of supervisors has implemented local Municipal Advisory Committees (MAC) to act as liaison between the community and the board. I was at their meeting last night. Among the things handed out was a flyer and brochure from an outfit called emPower, which has officially been embraced by the county and along with that we got a 10 minute presentation by a very young woman, a county employee, about the program. It offers free home energy surveys and all sorts of supposedly low price alternatives to get your house up to better energy efficiency. In the brochure, among other things, they offer solar water heating and solar energy alternatives. And the county is only too obviously spending tax dollars on this crusade.
To be fair, in these days of rising electricity price and diminishing availability it’s a good idea to be more energy efficient than most of these homes are, having been built in the early 1960s. But this is also an indicator that in spite of promises to the contrary, there is no interest anywhere in California or for that matter, the entire country, in increasing generating capacity except by “renewable” means. California has dictated by law the percentage of renewable energy that the state’s electric utilities must be delivering and by what deadline they must be doing it. My bill lists the percentage from this and that source as if it was more important than the bottom line, what I owe them for the past month.
Thus Michael Mann and his fellow conspirators have triumphed in spite of having been thoroughly debunked. This is our problem to be overcome, the politics, not the phony science.
132
Having been wiser than most, I had this house very well insulated in the 1970s, both walls and attic with stuff that met the standard then thought necessary (but not mandatory). Since then we’ve installed good quality double pane windows and sliding door as well.
The insulation standard has become more stringent since then and is now necessary in all new construction in California.
On a recent 101 F day the house reached about 77 F by about noon. I’m forever thankful for my foresight in getting the insulation job done when I did. My air conditioning cost would be completely prohibitve without it.
I’ve laid out my misadventures with solar water heating before. So needless to say, there will never be another solar panel on my roof while I have a breath left in me to oppose it.
But Mann et al have indeed triumphed in spite of themselves.
Say it often enough and it becomes a fact that those seeking power and money can use for their own ends. Never mind increasing public distrust of the global warming scare.
———————————–
I found it interesting that the it was a young (20s) woman who had so much enthusiasm for the emPower program at the MAC meeting. I wonder if an older person in that position could muster up that much enthusiasm.
132
Roy Hogue: re your comment “I found it interesting that the it was a young (20s) woman who had so much enthusiasm for the emPower program at the MAC meeting. I wonder if an older person in that position could muster up that much enthusiasm.”
Yes indeed! Whatever happened to the disbelieving, cynical, mistrusting (and healthy!) attitude of the young?
42
Good question! And I’m not sure how to answer it. When I was in my 20s I didn’t have that degree of distrust. In fact I was rather gullible.
The only thing I’m certain of is that I would feel dishonest about having anything to do with the current trend. And I say that in spite of having acknowledged the wisdom of becoming more energy efficient in today’s world. But solar anything bothers me a lot, just for openers. We should be fighting for more generating capacity, not trying to make up for the lack of it with efficiency measures.
I’m not sure that always mistrusting their elders was so healthy though. I remember the 1960s and the hippies. Thankfully I avoided that trap.
62
On mistrusting elders: The saying was “don’t trust anyone over 30.” Eventually, many of who said it made it into their 30s. They were right, they couldn’t be trusted. Their bodies made it but their brains remained just as non functional as they were when they said it. All of us are now paying praying the price for their failure to learn how to think.
82
Yep! Big-time too.
10
When I was 28 years old a coworker said exactly that to me. When I asked him what he was going to do when he turned 30 he had no answer. I’ve remembered that to this day because of how incongruous his statement and his lack of answer were.
10
Roy I agree with your sentiments. I have posted before the fairly extensive list of actions I have taken to make the lives of myself and my partner more energy efficient including solar panels, insulation, low watt globes etc etc.
I think the actions we have taken make our position on AGW even more galling to have to defend. I rarely meet an eco loon who does as much as we do or puts their money where their mouth is as much as we do. The real kick in the goolies of this entire thing is. 99% of the measures individuals can take to lower their “impact” are just plain common sense. They are just good moves and actions that almost anyone can take and most who can afford it do. So to be regarded by Ecotards as someone who is too stupid to look after myself and someone requiring a falsified terror campaign to get me to act makes me extremely angry. Especially when the outcome of no one acting at all is basically nothing anyway.
My partner and I are not breeders, we drive a friggin 2009 Corolla (frugally), we both spent over 6 years working in Wind with 2 of the world’s biggest providers. We recycle, we grow our own herbs and veg…. blah blah blah. Yet Im still regarded as a stupid consumer and enemy of the planet because Im not dumb enough to swallow the puerile notion that one single factor drives our entire super complex planetary climate.
[insert string of insulting expletives here] yourself alarmists.
