Seems that there's some excitement about a new paper A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? to be published in Annals of Applied Statistics. Their reconstruction appears to be closest match to a hockey stick shape yet seen:
Also:
Using our model, we calculate that there is a 36% posterior probability that 1998 was the warmest year over the past thousand. If we consider rolling decades, 1997-2006 is the warmest on record; our model gives an 80% chance that it was the warmest in the past thousand years.
Discuss.
Update: Deep Climate on M&W is worth a read.
[Update 2: Eduardo Zorita.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The NAS NRC panel on temperature reconstructions has released its report.
The press release states
There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the…
According to this profile, Miranda Devine (last seen making stuff up in an attempt to debunk the Lancet study), once worked for the textile physics division of CSIRO. So she should know that one purpose of peer review is to weed out scientific papers that are inaccurate or where the conclusions…
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Global surface temperatures recorded over just one hundred and some years is not long enough to draw any conclusions or worry about anyway.…
A new study has recently been published that looks at the ecology of bristlecone pine growth at Sheep Mountain, and the tree ring signal those trees produce, at high altitudes in the Southwestern US. This is important because tree rings are an often used proxyindicator for reconstructing past…
It appears obvious that no one is changing anyone else's beliefs in this forum. I didn't expect anyone would be moved. Arguing with you boys is like arguing with young earth creationists. You got your dogma and you're sticking with it. It was fun but tiring hijacking the thread all night long. Ultimately the response to global warm... er "climate change" will be decided in democracies by the voters and in dictatorships by the dictators, and so forth. I'm sure by now you realize unless there's some seriously bad climate change that adversely effects the planet in a clear and unambiguous manner real soon now the CAGW movement is dead in the water. Thanks for playing. Mabye I'll see some of you in the voting booth in November when I do my part to throw out the loony left morons who are supporting this eco-religion called climate change.
You read my mind, Tim. I was just collecting up me hat and coat and announcing my departure in the same minute that you asked for it. Thanks for the bandwidth. I figured you had plenty to spare after the pepsi fiasco. :-)
What a pathetic joke. Where has the medieval warm period gone - again ?
And more fostering of 'open debate' at #129 Tim ? You are a champion.
re: #347 Michael
Oops (and sorry if this is a duplicate):
See this or this.
After you see the amusing footnote, very likely gotten from McK, then see McI on this paper.
The above is interesting but it is very hard to read something that has no vowels, no? I will try again and may the 'a' and 'e' and I be with 'u' this time:
There is something to all of the criticisms of the McShane & Wyner paper referenced below. That something is what makes the global warming hoax so interesting to study but those most interested in studying it now are in the areas of psychology, sociology and philosophy.
All of those with any reputation to preserve have beaten paths toward the UN exits long ago. But, the refusnicks who continue to support the indefensible keep pretending MBH98/99/08 (aka, the 'hockey stick' graph) has not already been shown to be a proven scientific fraud.
McShane and Wyner are not even addressing the matter of data manipulation and corruption. All they're saying is that there is absolutely no 'signal' in the data--not based on an ideologically-motivated preconception but based on their statistical analysis of it.
What's interesting to statisticians is not the finding but the way the researchers arrive at the proof. And, that is what the ad hom attackers of McShane & Wyner fail to realize: there are many more ways and to statisticians, finding them is more interesting to them than the findings. That is what science is really about.
And we've seen before the methods these science authoritarian defenders of Mann and his circle-jerk cult of sychophants use when it comes to statisticians who actually understand the math that underlies the unverifiability of long term projections based on GCMs, e.g.,
BIAS AND CONCEALMENT IN THE IPCC PROCESS: THE "HOCKEY-STICK" AFFAIR AND ITS IMPLICATIONS by David Holland
ABSTRACT The climatic "hockey stick" hypothesis has systemic problems. I review how the IPCC came to adopt the "hockey stick" as scientific evidence of human interference with the climate. I report also on independent peer reviewed studies of the "hockey stick" that were instigated by the US House of Representatives in 2006, and which comprehensively invalidated it. The "divergence" problem and the selective and unreliable nature of tree ring reconstructions are discussed, as is the unsatisfactory review process of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that ignored the invalidation of the "hockey stick". The error found recently in the GISS temperature series is also noted. It is concluded that the IPCC has neither the structure nor the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate science. Suggestions are made as to how the IPCC could improve its procedures towards producing reports and recommendations that are more scientifically sound.
(Energy & Environment (2007), Vol. 18, No. 7+8, 950-953)
That same paper, in the conclusions say: "Natural climate variability is not well understood and is probably quite large. It is not clear that the proxies currently used to predict temperature are even predictive of it at the scale of several decades let alone over many centuries."
The hockey stick is dead! Long live the hockey stick!
This falls into the category of deniers not having the analytical chops to tell the difference between "different" and "wrong."
John Mashey, consistently one of the best commenters here (or anywhere), has dropped a hint that he has something to add to this topic. I hope that he will not keep us waiting long.
The funny thing is that this paper actually replicates Mann et al. 2008 without even noticing it...
To partake in this dirty little secret, see their Figure 14 on page 30: the blue curve is wiggle-identical and practically a photocopy of Mann's corresponding EIV NH land curve. As it should be. The higher (green) curve they canonize and which is shown above is the result of an error: they calibrate their proxies against hemispherical mean temperature, which is a poor measure of forced variability. The instrumental PC1 which the blue curve is based on, is a much better measure; its EOF contains the polar amplification effect. What it means is that high-latitude proxies, in order to be made representative for global temperatures, should be downweighted. The green curve fails to do this. Thus, high latitudes are overrepresented in this reconstruction, which is why the "shaft" is at such an angle, due to the Earth axis's changing tilt effect on the latitudinal temperature dependence described in Kaufman et al. 2009.
The authors have no way of detecting such an error as their RMSE goodness-of-fit seems to be also based around the hemispherical average...
It looks like McShane and Wyner heard somebody say to check your work, and made their work look like a check mark.
An absurdly linear and sloping temperature graph from 1000 to 1850. The answer to the question in their title, is
Yes, but not ours.
Martin, serious comment:
Perhaps someone who has some knowledge in this field should warn the authors of their fatal flaw?
Gives them a chance to prevent major embarrassment. Of course, thanks to the enormous cabale from the Wattsians and climateauditors, they've already been embarrassed, but at least they can prevent embarrassment amongst their peers.
If this does not happen, I sincerely hope someone will start writing a comment soon. Sad for McShane and Wyner, but in this hotly contested area there is no room for papers with fundamental flaws.
Boy, it's a good job these analyses weren't done by Brits or Aussies - can you imagine the Cricket Bat Graph?
Can somebody help me out here - this is using proxies to predict *past* temperatures, right? I've never heard of anyone using proxies to predict future temperatures... it's not really clear to me what these two sentences mean.
So does this explain why the Romans apparently made excellent wine in the UK!
OK, so they reckon we should be heading for an ice age, but fossil fuels have reversed that trend.
Others are taking care of stats... but I have some other info:
1) This is ~ Wegman Report, the Sequel ...
Among other things, even some oddities of wording seem to derive from the WR.
People may recall from Deep Climate, 07/29/10, that ~10 pages of Wegman Report is plagiarized from various sources, including Bradley(1999).
Start with Bradley(1999), p.1, first sentence:
"Paleoclimatology is the study of climate prior to the period of instrumental measurements..."
See Wegman Report, specifically p.10, which essentially/reasonably summarizes Bradley(1999) pp.1-10, i.e., not part of the plagiarism. It starts:
âPaleoclimatology focuses on climate, principally temperature, prior to the era when instrumentation was available to measure climate artifacts."
*artifacts* is odd terminology that I don't recall seeing elsewhere.
McShane&Wyner have:
"Paleoclimatology is the study of climate and climate
change over the scale of the entire history of earth. A particular area of focus
is temperature....
The key idea is to use various artifacts of historical periods which
were strongly influenced by temperature and which survive to the present."
*artifacts* again.
2) Although not as bad as the WR, no black helicopters guys, the Bibliography includes:
- BBC
- AIT
- Green, K.C. Armstrong, J.S., and Soon⦠(recall that Armstrong is at Wharton)
- 3 WSJ OpEds on climategate
- Lamb(1990)
- Matthes (1939)
- Rothstein, NY Times article cited as alarming both populace and policy makers.
3) They cite Wegman often. I believe they will come to seriously regret that in the near future.
4) The results will stand or be utterly demolished on their own merits, but as background, who are these guys that Judith Curry labeled leading statisticians?
McShane is a May 2010 PhD from Wharton, Wyner is his Dissertation director.
WHYNER
Pubs, through 2003.
Pubs, Google Scholar, including 3 on baseball (or Bayesball).
For several years, he contributed (as "Adi" to a group blog, now dormant Politically Incorrect Statistics, occasionally touching upon climate. These might be used to calibrate his (and colleague's) level of climate expertise.
http://picstat.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-it-really-so-simple.html August 27, 2008
http://picstat.blogspot.com/2008/07/vanishing-temperature-trends.html July 29, 2008
http://picstat.blogspot.com/2008/05/sea-ice-continued.html May 04, 2008
âBack in 1975, when we are at the end of a 30 year period of declining global temperatures, the consensus among the climate scientists was a coming ice ageâ¦â
http://picstat.blogspot.com/2008/05/sea-ice-continued.html may 04, 2008
Sea ice variations are just normal, and besides Antarctic ice growingâ¦
http://picstat.blogspot.com/2008/05/southern-hemisphere-sea-ice.html May 01, NSIDC must be wrongâ¦
http://picstat.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html August 07, 2006
not by Wyner, but by his colleague Dean Foster)
http://picstat.blogspot.com/2005/11/greenhouse-gases-increasing-but-sti… November 25, 2006
(again, not by Wyner, but by Dean Foster)
Like Wegman, who often gave talks to audiences unlikely to have much climate expertise, we have:
Wyner gave talk March 2010:
http://stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~gadam/seminar_files/Abraham%20Wyner%20-%…
People may wish to read this, but put down coffee first. Iâm sure all will be pleased to see:
"The relationship between proxies and temperature is weakâ
MCSHANE:
Ph.D. in Statistics, May 2010
Thesis: Integrating Machine Learning Methods with Hidden Markov Models: A New Approach to Categorical Time Series Analysis with Application to Sleep Data
Thesis Advisor: Abraham Wyner, Department of Statistics
Marketing Advisor: Eric Bradlow, Department of Marketing
His C.V is eclectic, including modeling sleep in mice and several baseball papers. It is impressive that he managed to become a paleolclimate expert also.