62
I share your sentiment 100%
10
They usually say that she is “passionate” about the subject. Not to be confused with wisdom
10
Hi Jo,
It’s really rather important when criticising someone for faking something that you get the right person.
You splash Mann’s name all over this and use it in the title but the graph you are using as headline graphic and what CA is talking about is Jones’ graph from WMO, not Mann’s MBH98 graph.
Jones went further than Mann in that he actually spliced the proxy data onto the thermometer record and used the same coloured line for the ensemble.
I think that there is a clear case of scientific [SNIP – bad behaviour] there. He went much further over the line than Mann who just cropped off the inconvenient bit of the data and failed to mention it.
That is also arguably [SNIP “profoundly unscientific”] because it misleads by omission of the fact that the proxy diverges and is hence unreliable. But he did not graft and use the same coloured line as Jones did.
I suggest you correct your article that is both illinformed and falsely accusing Mann. Watch out he may sue you ! 😉
[Thank you for this comment. I have gone over what Jo wrote, and she is consistently discussing what Phil Jones did, and quoting from the relevant Climategate emails. The mention of Mann’s trick, in the heading is a direct quote of words used by Phil Jones. -Fly]
Hi Greg, Jones said, quote: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick.” You can argue the toss over which misdemeanor outranks the other, but this is a post about that famous email. It was Mike’s trick. I’ve changed the headline to “Mike’s trick” to make it obvious I’m referring to that quote. Mann is cited on that graph, was in email contact as it was made and ordered a t-shirt with the graph on. – Jo
11
Thank you Greg. In all the fuss and concentration on Mann Mann Mann, it is easy to forget that it is Jones’ illustration for a report cover, rather than Mann’s graphs as they appear in published peer reviewed literature, where he himself discusses the uncertainties in the data. I have probably falsely made this attribution myself on occasion.
Not that many (most?) of the critics have ever bothered to read the actual papers.
I am certain I have made use of the term “trick” myself when commenting on a neat solution to a problem, free of any imputation of deception, and that others have complimented me in the same terms. I distinctly remember one such occasion when the problem was getting around an incompatibility of some parts for different spectrometers which was a source of annoyance. After demonstrating the simple solution, my colleague turned to the senior academic present after saying “Neat trick.” and added: “Can he have his PhD now?” We laughed. I reminded Max (the academic)that he owed me on a subsequent occasion. He died not long after at the age of 48 of cancer, which seemed old to me at the time, and I made special mention of him in my thesis acknowledgements, which is also why I remember the incident. Max was a very good bloke and a very good scientist.
05
Hi Jo,
Off topic but its getting a lot coverage in US MSM.
NOAA — Southwest Fisheries Science Center
Changing Winds Explain Most Pacific Coast Warming
Fisheries Ecology Division, 9/22/2014 12:06:18 PM
John, can you check the email you are using is correct? WordPress is trying to email new comments to you and failing. – Jo
10
Focusing on the “trick” is the wrong way to approach this.
The key word, the word that is utterly inimical to science, is “hide”.
Any scientist talking about hiding anything in their work is just wrong.
121
“I think its a strong but defensible statement, and will help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC. The ’99 numbers are very interesting, and should help thwart the dubious claims sometimes made that El Nino is the sole culprit in the anomalous recent warmth.”
Yup…. give a good crap if its accurate or correct, as long as it serves to make your point.
Your right Joe it is still shocking to read. Thanks for the reminder of why I care about facts.
73
Yes Safetyguy66, like me – we both care about the facts.
Warmists clearly don’t.
72
We NEED Mark Steyn’s day in Court with Mann to expose this charlatan in a manner that cannot be denied.
81
Not so sure that we should have courts sitting in judgement on science or that they are competent to do so. Steyn is right to compare it to the Scopes monkey trial on Darwinism. This could rather be a judgement about issues like slander and personal damages and may well be utterly divorced from actual science. Legally someone’s reputation can be damaged and their professional standing damaged even if the criticism is quite valid and judgement could find Mann suffered compensatable damages. It is not going to be a judgement on global warming or scientific rigor, but a personal dispute and given this approach, the outcome is not clear. It is rare to see justice in a courtroom and generally both participants are damaged severely, if only by the costs. Famous rich serial litigants like England’s Robert Maxwell and Clive Palmer used the courts as a means of intimidation and stalling as they could afford the loss.
41
In the US, Staten Island’s groundhog has died a week after being dropped several feet by the Mayor, just after the groundhog predicted six more weeks of winter.
Clearly valid and accurate computer modelling could have prevented this tragic death, but it means we still need groundhogs as slaves because of their prediction ability. Americans should hold US meteorologists and NASA responsible. In Australia, maybe our wombats can be trained to predict El Nino or La Nina or global warming or cooling and go around in circles in an hiatus? The BOM could get one. He could be called Tim.