Again, one finds a talk to a non-climate audience:
âAre Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?â
Presented
February 2009 at Information Theory and Applications Workshop, San Diego, CA.â thatâs:
http://ita.ucsd.edu/workshop.php?submitted=1
http://ita.ucsd.edu/workshop/09/talks/
Wyner organized session, McShane presentedâ¦
This conference covers a vast range of topics.
As one last tidbit, I've had reason to recently consult American Statistical Association Ethical Guidelines, a good document.
While "How to Lie with Statistics" is famous, most statisticians do not lie, in my experience....
What might we find, examining that document:
âA. Professionalism
1. Strive for relevance in statistical analyses. Typically, each study should be based on a competent understanding of the subject-matter issuesâ¦"
Oh.
I hope Tim doesn't mind me repeating my post from the previous thread ...
Tim,
That's what I thought. In fact, the "stick" is merely tilted and the "shaft" is actually straighter than MBH's. Amusingly, the MWP and LIA have pretty much disappeared, having been replaced by a steady downward trend from 1000 to the early 1800s, with a slight dip (LIA?) centred on around 1500. So, when the authors say
I have to ask: "What, are you blind!?".
They also say
Oh, really?
One of the criticisms put by the deniers is that climate scientists don't work close enough with statisticians. There is some validity to this comment and Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt have commented that efforts are underway to improve this (Not that I think climate scientists have done anything significantly remiss in this area).
But from the comment of Martin's above I might conclude that this is an example of two statisticians that needed to work closely with climate scientists, sepcifficaly some Paleoclimatologists.
She also claims this paper "looks like the real deal" in the same comment.
Anyone really doubt Judith is anything other than a vanilla denier at this point in time?
11 John Mashey,
Excellent, as always.
The use of "artifact" really is odd, isn't it, suggesting that the misuse was copied. The word's meaning doesn't really allow its use in that way.
----
1 an object made by a human being, typically an item of cultural or historical interest : gold and silver artifacts.
⢠Archaeology such an object as distinguished from a similar object naturally produced.
2 something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure : widespread tissue infection may be a technical artifact.
----
Tim,
You say "discuss"! Way no! I am laughing too hard at the graph! I showed the cat the graph and its laughing so hard its already brought up 3 big fur balls.
Good grief!
Yeah, but these error bars go up to eleven.
Well, the version linked at
http://www.imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html
still reads like a draft. If it is, the authors, or the referees, or the journal editors may have time to address the problems as they are being pointed out.
Agreeing with Marco above -- Martin, you might be someone who they'd listen to if you're going to point out the problem you found before they go to publication.
If "blog review supplementing peer review" is going to become a trend, might as well make it a positively useful one that authors can learn to take note of.
But seriously folks.
Who will join with me in funding for the next Heartland anti-AGW conference a team of US cheerleaders to gate crash the keynoter running down the aisle all carrying hockeysticks above their heads! We'll have them running onto the stage behind the keynoter where they will chant, "McShane!!.... Wyner!!!....AND WEGMANNNNNN!!!!!!!". On the last they'll toss the hockey sticks into the air.
|
|
|
|
All in the best possible taste.
Thanks for posting this Tim. I saw that Watts had posted on this a few days ago, but a lot of the technical stuff is a bit dense and thus over my head, so I left it to pore over another day.
For anyone with the stomach for it, the McShane and Wyner paper is headline news at WTFUWT, but make sure you pinch your nose and block your ears before diving into the swamp. As a preview, Watts says:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but in my cursory look at the paper the authors seem to be saying the following: 1) We get basically the same result as past studies. 2) But it's tilted slightly! 3) And our error bars are really big, meaning that there's some small probability that past temperatures were, like, far off from the graphed line.
Which boils down to saying that there is a bit of extra uncertainty in temperatures for the past 1000 years compared to other studies. Okay. But apparently the uncertainty is not enough such that we can no longer say that recent temperatures are likely warmer than the past:
I must say, this does not exactly convince me that we are not currently in an anomalously warm period, or that the current rise in temperatures is normal.
I'm not sure why the denialists are happy with this result, other than as a desperate salvo in their bizarre and ill-conceived War on Michael Mann.
[Steve C said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) "(Watts says) it tells you it has squarely hit the target, and the fat lady has sung â loudly".
Strangely enough, I rather think it tells me that a desperate and ridiculous mustachioed denialist twit has jumped the gun on something he hasn't understood (Pielke must be away on vacation).
Okay, hoping this doesn't come across as concern-trolling. It's not meant to be, but who knows...
I read the paper pretty closely last night. Some parts of it (the statistics) I understand pretty well, but I really don't know anything about climate science, so there's some things that puzzle me and I wanted to ask about. The parts of the paper that seemed to present worries were:
1. When you account for uncertainty about parameter estimates as well as noise in the data, the error bars widen a lot. That seems to be the main message behind Figure 16 (which Tim has posted) and the somewhat melodramatic Figure 17. To my mind (as someone who knows stats but not climate science) this seems pretty obvious, but nevertheless worth pointing out (unless someone else has already done so in the relevant literature).
2. The near-linearity of the backcasts (I love that word) may be somewhat illusory. I don't think the paper goes very far on this point, but to take a simple example, the Bayesian posterior predictive distribution shown in Figure 16 is the aggregate across all possible backward projections of the temperature series, weighted by how closely they overlap with the instrumental record. Each individual backcast can be quite nonlinear, but because we don't know which one to trust, we average them, and the average looks quite linear. If the proxy data were pure autoregressive noise, then I *think* I could show that the average would necessarily be linear, but the real data are neither simple autoregressive processes, nor (we hope!) are they unrelated to the true temperatures. Again, to me at least this point is not highly surprising: lots of real world data sets seem to have this "averaging looks linear" character. Not sure whether it tells you much about the strength of the temperature signal in the proxy data.
3. A bit more worryingly, they find some evidence (not strong, but not trivial as far as I can tell) that the proxies aren't able to capture a very sharp change in temperatures. This is their lower panel of Figure 18. Training up the model on most of the data, and using the most recent 30 years as hold out data shows that the model does not predict the current sharp warming trend. I think they do a pretty good job of trying to say that this doesn't necessarily mean that the proxies are no good; what I think they're trying to emphasise is the fact that the real data (black lines in that plot) actually go outside the error bars, meaning that if the true historical temperature record included very sharp rises just like the ones we're seeing now, the model may be unable to detect them. This did surprise me a bit... I'd be curious to hear whether other people (esp. people who - unlike me - might know some climate science) find that to be a problem.
4. Saving the thing that really did worry me for last... when fitting the model to the instrumental record, using real proxies as the predictors outperforms very weak null models, but is consistently slightly worse than using autoregressive random noise as the predictors (e.g., Fig 9 and Table 1). In one sense, I can see that this isn't a problem: because of the autocorrelation, AR1 noise models do capture some of the short range temporal structure in the data. So they're not purely "noise" models. On the other hand, by definition they don't have the ability to capture any long-range signal. By extension, the concern it raises is whether the proxies actually have a strong enough long-range signal that would allow large scale temperature reconstructions work. That is, over the time period for which we do have data, the proxies perform no better than other predictors that only capture short-range structure. As such, it's hard to see how the instrumental record can serve as a method for verifying that the proxies carry a long range signal. I actually can't see a flaw in this argument, if it's construed narrowly. For instance, it doesn't rule out the possibility of long-range a signal in the proxies: it just seems to suggest that this isn't the way to find it. Again though, I worry that my near-total lack of knowledge about climate science means I might be missing something.
In any case, that's what I got out of the paper from a stats perspective. But obviously there's got to be specifics to this that depend a lot on substantive knowledge of, say, climate science. For instance, Martin Vermeer's comment above about the latitudinal issue is something I wouldn't have known (as an aside, at least one of their analyses aimed to model the local temperature data individually rather than fitting the average - see section 3.6 - but I wouldn't have a clue if this addresses the concern!) So I'm wondering what it is that I'm missing. I'd be really interested to hear from people who actually know the subject if I'm missing something important in summarising the paper this way.
One last thing: in all of the above I've ignored the points that affirm my previously held beliefs, that the recent temperatures are very high when compared to the historical record, since (a) I already believed them, and (b) Tim's post summarised them nicely.
Steve Reuland:
I think it's known as "proof by contradictory citation".
Eli explains it all Well, at least some of it
Seems to me that the denialists shouldn't be too happy about a paper that blows any 'Medieval Warming Period' out of the window. If there's isn't enough data for a hockey stick handle, there certainly isn't enough evidence for a convenient hump.
"As mentioned earlier, scientists have collected a large body of evidence which suggests that there was a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) at least in portions of the Northern Hemisphere. The MWP is believed to have occurred from c. 800-1300 AD (it was followed by the Little Ice Age). It is
widely hoped that multi-proxy models have the power to detect (i) howwarm the Medieval Warm Period was, (ii) how sharply temperatures increased during it, and (iii) to compare these two features to the past decadeâs high temperatures and sharp run-up. Since our model cannot detect the recent temperature change, detection of dramatic changes hundreds of years ago seems out of the question."
I'm also puzzled about their worries about the lack of 'predictive' power of proxies. If we had a perfect instrumental record for the last thousand years, that wouldn't predict anything either.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mann et al. (2008) and Li et al. (2007) seems to smooth their proxies (decadal-scale) first, then does the modeling? OTOH, McShane and Wyner (p26, 2010) doesn't seem to. Can this add (the interannual variability) to the uncertainty in MW2010's reconstructions?
I openly acknowledge that I am not up to snuff when it comes to analyzing the paper in terms of the validity of the methods and conclusions based on them. I am in the basic stats knowledge category, not much beyond simple stats, variance, regression analysis, etc. However, the authors left a big gaping hole open into which they might retreat at some point -- they state quite clearly that they have not addressed any data quality issues and have accepted the data at face value. "Skeptics" can always fall back on claims about data quality if the paper's methodology and conclusions are criticized and/or found lacking -- you know, all those unjustified adjustments, smoothing, filling in missing data, bad proxies, etc. In fact, if you can stomach it, the comments at WTFIUWT already are pointing to these issues when the fact of the missing MWP and LIA is brought up, retreating to criticisms of proxy choices and data quality.
Ah. Eli's post and the links therein helped, and makes more sense out of Fig 9 in the paper. What they're calling the grid-proxy reconstruction is where they're predicting the full Z matrix of local instrumental records, rather than the averaged time series Y. The point that several commenters seem to have made in various places is that the real proxies are highly sensitive to local variation, so you'd expect better performance when predicting Z, not Y.
Okay, that makes sense, and that method does seem to perform much better. It's still not better than the random autoregressive model, but maybe that just means that in order to capture the structure of the existing instrumental data your model only actually need to have short-range structure built in? Especially if your error measure includes both RMSE over interpolation holdout blocks as well as extrapolation holdout blocks. Under those circumstances a model that has short-range only (e.g., any of their AR1 pseudo-proxies) might be expected to perform just as well as a model that has both short-range structure and long-range structure (which is what we believe the real proxies have). I think I buy that (my ignorance makes me uncertain), but that means that we're still in the position of needing to rely on other reasons to trust that the proxies do encode something about the temperature record over the longer time scales, right, since the instrumental record (i.e., the matrix Z) doesn't disambiguate between the real and pseudo proxies. But I assume that's not a serious worry, and that there are in fact substantive reasons to believe this. I can't imagine that climate scientists go around collecting arbitrarily chosen data and trying to correlate any- and every- thing to the temperature record. Rather, it must be the case that the proxies are selected on other substantive grounds, meaning that there's a priori reasons to believe that a long-range signal exists. As such, the fact that the model fitting can't actually verify that this signal exists is somewhat irritating, but not as damaging as I thought when I first read the paper. (Yes?)
So the logic here is that fitting a model to the instrumental data isn't meant to serve as evidence that the proxies actually contain a long-range signal; rather, we believe that for other reasons entirely. Instead, what we're trying to do is parameter estimation, not model validation; that is, figuring out exactly how to calibrate the proxies against the temperature record. Is that right?
Well, and figure out which proxies have a (significant) temperature response over any period. . . .
thanks to Tim for tackling this one early. (in contrast to the usual denialist conspiracy theory about information being supressed..)
and special thanks to John Mashey, for his analysis. as always very good work!
on collide a scape Judith Curry said this:
leading statisticians, to be published (in press) by a leading statistics journal.
as John has pointed out, the first claim is at best a serious stretch and the second half is also rather weak, as the magazin is a rather young spin off from another magazin.
she of course continued to say:
This paper looks like the real deal to me
which seems to be a rather hasty assessment of a paper, that hasn t even been printed yet.
she alos swallowed the blogs are blocking comments on the paper conspiracy theory:
To be expected from Romm. I would have expected better from Tamino (but not anymore). Will be interesting to watch RC.
why does Judith Curry constantly make such strong claims about stuf that she obviously does not understand or even know?
why is she constantly making claims that are obviously false?
and why have we, (as always) not seen her take back any of these false claims so far?
and figure out which proxies have a (significant) temperature response over any period
Hm. I think I'm confused again. It's the "over any period" phrase that I'm unsure about... Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but do you that mean that the strength of the correlation between a particular proxy and the temperature record is expected to fluctuate? That would imply that the estimated regression-weights in the Lasso-regression model would themselves be time-dependent. Unless I missed something, their model doesn't do that. And given the nature of the data I can't imagine how you could even do that safely.
Or do you just mean that part of the calibration process involves determining which proxies (or principal components thereof, etc etc) should be assigned non-zero regression weights on the basis of the known instrumental record? That makes perfect sense to me. The reason I'm confused is that for the Lasso regression model that tends to be folded into the parameter estimation procedure. That is, the penalty term in the Lasso regression model (p13) tends to solve the "variable subset selection" problem by pushing a lot of the regression weights to zero, and so estimating the model parameters also involves removing proxies that don't correlate very well with the data.
Dan, i am not a specialist in proxy records and i haven t had the time to really read this paper.
but i might have some minor answers to your questions.
it is clear without any statistical knowledge, that individual proxies might not be accuate at an annual or decadal level. pests can hamper tree growth, wind blow away accumulating snow and a fish hiding eggs could destroy layers of sea sediments.
i also was following the Loehle paper closely, and there was a detailed look at the majority of the proxies over at climateaudit. many proxies show really erratic changes over short time periods ( think they were called "high frequency proxies") which clearly do not track short term variations well.
I must confess I always dreaded playing hockey when I was at school. Seeing this updated model of Mann et al.'s reconstructed millennial temperature graph, fills me with the same cold, anxious feeling of another 3 hour class on a dreary, wet, winters morning in rural Staffordshire! Standing there caped to the high heels in rotten mud I would always hear "Paddy, stop standing still, and get stuck in" as I shivered in the rain, with drips falling down my cheeks!
So, back to fact of the matter, Tim Lambertâs version of Fig. 14 in McShane and Wyner claims to clear the original MBH âhockey-stickâ, with its clever modification of a downward sloping handle on the failure of McS&W. Correct me If im wrong but the MBH hockey stick had a horizontal (no slope) handle? and the McS&W downsloping handle clearly shown in Timâs version actually restores the MWP that was abolished by MBH.
To me there is a small problem with the upsloping blade being used to signify the instrumental record since 1850 in both MBH and McS&W, which is that the CRU dataset they use is, i think anyway is a little fictitious until well into the 20th century. From the bits of research i have under-taken I do believe that there was in reality no instrumental coverage of more than half of the globe until the 1950s, with the non-covered areas almost wholly in the tropics. Therefore this to me could be used to create a false cold "global" anomaly in 1850-1950 relative to the warmer anomaly base period of 1960-1990 which does include the tropics?
It is indeed surprising that while McS&W checked the origin of the proxy data in MBH etc, they might of failed to check the CRU âtime seriesâ? Had they done so the upsloping blade might largely disappear?
Sorry for throwing a spanner in the work folks, its just in my eyes the Hockey stick brings back bad, bad memories! Good day to you...
Paddy Constantine:
So your classes were held out in the rain. No wonder you didn't learn anything.
Bravo to: Dan | August 16, 2010 6:33 PM
You got it right. The gist of the paper is that the proxy record can't pick up temperature increases as rapid as what occurred in the latter half of the 20th century.
This is where the infamous Climategate "trick" to "hide the decline" comes into play.
The proxy record failed to show the temperature increase in recent decades that was indisputably measured across the globe by satellites that became operational in 1979.
So what Mann and his cohorts in crime (just an expression) did was drop the disagreeable portion of the tree ring proxy record from 1960 onward and stitch in the satellite temperature record in its place.
The long and the short of it is that the blade portion of the hockey stick could have occurred once or even many times in the past 1000 years and the tree ring proxy would not have shown it since it failed to show it in the single instance where we know it occurred.
Mann and company knew about this problem with the proxy data all along and purposely tried to hide it.
Paddy: I think your statement about a lack of coverage in the tropics (independent of the merits of how true that is or not) reveals some misunderstanding of how graphing temperature anomalies works. One important reason to use anomalies rather than absolute temperatures is that, with anomalies you should not have biases introduced by whether you have better coverage in warmer or colder places. (Or, at least, what biases exist because of this should be much weaker...and much less obvious which direction they would even be in.)
I have a question for Dan.
You picked up on the contents of the paper nicely but why did it "worry" you?
I should think you'd be worried that Mann is right and the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. This paper reveals that Mann showed no such thing and that the earth could have warmed at this rate many times in the past.
Do you -want- a climate catastrophe and you're worried that you might not get what you want?
I mean this appears to be the mental state of most of catastrophic global warmists. They seem to have some sort of messiah complex where they envision themselves as saving the world. If there's no catastrophic warming actually happening then there's nothing to save and hence they can't be heroes and instead look like a bunch of chicken littles. That's the real problem here. Where there should be dispassionate scientists there are instead wannabe super-heroes.
Dave Springer:
Not true. The proxy record showed the increase from 1910 to 1945.
Dave Springer said:"The long and the short of it is that the blade portion of the hockey stick could have occurred once or even many times in the past 1000 years and the tree ring proxy would not have shown it since it failed to show it in the single instance where we know it occurred."
The blade starts well before 1960, and the proxy did "show it" in that "instance".
The logic fails because of an incorrect premise, based on a lack of knowledge.
>*The long and the short of it is that the blade portion of the hockey stick could have occurred once or even many times in the past 1000 years and the tree ring proxy would not have shown it since it failed to show it in the single instance where we know it occurred*
Even with the errors pointed out [by Martin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…), McShane and Wyner still find that:
>*"Using our model, we calculate that there is a 36% posterior probability that 1998 was the warmest year over the past thousand. **If we consider rolling decades, 1997-2006 is the warmest on record; our model gives an 80% chance that it was the warmest in the past thousand years"**.*
True that the graph at the top of the article is the correct reconstruction using Mann's data. But what the paper specifically says is that graph is 100% useless. It's no good for determining past temperatures because random data actually correlates to instrumental temperatures better than that graph seen at the top of the article.