32
I have you now, red hander. Tim?
11
So even this was red handed? Even humour is red handed. You need a special button for lazy grumpy people. Trolls should be registered and pay a Troll tax.
20
It is still stunning science in Australia that the BOM would completely discard temperatures measured for many decades inside Stevenson screens at Deniliquin and Rutherglen and Toowoomba and other places and totally replace them with inferred temperatures from hundreds of kilometers away on the basis that a thermometer inside a Stevenson screen could not be possibly be right at any time? There is even the idea that the temperature accuracy was so bad over a century because of one possible movement of the screen and thus the undue influence of the immediate environment? That really makes nonsense of using a Stevenson screen in the first place. It certainly make relying on groundhogs seem sensible science. We could have an army of them. Instead of a Tim Flannery’s ‘angry summer’, we could have angry groundhogs, especially if moved.
52
There is an even bigger [problem] hidden in plain sight on both graphs.
What accuracy is claimed for temperature readings?
For the inferred Average Global temperature derived from tree rings?
Love the lack of error bars.
Basically the only thing unprecedented in the work of Team IPCC ™ is the pretence of information.
Claiming a signal of 0.01C to 0.1C accuracy from noise exceeding + or – 2 C is hubris.
Very much like seeing GOD in the white noise of an off air analogue TV channel.
How did this rubbish ever get published?
Peer review indeed. Certainly confirms the reviewers as peers of incompetents.
21
Oh how sweet it is. 🙂
I have been saying for ages that models that “match” or use pre-1979 HadCrut or anything based on it, as any sort of reality, are bound for failure and are basically meaningless.
Models hind-casting or using HadCrut or HadCrut based temperature data, are also basically JUNK !!
Now a paper comes out that that reinforces this. 🙂
This combined with Steven Goddard’s work continually showing the 1940’s peak in the northern hemisphere (until it was “adjusted” away)…
..and Ken and Jen’s work on showing that the Australia temperature record is also HIGHLY compromised, and that Australia has most probably been COOLING since a very warm period the late 1800’s, pretty much makes a junked mess of any CAGW argument.
It also destroys any papers that use HadCrut based temperatures to come up with a CO2 climate sensitivity value !!
41
“What motivates you yourself to so blindly support bad science?”
Mirror, mirror on the wall !..
Phillip loves his own reflection !!!
10
@Philip
Actually Mark Steyn has hired his own laywer and filed a counter suit. The court is considering a motion to dismiss Mann’s action under SLAPP.
Steyn’s counter suit remains regardless and Mann will have to defend against it. He has filed motions asking that his case be allowed to proceed.
00
You people got it all wrong. Mann bought himself a really nice Laz-e-boy. One day he saw Phil Jones walking down the hall to his office and, not wanting to share, he quickly typed out an email on his phone to his secretary. In his haste he misspelled recliner, accidentally typing ‘D’ as the first letter and leaving off the last letter of the word. “Hide the recliner” became “Hide the decline.” Then he blundered again by hitting ‘reply to all.’ So everyone saw those famous words.
When he reached his office, Jones was fast asleep in the chair. As cursed luck would have it, the entire set of records Jones had with him slipped out of his pocket and through a crack in the chair. After Mann woke Jones, the two went off to lunch while the cleaning lady freshened up the office. She found the documents in the chair, looked them over carefully and saw they were worthless. She then shredded the documents and, being the thorough worker she was trained to be, she logged onto Doctor Jones’ computer and erased all traces of them there.
So you can see it was all perfectly innocent. Just a series of everyday mistakes that by all outward appearances looked like some kind of elaborate hoax. Now you know how it really was. I’m off now. The attendants say it’s time to go back to the home.
00
It hasn’t been a particularly edifying discussion between warmist Phil and all of his knockers. Quite frankly, I’m well over all of the claims and counter claims of both. What craps me the most, is our reponse to the perceived global warming problem which much of the planet is addressing by ridiculous and very costly RET’s. We need to understand, that one way or another, we all need to get behind creating an electricity supply which is affordable, safe, reliable,adequate, base load and emissions-free.In Australia, we’ve got only one option for that[the sun and the wind will NEVER provide that] and that’s nuclear power. Our politicians, in South Australia are so dumb and visionless that they refuse to see the huge benefits, economical, social and environmental that we stand to gain were we to start developing now, the full nuclear fuel cycle here in South Australia. [It’ll take 25-30 years]. For goodness sake, we’ve got one third of all of the world’s known uranium reserves, the best nuclear waste disposal site on the planet [Officer Basin] and the best we can do, is mine uranium and produce yellowcake to export to 21 countries [22 with India now included] for them to produce base load, emissions-free electricity for their people. Bloody pathetic isn’t it?
10