Get it? RANDOM DATA IS BETTER THAN THAT GRAPH!
Dave Springer - "The long and the short of it is that the blade portion of the hockey stick could have occurred once or even many times in the past 1000 years and the tree ring proxy would not have shown it since it failed to show it in the single instance where we know it occurred."
Then how do the proxy reconstructions show the upswings and downswings of the MWP and LIA that you people crow about. If the proxy record cannot show these things then perhaps the MWP and LIA did not occur and/or where not as extreme as the patchy only anecdotal evidence for them suggests.
First, yeah I really believe the use of "cohorts in crime" is just an expression...
Second, as to the issue of divergence, two main points: not all trees failed to track recent warming; some track the recent warming in the instrumental record just fine. As well, trees that have diverged and those that don't track earlier temps together well. Taken together, these two pieces of evidence suggest that there is something unique about the recent 'divergence' observed in some trees; See Skeptical Science for a discussion of this.
From SS:
Note that according to SS, trees in the south did reflect recent warming. It was trees in the northern / high latitudes that showed divergence. Cook (2004) showed that trees in the northern and southern hemispheres track each other and temps well back to the medieval period, suggesting that the cause is something unique to the modern post-1960 era. Warming induced drought, decline in ozone layer/increased UV light at surface, microsite issues. In other words, anthropogenic causes or regional causes.
Divergence was known to paleoclimate types and dendros, so it wasn't a secret.
@42:
They don't. The proxy reconstruction was done to show what it's supposed to actually look like using correct methods. However, that's not enough. They also tested both the graph as well as random data to see how well they correlate to instrumental data. The random data outperformed the reconstruction.
So the reconstruction is useless. It doesn't show anything other than the hockey stick is bogus (aka worse than random data). All assertions about temperatures are done WITHIN the model. So those assertions are also bogus since they are detached from physical reality. They made all of this quite clear in the paper. They repeat it over and over.
re: Paddy: #33:
"'Correct me If im wrong but the MBH hockey stick had a horizontal (no slope) handle"
Yes, you are wrong ... as is clearly seen on p.135 of the IPCC TAR WG I, Figure 2.20, which shows a NH linear trend line (red dashes) from ~-0.2C to ~-0.35C from 1000AD to ~1850AD.
[If anything, many other reconstructions have even less MWP, albeit even lower LIA's ... which of course would make the distinct bend in the hockey stick even stronger.]
Of all the reconstruction charts I've seen, *exactly one* has a horizontal handle ... and that one is the one on the cover of my copy of The Hockey Stick Illusion...
where Montford draws a horizontal gray bar. Have I missed one somewhere else is that where you got it? And do you believe that book?
Paddy, Paddy, Paddy...
Coming from someone who thinks [Tim Curtin is the 'bees knees'...](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) why does this not surprise me.
[Your quote:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…)
>From the bits of research i have under-taken I do believe that there was in reality no instrumental coverage of more than half of the globe until the 1950s, with the non-covered areas almost wholly in the tropics. Therefore this to me could be used to create a false cold "global" anomaly in 1850-1950 relative to the warmer anomaly base period of 1960-1990 which does include the tropics?
Shows, above all, that you have no idea how global temperatures are calculated, and about anomalies. For starters global anomalies are calculated from local anomalies, not the global average temperature. For seconds, the effect of global warming is more extreme in the temperate and subpolar latitudes than the tropis, so you shoot yourself in the foot there. A dataset compased predominantly of temperate latitude measurements would show more warming than a tropic-slanted one, not less.
@Dave Springer:
I have a question for Dan. You picked up on the contents of the paper nicely but why did it "worry" you? I should think you'd be worried that Mann is right and the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. This paper reveals that Mann showed no such thing and that the earth could have warmed at this rate many times in the past. Do you -want- a climate catastrophe and you're worried that you might not get what you want?
Fair question, if somewhat tendentiously put. I don't want a climate catastrophe. I've never met anyone who does. The "worry" is a certainty-of-belief thing: I worry about the possibility that I believe the wrong thing. Don't you?
In my own work I'm always worried that I'm missing something. Most scientists will confess to similar anxieties if you get enough beers into them: worrying about data analysis is an occupational hazard. Obviously, it's not my research being discussed here, but it's hard not to feel "worry-by-proxy", if you'll forgive the expression. Of course, I don't know if McShane & Wyner are correct in their scientific conclusions, even though I can follow the statistics in considerable detail. But even the possibility that they might be right on the substantive questions is nerve-wracking from a pure science perspective. Because if they are, it opens up the possibility that scientists are providing inaccurate policy advice. This is something that *no* scientist wants, and we all go to great lengths to avoid regardless of which scientific field we're in.
Hence, "worrying": this is important, and no honest person wants to be wrong on an important topic. But I think you already knew that's what I meant, didn't you?
For what it's worth, even if it turned out that we couldn't say anything one way or another about paleoclimate over the last 1000 years (which would be a pretty extreme interpretation of their results, as I understand them), this would not have any significant effect on policy advice. It would not, for example, mean that greenhouse gases haven't caused the recent run-up in temperatures, or that they will continue to do so in the future. Paleoclimate isn't really relevant to that question at all. It only seems that way because some people obsess over it. If they had a direct case against the greenhouse effect, they'd go with that, but since they don't, paleoclimate (and Mann specifically) have become a, um, proxy for the whole of climate science.
re: #47
1) I have reason to believe that your statistical questions well-answered soon by various competent folks.
2) But, to pick a different example. 2 statisticians, with zero experience in the medical field, publish a paper that shows that medical science really has no basis for thinking there so a link between smoking and disease. In doing so, they reference 3 Wall Street Journal OpEds, a BBC piece, and multiple decades-old references, all of which I pointed out in #11. They also heavily reference a report infamous for its poor quality [Deep Climate has shown 10 pages of plagiarism already (there is more), I mentioned the reference to a black-helicopters conspiracy-theorist, and there is much, much badly wrong.]
So, is your response to say:
OK, these guys may be on to something, my kids can smoke.
OR
Pretty unlikely, I'll wait a bit and see what experts think.
Lots of papers are just wrong.
I RARELY OFFER PREDICTIONS, BUT HERE'S ONE: when the dust settles on this, within a month or two, the authors, Wharton, and the journal will be *very* embarrassed by this.
No doubt some will be touting this paper as the final nail in the AGW coffin.
It seems to me that this particular casket must be so full of ironmongery that there will be no room left for a corpse.
Vorlath - "They don't. The proxy reconstruction was done to show what it's supposed to actually look like using correct methods."
So you are now saying that the MWP and LIA did not happen? Remember MBH99 was first criticised by M&M for not showing these two events and now here you are saying that a reconstruction using 'correct' methods does not show them and cannot show them - hmmmmm interesting.
As to the other parts of your post I really do not think you understand the implications of this paper other than the rantings on CA and WUWT. Perhaps you should read some more on it before deciding this.
BTW what about the other proxy reconstructions? The ones that use neither tree rings or PCA analysis that show essentially the same thing - are they also bogus?
The key to the hockey stick debate is that it doesn't matter. We care about the future increase in temperature, not the 1 degree "blade" on any existing hockey stick that we've already experienced. I've drawn a rough new graph showing what a hockey stick would look like with a modest 3.75 degree C increase over the 21st century (it's pretty terrifying):
http://akwag.blogspot.com/2010/08/enough-ado-about-hockey-sticks-worst-…
I've just waded through the climateaudit thread on this (loads of "vindication!" type of messages).
But most interestingly, Abraham Wyner made a short comment, indicating there would be comments and discussion added. Curious to see who gets to comment/discuss.
I'm always puzzled by this stuff. I take it the authors, and some of the deniatariat responding here, believe that it is just a sheer coincidence that the "blade" corresponds to the massive upswing in CO2 emissions. A very useful coincidence because you can just give the green light to more and more emissions, nothing to worry about, any moment now the blade will just swing around and resume the downward slope, and in another 500 years or so we won't even see a blip corresponding to the last three decades. Is that what these people believe?
[John Mashey](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…),
May I take the liberty of extending your quote
>"Pretty unlikely, I'll wait a bit and see what experts think. Lots of papers are just wrong."
To:
>"Pretty unlikely, I'll wait a bit and see what experts think. Lots of papers are just wrong, and this one hasn't even gone through peer-review and been accepted for publication yet."
Stephen Gloor wrote:
"Then how do the proxy reconstructions show the upswings and downswings of the MWP and LIA that you people crow about. If the proxy record cannot show these things then perhaps the MWP and LIA did not occur and/or where not as extreme as the patchy only anecdotal evidence for them suggests."
That's what one expects. They are saying proxies don't do a good job of tracking fast steep swings. So as Dave Springer said, similar fast warming events as recorded at airports in the last 60 years could have occurred many times.
All you need to do is show that the MIA and LIA only lasted 50-60 years and you'd have a point. Comprehension is a skill best practiced without religious zeal.
Is this true? Annals of Applied Statistics has the paper on its "Next Issues" page.
On the other hand, it looks very much like a draft, it's longer than the journal 20-page policy, and it's full of errors.
Maybe it's not too late for AAS to avoid embarrassment?
If this hasn't yet been reviewed, why is it included in the articles linked under "next issues" at the journal?
http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submis…
If it has been reviewed, why does the title at the magazine refer to "Surgace" temperatures? and why is the error range amost all on the low side for the year 2000? zoom in on their black line.
Dan at 29 says: " I can't imagine that climate scientists go around collecting arbitrarily chosen data and trying to correlate any- and every- thing to the temperature record."
Makes the thread worthwhile; now Dan, google: YAD061
Of course, McI, Right S Fred, Monkey and Watts *never* do this.
Anyhoo, it seems to be the new denialist meme: The Science of Global Warming is settled. The next time you hear this, reply "YAD061".
Which is bollocks:
1) "The science is settled" is a strawman that denialists make up. Define "The science" and then you can say whether it's "settled" or not. The atomic theory of matter is pretty settled, don't you think?
2) It's odd that in a complaint about cherry picking, this one tree is cherry picked by denialists as THE ONE AND ONLY TREE Mann used. Oddly enough, the other proxies (many other trees included) don't show a global MWP either. In fact, how can ONE TREE show a global trend? All it CAN show is that MWP WAS NOT global, since it didn't happen where the tree was.
So I think cohen's post is actually more of what makes this thread worthwhile: a close insight into the denialist meme.
Can't speak for other members of the deniatariat but I can't find anything theoretically or empirically inconsistent with the IPCC position that each doubling of atmospheric CO2 causes a 1.1C increase in surface temperatures absent feedbacks. Where I take issue is this silliness about a positive feedback that amplifies that 1 degree change into a 3 degree change. There's not a shred of physical evidence to support it. CO2 concentration in atmosphere indicated by proxy in the geologic column going back many millions of years has CO2 levels up to 20 times what they are today and temperature at the same time was only 7-8 degrees higher. This is consistent with a 1 degree rise per doubling and no feedback. If there were positive feedbacks we'd get a runaway greenhouse and that simply has never happened. If it had we wouldn't be here to talk about it.
So then, acknowledging that a CO2 doubling causes a temp rise of 1 degree I next ask if there's enough fossil fuel on the planet to more than quadruple current levels. No way. We might be able to quadruple but it isn't sustainable.
So we're looking at a 2.2C temporary rise in temperature over then next century or two. Next I have to look back at the geologic column again and have a look-see at what the earth was like under those conditions. Without exception when the earth is warmer and richer in CO2 the biosphere is more productive. So I'm supposed to prefer more rocks and ice to more plants and animals? I don't think so. I'm rather looking forward to a more productive biosphere. Who wouldn't?
Copy of my post over at Tamino's blog:
I did try posting on WUWT last night, not something I do often, suggesting that people waited until the paper was published and other specialists in the relevant field had formally responded before arriving at a considered opinion â as per standard academic procedure.
It didnât make me that popular, although some of the membership did seem to broadly agree.
I feel that this practice of circulating a draft MS around the blogosphere prior to publication â for any reason â is an unwelcome development in this or any other scientific discipline. It encourages the exact opposite to objectivity.
Cheers - John
"Where I take issue is this silliness about a positive feedback that amplifies that 1 degree change into a 3 degree change. There's not a shred of physical evidence to support it."
Yes there is. The current temperature of the Earth.
33C warmer than it would be without ANY GHGs. CO2 is either more than 33% of that to have a less than 3:1 feedback effect or CO2 is a much bigger forcer of global temperatures than expected (or any denialist has EVER stated is ever feasible: it's always "H2O is a MUCH bigger forcing!!!").
Since it's the same calculation that gives 1.1C per doubling that says ~10C of that 33C warming is from CO2, to take a stance that feedbacks don't make it 3:1 warming would be internally inconsistent.
This is absent all the papers on physical measurement constraints on the sensitivity done by people like Annan et al.
cohenite's stock in trade are red-herrings .. so no need to address [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) error. To paraphrase your lovely quote - just run to mummy McIntyre.
[Here](http://img515.imageshack.us/i/oyad06.pdf/) is the chronology without YAD061
Or read a full report [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow…)
@Posted by: Dan | August 17, 2010 12:36 AM
re; worry
God, grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.
I can't change how the climate reacts to CO2 and I can't change how much fossil fuel the world burns. I work very hard at lowering my own energy consumption but it's only because I'm an engineer and constantly look for more efficient ways of getting things done rather than out of any altruistic desire. I'm under no delusion that anything I do will make any difference in the grand scheme of things.
The point is in some instances I'm happy to be wrong. Say I'm on a lonely highway at night and I believe that I don't have enough gas to make it to the next gas station. I worry that I'm right not worried that I'm wrong. If you're worried that we're heading towards a climate catastrophe you should be glad to be wrong, shouldn't you?
> CO2 concentration in atmosphere indicated by proxy in the geologic column going back many millions of years has CO2 levels up to 20 times what they are today and temperature at the same time was only 7-8 degrees higher. This is consistent with a 1 degree rise per doubling and no feedback.
Not so. 20 times is barely more than 4 doublings which is in the 4.5-5 degrees range. And implicit in your claim is the assumption that the feedback effect is constant all the way up to 20 times current levels, which I don't think many climate scientists would agree with. Many positive feedbacks (e.g. Arctic ice albedo effects) operate over a limited range and then cease - i.e. once the ice has all melted.
> If there were positive feedbacks we'd get a runaway greenhouse...
Not so. This is a common fallacy based on a lack of understanding about positive feedbacks which leads many people into drawing seriously flawed conclusions.
Imagine you have a system at equilibrium, and then you change something which changes the key variable you are measuring (e.g. you add some greenhouse gases which - sans feedback - changes the temperature). Call the magnitude of this change "delta".
Now imagine you have a feedback gain of "g". What happens?
The initial temperature change is +delta, and the feedback adds delta*g more.
But that extra temperature change due to the feedback is itself subject to feedback, so you get another (delta*g)*g change.
And that is subject to feedback, so you get (delta*g*g)*g change.
And so on, which leads to a total change at equilibrium which is the sum of a geometric series delta * SumOf(g^k) for all k between 0 and infinity. If you remember high school maths, this sum is finite for g in the range (-1..1) (non-inclusive) - and then the sum equates to delta / (1-g).
So you **only** get a runaway situation if g is >= 1 (or <= -1 which isn't relevant here). And given the result delta/(1-g) you can get **any** positive amplification you like at equilibrium with a gain less than one. For example when g = 2/3, delta / (1-g) = 3*delta.
Argh, forgot that markdown would mess with my asterisks. Try "x" for multiplication instead of "*" in the middle section:
Wow. Just wow. There has been no runaway greenhouse in the earth's history. CO2 level has been up to 20 times higher in the past yet temperatures were never more than 7-8 degrees higher.
If you won't let facts get in the way of your beliefs then I really don't have anything more to say to you because facts are all I have to offer.
Red herrings AS? Unlike your plump gooses. I prefer this to reflect the influence of "the most important tree in the world";
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/00-YAMAL.eps.jpg
I note you haven't responded to the relative contributions of H2O and CO2 to the greenhouse temperature: this will refresh your memory:
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-197…
"Wow. Just wow. There has been no runaway greenhouse in the earth's history."
Aaargh! A blinding flash of the Obvious!
Never said there was. Where do you think it exists in that quote?
"CO2 level has been up to 20 times higher in the past yet temperatures were never more than 7-8 degrees higher."
And the Sun was 10% cooler.
Duh.
"If you won't let facts get in the way of your beliefs"
If you knew the facts instead of your beliefs...
"The point is in some instances I'm happy to be wrong."
And what if you're wrong about AGW not being a problem?
Catastrophe. Because there's a ~50 year lead time on what you do now to the end result so you're 50 years too late to avoid the crash.
Oddly enough, you don't seem to be worried about being wrong there...
*Without exception when the earth is warmer and richer in CO2 the biosphere is more productive*
Totally and utterly incorrect, and this kind of statement reflects a poor understanding of complex adaptive systems. Dave Springer has in one single remark excluded trillions of important biotic interactions which play an important role in determining system productivity and stability, as well as relative contributions made by other elements in regulating biogeochemical cycles. The fact is, and I have said this a million times before but hopefully this time with the likes of Dave Springer it will resonate:
Our planet evolved more biological diversity at any time in it's history when atmospheric levels of C02 were comparatively low (e.g. about 8,000 years ago). Repeat that over and over again until it sinks in. Diversity and productivity are driven by a wealth of factors that include temperature, much less so concentrations of C02 in the atmosphere. Yet this old myth seems to resonate with the denialati, who appear to use it to draw solace on the fact that humans are driving much of the planet's systems to hell and beyond. Rapid climate warming and puimping more and more C02 into the atmsophere are not recipes for creating a green utopia in which biodiversity thrives, in fact quite the contrary. The key is the rate of change, and not the absolute values. Natural systems and in particular the species and populations that make them up are not, for the most part genetically equipped to respond to a suite of anthropogenic assaults, including the great experiment our species is conducting on the atmosphere and climate. And certainly not temporally, given the fact that these changes are occurring in the blink of an evolutionary eye. If we were talking about several thousands of years, and we were to remove other anthropogenic threats such as overharvesting, habitat fragmentation and destruction, other forms of pollution etc. from the picture, then I would be a tad more hopeful, but in combination and given the short time scales involved, its folly to talk about being optimistic on the basis of a single study as well as on erroneous ideas of correlation and causation between C02 and systemic health. A 2.2. degree rise in the space of less than 100 years will be a disaster for many of the world's ecosystems. There. It is now said.
And, for the record, I am not even bothering to discuss the effects of C02 on primary and secondary plant metabolites and their broader ecological consequences. This has been comprehensively dealt with on the TC thread. I exhausted my breath countering Tim Curtin's simplistic C02-related nonsense on that thread, and then Dave Springer pops up here saying effectively the same thing. Sorry if I appear frustrated at this kind of grade-school connect-the-dots level of understanding, but it is always shocking seeing how many people peddle the same story.
@Posted by: Lotharsson Author Profile Page | August 17, 2010 4:37 AM
Let's take the temp record and CO2 record from 1880 to 2000 at face value (I do). 1880 is when CO2 level began rising.
We can see two obvious complete cycles of 60 years each which happens to correspond with SST multi-decadal oscillations with roughly 30 years of warming followed by 30 years of no warming or slight cooling.
1880-1910 cooling
1910-1940 warming
1940-1970 cooling
1970-2000 warming
The warming exceeded the cooling by 0.4C in each iteration.
1880-1940 CO2 increased by 25ppm
1940-2000 CO2 increased by 50ppm
This is perfectly consistent with the way a GHG gas, or any insulator, works. Additional insulation has diminishing effectiveness. Compare to adding a first blanket over yourself on a cold night to adding a 100th blanket. The 100th blanket will have very little effect compared to the first one.
This is also perfectly consistent with a 1.1C rise in temperature with every CO2 doubling and no feedback. Where's the feedback? It ain't in the actual data that's for sure.
Right on schedule, the warming stopped in 2000. Even Phil Jones has admitted there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 10 years. Trenberth in the Climategate emails called it (privately of course because there can be no public questioning of the dogma) a travesty that they couldn't explain the lack of warming.
It's pretty easy to explain, actually. All they have to do is admit that the positive feedback scenario is bullshit and everything then falls neatly into place. A 1.1C calculated and actual surface temp increase per CO2 doubling with a multi-decadal SST oscillation riding on top of it.
> CO2 level has been up to 20 times higher in the past yet temperatures were never more than 7-8 degrees higher.
This cannot lead to the conclusion you draw if other non-trivial temperature influences are at different levels now compared to then, or more generally if the sum of all such temperature influences are.
Are you *really* making either of those claims, and if so on what basis?
> Where's the feedback?
Total feedback is defined at equilibrium, which we are nowhere near at.
> It ain't in the actual data that's for sure.
As I implied in my previous statement, you can ONLY make that argument if you account for the variation of all other temperature influences over the time period in question. You are not doing so.
> Even Phil Jones has admitted there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 10 years.
Oh, please. That's a complete denialist red herring, and if you're seriously arguing that is relevant you're not interested in science. (Phil Jones also noted that there *was* statistically significant warming over about 15 years - so if you quote him as an authority, or use statistically significant warming *over climatic time-scales* as a point of evidence, then in both cases your illustrative "point" is refuted.)
> Trenberth in the Climategate emails called it (privately of course because there can be no public questioning of the dogma) a travesty that they couldn't explain the lack of warming.
Right on cue - another denialist red herring. Try finding out what Trenberth was talking about rather than what you think he was saying. Hint: he was NOT saying that it has stopped warming (if only because that's an easily and robustly refuted claim).
> It's pretty easy to explain, actually. All they have to do is admit that the positive feedback scenario is bullshit and everything then falls neatly into place.
Except that as pointed out previously, then via fairly straightforward physics the earth would be 20 degrees C colder than it is - which is precisely the opposite of "pretty easy to explain, actually".
So far you've based your arguments almost entirely on fairly simple fallacies...
> Where I take issue is this silliness about a positive feedback that amplifies that 1 degree change into a 3 degree change. There's not a shred of physical evidence to support it.
Try reading the IPCC report sometime. WG1 has an entire subsection devoted to exactly that (9.6: Observational Constraints on Climate Sensitivity). And then there's some inconvenient but well-established physical principles like the thermodynamic properties of water and stuff.
And please, the whole '20 times more' meme is getting old; CO2 concentrations weren't the only thing that was different back then, you know. You are aware that the ending of that period illustrates the role of ice albedo as a climate feedback, right?
> If there were positive feedbacks we'd get a runaway greenhouse and that simply has never happened. If it had we wouldn't be here to talk about it.
Errrr.... no. Positive feedbacks in climate amplify a forcing such that the equilibrium shifts, but they don't necessarily create a runaway situation.
> I'm rather looking forward to a more productive biosphere. Who wouldn't?
Oh, I don't know. All the people living in areas that are going to be affected by desertification or sea level rises maybe? Just guessing here.
Dave Springer:
Garbage. How is it that there has been at least 0.7 deg C of warming with half a doubling of CO2 which you think can only produce 0.5 deg C of warming? And this is ignoring the heat that's going into the oceans and the effect of increase in aerosols.
No physical evidence? Pull the other one.
"God, grant me the serenity To accept the things I cannot change; Courage to change the things I can; And wisdom to know the difference."
I'm afraid he's failed you.
Or you failed him.
cohenite - all [you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) do is respond to [me](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) with more red herrings.
And it'll be a be a boon for many more of them. Plants are the primary producers in the food chain. Wherego they go the rest of the food chain including us. Plants don't grow well grow well in ice and snow. Even more to the point the warming we're seeing is predominantly in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere right where all the ice and snow is concentrated. If we could order some beneficial warming that's right where we'd ask it to be delivered. The ecological catastrophe is nothing but shrill handwaving with no empirical support whatsoever.
"Even Phil Jones has admitted there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 10 years"
Our survey says:
Nr Nrrrr.
Phil Jones has admitted that the 0.12C per decade warming seen in the past 15 years is not yet statistically significant. A year ago. Before 2010 and 2009 which were both really hot years.
In other news: Dave Springer has never denied beating his wife and says he loves it.
"And it'll be a be a boon for many more of them."
A boon for weeds. For most food plants for humans, the useful edible content is reduced in a higher CO2. Additionally the toxixcity of the natural insecticides produced by corn leaves to deter beetles is reduced in high CO2 concentrations, making their pest species pick them over much more readily.
Dave, if you won't let facts get in the way of your beliefs, you won't learn anything.
PS anyone want to check Nasif's IP address against this one?
Dave Springer:
Even with the above figures and assuming nothing else has changed, this gives a sensitivity of 7-8 degrees/(4.3 doublings of CO2) = 1.6-1.9 degrees/doubling.
Even your understanding of arithmetic is wrong Dave.
Jones was interviewed early this year.
Transcript: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Excerpt:
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
This is perfectly consistent with what I wrote about a 60 year cycle where the latest 30-year warming episode ended right on schedule in 2000 and that there would be no significant warming for the next 20 years followed by 30 years of warming commensurate with whatever fraction of CO2 doubling actually occurred from 2000-2060. So far that is spot on although I'm not going to argue that proves I'm right. But it certainly looks good so far.
Dave Springer @81:
Evidence please.
So all 9bn of us will be off to the balmy shores of Norway huh? Along with all the other plants, the primary consumers, the tertiary consumers, the water catchments, the fertile soils, the soil fauna, the...
They're not that flash in deserts either.
Ah yes, of course. The entire world only consists of the northern hemisphere. All that stuff about record droughts, record periods of record high temperatures, bushfires yada yada yada in the southern hemisphere is just media hype, right?
ROFL :-) I laughed so hard I nearly got my wallet out...
Dave Springer
>ended right on schedule in 2000
[No it didn't](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091208b.html).
Good catch, Marco @54. Here's the quote from Wyner: "The paper has been accepted, but publication is still a bit into the future as it is likely to be accompanied by invited discussants and comment. Stay tunedâ¦" The journal may be trying to do the right thing. It will be interesting to see who the discussants are.
Dave,
The plants absorb more carbon so everything's OK is very appealing - except for the poor old oceans. Unfortunately drought (and flood) make the notion of a burgeoning green saviour of the planet more and more unlikely.
According to this article on the mathematician Inez Fung -
"One major finding: droughts have already diminished the carbon absorbing capacity of the land and will continue to do so. Previous greenhouse experiments suggested that elevated CO2 levels caused plants to grow bigger and faster, an effect known as CO2 fertilization. The implication was that land-based carbon sinks -- that is, plants -- might be able to keep pace with higher CO2 levels. Fung's modeling shows that on a global scale, regional droughts are likely to curtail this effect."
and
"Her model also projects that the tropics are likely to become hotter and drier in summer months. As that happens, plants will absorb less carbon dioxide as a way to avoid water loss. In fact, atmospheric measurements over the past decade have already confirmed this effect."
There's more of this discouraging stuff in the rest of the article. http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-30-carbon-hunter/
Dave Springer,
As SteveC said. Please tell me, in detail, how complex adaptive systems will benefit by warming that occurs at rates faster than in many thousands of years, against a wealth of other anthropogenic stresses? Do you honestly believe that we could crank up the global thermostat by 2.2 C in no time and that all and that natural systems would suddenly blossom as they have not done in many millenia? What about local adaptation? Genetic constraints? Interaction network webs and phenological processes? Your posts show me, speaking as a population ecologist, that you have no basic knowledge about the factors that influence the rules governing the assembly and functioning of communities, ecosystems and biomes. Nor do you appear to know anything about the importance of scale. Are you a scientist, and have you perused any of the relevant literature on these topics? My guess is that the answers to these questions are a big whopping NO. Am I Correct?
Moreover, as you said, temperatures will rise (and already are) much faster at higher latitudes. How will plants and consumers adapted to low temperature regimes respond to a sudden, dramatic local warming? How will soil biota respond under the same scenario? Will boreal acid soils suddenly become more alkaline and support deciduous vegetation? Soil chemistry and biology plys a significant role in the functioning of ecosystems through positive and negative feedbacks with above ground vegetation, herbivores and natural enemies in complex food webs. Pushing up the temperature rapidly in combination with C02 regimes, as well as various other human-induced effects will result (correction: is also resulting) in the unraveling of food webs and critical ecological interactions. This will in turn reduce the capacity of these systems to support themselves and, ultimately, us.
Youer problem, Dave (another Dunning-Kruger disciple) is that you think natural systems function in a simple, linear way. That we tweak (or force) one parameter - in this case temperature - and everything else follows along nicely. I hate to spoil your party, but things wiull not work out this way. Humans have already simplified nature quite dramtically, reducing systemic resilience and hence stability, and also by reducing genetic variability in populations, a pre-requisite for adaptation to rapid change. I wish that you were correct, but you are not. You are wrong, and you are camouflaging what little you know about nature with frankly vacuous arguments (e.g. your 'hand-waving' argument).
I suppose I spoke over your head with respect to my stoichimetry argument and when I discussed the effects of warming and increased atmospheric C02 on primary and secondary plant metabolites. But these are vitally imporant, in that they will cascade up through food webs and then outwards over communities. Ignoring these critical ecophysiological processes as you did does not make them go away.
Until I get some form of substantial argument from you, and not a kind of tooth-fairy approach characteristic of the denial lobby (heck, most of them are not scientists, hence it is no small wonder that they spew out the simple stuff that they do), I might as well be speaking to a wall.
Dave Springer writes:
>*acknowledging that a CO2 doubling causes a temp rise of 1 degree I next*
That would be argument by bogus assumption. Given large feedbacks are consistent with, and necessary to explain warming events such as the PETM and [inter-glacial cycles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg).
>*I can't change how much fossil fuel the world burns.*
Really, then why are Fossil Industry groups spending so much money to lobby [against a price on carbon](http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up)?
Pete:
Here's the problem.. if the paper ends up being rejected or heavily modified, then the denialosphere will merrily claim that they they are being censored/silenced. And if it isn't corrected, it will be used as 'Final Proof That the hockey stick is broken' for ever more.
A suspicious mind would think that there is a deliberate PR campaign going on here to publicize the paper to the max before any rewrite or retraction can happen. Still, I'm sure that McIntyre and Watts will open their inboxes to the public to demonstrate that no such shenanigans have been arranged.
Oops.
My explanation at link for why the M&W reconstruction is erroneous, was a little too simple. It's the Wabett who gets it completely right: the fundamental error is calibration only against a hemispheric average, when local data -- the 5x5 degree grid cells of instrumental data as used by Mann et al. -- provide a so much richer source of variability -- i.e., signal -- to calibrate against.
It is this poor signal/noise ratio that helps the calibration pick up spurious low vs. high latitude temp difference "signal", which in the reconstruction interacts with the Earth axis tilt change effect.
What stands is the observation that doing the calibration against the instrumental PC1 (instead of hemispheric average) will give you back pretty exactly the genuine Mann stick(TM) even in spite of this.
Congrats Eli!
>*How is it that there has been at least 0.7 deg C of warming with half a doubling of CO2 which you think can only produce 0.5 deg C of warming? And this is ignoring the heat that's going into the oceans and the effect of increase in aerosols.*
And it also ignores the delay required to reach radiative equilibrium.
>*CO2 levels up to 20 times what they are today and temperature at the same time was only 7-8 degrees higher.*
And Dave suddenly wants to pretend CO2 was the only thing different.
Dave CO2 is not the only forcing in Earth's history. Time for [Richard Alley](http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml).
Oh Dave (81), that was the other thing:
See Dave there's all this prolonged cold and what have you way way up there in the northern hemisphere Dave, and so the ground gets frozen quite a bit - it's called permafrost. Well anyway, apparently some scientist bods found these things called methane clathrates in the permafrost, and... you still with me Dave?... well anyway it turns out that when a warming climate causes these areas of permafrost to thaw ... Dave, you following me here?... the methane (which is a greenhouse gas, apparently) will be released, which could contribute to greatly accelerated climate ch...oh. Where did Dave go?
I said it was consistent, not exact, with the distant past. The error bars for temp vs. CO2 millions of years ago are rather large. The only exacting numbers we have are very recent and must embody two complete multidecadal SST oscillations so we measure from trough to peak to eliminate the cyclic component.
25ppm increase 1880-1940 caused 0.4C rise
50ppm increase 1940-2000 caused 0.4C rise
Projecting forward:
100ppm increase 2000-2060 causes 0.4c rise
100ppm increase 2060-2090 causes 0.2C rise
That brings us to an approximate doubling (280ppm to 555ppm) for a grand total of 1.4C rise per doubling.
IPCC estimates 1.1C per doubling. Actual looks like it will come in at 1.4. If there's any feedback it appears to be about 27% at most (1.4/1.1=1.27). Contrast this with a feedback that drives the doubling to 3C increase (3.0/1.1=2.72) or 172% positive feedback.
Reality = 27% positive feedback
Imagination = 172% positive feedback
Which is the greater error from the IPCC calculated 1.1C rise per doubling with no feedbacks at all?
Dave Springer:
>*We can see two obvious complete cycles of 60 years each which happens to correspond with SST multi-decadal oscillations with roughly 30 years of warming followed by 30 years of no warming or slight cooling.*
The big problem that knocks this narrative off its perch, is that is requires us to ignore [SO2 and other aerosol forcing](http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/what-about-mid-century-co…). Dave how did you disappear these forcing factors?
Dave is here reminding you that nothing in the past, including far more CO2 than we can ever pump into the atmosphere, has ever increased the temperature of the earth more than 7-8C from where it is now. There is no such thing as a runaway greenhouse caused by CO2, or methane, or anything else in the history of the earth.
There have been runaway glaciations though. If there's a tipping point its a tipping point to a snowball earth.
The average temperature of the ocean is 4C. The only way it could be that low (it has 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere) is that is the average temperature of the surface over a 120,000 year complete recent cycle of glaciation and interglacial period. Interglacials last about a tenth as long as glacial periods.
Yeah boy, let's see what we can do to help this interglacial come to a quicker ending and get back to that average global temperature near freezing. A glacier rolling over Washington D.C. isn't such a bad idea. It might solve more problems than it creates.
We're still not at equilibrium. Your figures include only those feedbacks which operate on short timescales.
>*There have been runaway glaciations though. If there's a tipping point its a tipping point to a snowball earth*
And without GHG feedbacks show us the math of how the earth got out of that one.
Now add higher solar insolation from a maturing Sun, then add a large part of 300 millions years worth of fossilised carbon. That will give things a kick along.
8 degrees C you say. That would be catastrophe. You are a moron Dave. You've done more than jump the shark.
If the worst happens in either cooling or warming we get permafrost in Kansas or orange groves in Montreal respectively. Which should we prefer?
Was this digression with DaveScot ever related to the subject at hand?
>If the worst happens in either cooling or warming we get permafrost in Kansas or orange groves in Montreal respectively. Which should we prefer?*
Or mass death is Asia, South America, African, and Mass migration in flight.
Or we could put a price on carbon to bring forward innovation, and efficiency to model a new economy that is sensitive to environmental feedback.
Which would you prefer?
Dave Springer
>There is no such thing as a runaway greenhouse caused by CO2, or methane, or anything else in the history of the earth.
And as you've already been told, there's no such thing as a climate scientist making any such claim.
So why are you continuing with the same straw man. Are you extremely stupid, or just extremely dishonest?
It's interesting that this paper has focused peoples minds on science rather than politics!
I'm intrigued by this notion that 'random' data can produce similar results to the 'hockey stick'.
But what random data?
I assume any random data used would have an 'amplitude' limit?
Many people are mislead about what 'random data' really means, more often than not rules are applied to control random data so that it conforms to the limits expected of real world data.
But then the reality is that it isn't really so random, you are bound to get similar results to a real world situation.
So it shouldn't be surprising that similar results are achieved, in fact the random data would confirm there is a 'signal' or trend over a long period. I guess it depends on the nature of the random data and the context of the environment.
Dave Springer notes (#74):
"privately of course because there can be no public questioning of the dogma".
Gee:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostic…
Trenbert PUBLISHED his concerns. So, it was all really private...
It's like all those "hide the decline" screams ("never published!" "the populace was not informed!"), regardless of people pointing out papers in the scientific literature in the late 1990s discussing the divergence problem, and the AR4 extensively discussing that, too.
@sod: Sorry, only just noticed your comment. Thanks, between your comment and this comment at Policy Lass, I think I figured out the gist of the complaint. The impression I've got is that for a lot of the proxies, there's actually additional prior data that you can use to constrain your parameter estimates. One of the main complaints with McShane and Wyner's analysis seems to be that they don't use this extra data. I can see why that could be an issue: with so many proxies relative to years of instrumental data (i.e., the p>>n problem) estimating your regression weights from only part of the available data doesn't seem ideal. I suppose the natural way to extend the Bayesian analysis M&W would be to have specific priors for each proxy, each of which could be estimated from the available auxiliary data regarding that proxy. Actually, that might make an interesting analysis, come to think of it. In any case, ta.
@John Mashey: Yes, I'm looking forward to reading the discussion by the serious quant geeks. Not sure I understand why people are so down on their section 3.6 and section 4 yet, since as far as I can tell the paper does have analyses that fit local temperature data, and they seem to be selecting the number of principal components in both Z and X on the basis of optimising holdout RMSE, which seems quite sensible. But that's very much a view from a non-expert, so I'll be happy to sit and listen now that I understand the terms of the argument. And of course, I very strongly agree with your basic point of not overinterpreting findings from a single reanalysis by statisticians.
@cohenite: Cute. I can imagine that if there were only 12 proxies, and you didn't take care in how you estimated the model, YAD061 could be a real problem. But there are 90 proxies going back to 1000, and if I understand correctly, the usual approach is to apply PCA. If YAD061 doesn't correlate strongly with the other proxies, it's not likely to be weighted strongly in the top few components. I'd actually imagine that YAD061 would present a bigger issue for a regression model applied to the raw proxies, since it might get assigned a high regression weight all by itself, whereas PCA is more likely to dump YAD061 into the lower components. But to be honest that's pure speculation on my part... having not run the analyses myself, I think I'll shut up on this topic.
@Dave Springer: Okay, one last go. First, of course it's the case that if it really does turn out that we're not headed for a catastrophe, I'll be relieved and embarrassed to have been wrong. But like most people, I can worry about more than one thing. It's true. I have that capacity. I can also worry about having written incorrect things, or having recommended the wrong things, and so on. In fact, when you think about it, the old advice about "changing what you" can be made to cut the other way too: the basic physical laws regarding climate systems can't be changed. They are what they are. The only thing we can change (and by the logic of the old prayer, the things we should worry about) is what we believe about those laws and what we do on the basis of those beliefs. If so, worrying that you might have been wrong is sensible. But this is all besides the point. Maybe it would be more productive to acknowledge that it's okay for people to worry about many different things for many different reasons, all without it saying anything whatsoever about whether they harbour a secret desire for the apocalypse.
62, 69 Dave Springer,
"each doubling of atmospheric CO2 causes a 1.1C increase in surface temperatures absent feedbacks."
"CO2 level has been up to 20 times higher in the past yet temperatures were never more than 7-8 degrees higher."
Let's follow this step by step.
+1.1 °C for x2 CO2
+2.2 °C for x4 CO2
+3.3 °C for x8 C02
+4.4 °C for x16 CO2
+5.5 °C for x32 CO2
Doesn't work, does it? In fact, we get
+4.75 °C for x20 CO2
To get
+8 °C for x20 CO2 we need
+1.85 °C for x2 CO2
Mind you, this is all off-topic! The topic is the latest Hockey Stick.
But when has any AGW "Sceptic" ever paid any attention to the topic?
> I guess it depends on the nature of the random data and the context of the environment.
One key mistake that the denialists routinely make - along with many statisticians who should really know better - is that if a statistical treatment comes up with a null result when trying to identify causes of a trend, it does not necessarily mean that there is no cause or that the cause is completely unpredictable. All it means is that the statistical model does not adequately describe the situation, which could just as easily be the fault of the model as much as the lack of a relationship. In the case of analysing climate trends, the inadequacy is usually from not including enough knowledge of the science. Whether that is the fault of the climate scientists or the statisticians is up for debate.
Exactly. Presumably the CO2 concentration of the global ocean had reached equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 level of 280ppm because before we came along atmospheric CO2 had been stable for thousands of years. Because the ocean holds vastly more CO2 than the atmosphere,mostly at great depth, it sets the equilibrium point over the long haul (the tail doesn't wag the dog). So unless we keep pouring CO2 into the atmosphere at an exponentially increasing rate the ocean is going to drive it right back to the prior equilibrium point of 280ppm.
Oh wait. That wasn't the equilibrium you had in mind was it? I bet you thought atmosphere/ocean equilibrium was a single edged sword that cuts only one way.
DS's rant may be OT, but I think it illustrates my point about maths without science very well. c.f.:
>The only exacting numbers we have are very recent and must embody two complete multidecadal SST oscillations so we measure from trough to peak to eliminate the cyclic component.
>25ppm increase 1880-1940 caused 0.4C rise
>50ppm increase 1940-2000 caused 0.4C rise
>Projecting forward:
>100ppm increase 2000-2060 causes 0.4c rise
>100ppm increase 2060-2090 causes 0.2C rise
>That brings us to an approximate doubling (280ppm to 555ppm) for a grand total of 1.4C rise per doubling.
This shows a complete lack of knowledge when it comes to making the distinction between equilibrium and transient climate forcing, along with the fallacious notion that CO2 is considered to be the only long-term athropogenic climate forcing agent (it just happens to be the biggest). As a result, he gets the wrong answer. If he'd actually bothered to read the section of the IPCC report I'd pointed him to, he'd know this.
Sure, if you don't mind waiting a few thousand years.
How about some economic reality in this conversation.
Exponentially increasing fossil fuel consumption is what drives exponentially increasing global gross domestic product. It's the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs.
Before we throw that goose under the bus because it's shitting up the place we had damn well better have a another goose that doesn't shit so much ready to start laying those eggs.
We don't have that replacement goose. Not by a long shot. If we kill the extant goose prematurely and hobble global economic growth then we no longer have the excess capital we need to fund our quest for our cleaner goose.
The CAGW crowd is putting the cart before the horse. Get the alternative up and running first then, and only then, trash the old one. Any other course of action is irrational.
Trenberth published his concerns 60 days before they were published without his consent. One might reasonably wonder if he saw the writing on the wall and decided to be proactive about it. Meanwhile the rest of the Hockey Team was still trying to figure out how avoid FOIA requests and blackball peer-reviewed journals that dared to publish anything that might cast doubt on the dogma. Nice.
It only seems fair since I'm going to have to wait thousands of years for the ocean to fully equilibrate with CO2 forcing of temperature.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Satified with his crimes aainst maths, science and logic, Dave Springer moves on to routine denialist tropes.
I'm extremely tired of hearing about a huge feedback that somehow triples warming in coming decades yet has somehow not manifested itself in prior decades.
Does that clear it up for you any?
OMG! DaveTard, is that [you](http://www.antievolution.org/aebb-archive/aebbarchive_dave_tard_memoria…)? What happened to your pseudonym? Did Watts teach you that being onymous and ignorant carries more weight than being pseudonymous and knowledgeable?
Seriously, Martin, the global ocean sinks 60% of all the anthropogenic CO2 we through at it every single year. If we stopped emitting its reasonable to assume it would only be a matter of a few decades for it to sink most of the excess above pre-industrial levels. Not thousands of years, tens of years.
Meanwhile, with the ocean at an average temperature of 4C and a thousand times the heat capacity of the atmosphere it will take next to forever for a few degree rise in surface air temperature to be reflected in global ocean temperature. As soon as the exponential CO2 increase stops the global ocean will pull the surface air temps back down so fast it'll make your head spin.
The ocean is what drives the atmospheric temperature and CO2 content not the other way around.
The big picture is the sun heats the ocean, the ocean heats the air, and the cold void of empty space cools the air. The small but rapidly added anthropogenic CO2 effect (rising concentration and rising surface air temp) is transitory and will disappear very quickly once the exponential increase in anthropogenic emissions halts. We can't keep up the exponential increase for long - there just isn't enough fossil to dig up to keep up the pace for long. We've already reached peak oil for Pete's sake. Coal reserves won't last long if we keep using it at an exponentially increasing rate. Where is all the anthropogenic CO2 supposed to come from 50 or 100 years from now?
"Seriously, Martin, the global ocean sinks 60% of all the anthropogenic CO2 we through at it every single year."
Indeed.
"If we stopped emitting its reasonable to assume it would only be a matter of a few decades for it to sink most of the excess above pre-industrial levels. Not thousands of years, tens of years."
Fail.
The reason why there is a net uptake is because we're increasing the atmospheric concentration far too quickly for the oceans to reach notional equilibrium.
If we stopped completely, the surface waters would not take more up because the atmospheric concentrations are not increasing. So the oceans would not be taking up our previous releases.
How would it know?
After all, if the oceans COULD have held an extra 40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere (the amount we've increased atmospheric concentrations), why didn't it absorb 110ppm of the pre-industrial level?
But don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs, Dave.
"I'm extremely tired of hearing about a huge feedback that somehow triples warming in coming decades yet has somehow not manifested itself in prior decades."
It did.
But when your increase of CO2 is 0%, you get a temperature increase of 0C when you triple it, you get 0C.
This change is not observable.
OMG! Pugugly is that you?
I'm sure you can understand a desire to have a modicum of anonymity when political considerations force you to show some respect for the idea that the earth is 10,000 years old. I never resorted to pseudonyms outside that realm.
I see you still do though. I understand completely. I'd be anonymous if I were you too.
"Are you extremely stupid, or just extremely dishonest?
Posted by: Dave R "
How about "both"?
I vote he's both.
Extremely dishonest and stupid enough to think he'll get away with it.
"Dave is here reminding you that nothing in the past, including far more CO2 than we can ever pump into the atmosphere"
How do you know that this is far more CO2 than we can ever pump into the atmosphere?
Does combustion stop at some point or not?
Dean Morrison,
Based on the following quotes from M & W 2010, I conclude that we see in their paper only the most obvious tip of the ice burg. I think there will be a deluge of critical papers from the statistics (econometrics) departments of very well-known universities and research institutes on the subject of endemic problems with the analyses in the past 20 years in climate science. Finally, we will have significantly more rigour.
McShane and Wyner 2010 say that in order to "focus on the substantive modeling problems encountered in this setting" they make two "substantial" assumptions:
One assumption : "We assume that the data selection, collection, and
processing performed by climate scientists meets the standards of their discipline."
Second assumption: "We further make the assumptions of linearity and stationarity
of the relationship between temperature and proxies, an assumption
employed throughout the climate science literature (NRC, 2006) noting
that âthe stationarity of the relationship does not require stationarity of the
series themselvesâ (NRC, 2006)."
It does not get any better than this for intellectual stimulation.
John
I was just wondering myself from under which algae-covered rock Dave Springer crawled. He starts off as a concern troll and then, once that is exposed, he starts baiting and switching *ad nauseum*.
For example, he writes this patent nonsense: *If the worst happens in either cooling or warming we get permafrost in Kansas or orange groves in Montreal respectively. Which should we prefer?*
This is a strawman if ever there was one. It is like asking if I prefer to drown or be burned to death, and that we should prefer the latter, if DS's logic is to be believed.
As I said above, if the planet warms at a rate by which oranges could be grown in southeastern Canada within the time frame I believe that DS is alluding to, then we would be just speeding up the rate at which species and genetically distinct populations are being lost. Species exist within well-defined climate envelopes, outside of which they must expend more energy to survive. Certainly adaptation via migration and physiological processes is possible, but within a century? Out of the question. Problem is that intellectual lightweights like DS think that a human lifetime represents 'deep time' in an evolutionary sense. That eighty years is a long, long, time. For an individual human, perhaps. But for complex adaptive systems it is a nanosecond, much too short for species and communities to repsond. And bear in mind that interactions reinforce the strength and resilience of food webs and ecosystems, thus we will see nature unraveling in ways that we hardly believed were possible.
We already have accumulating evidence of mismatching in important predator-prey-foodplant interactions as a result of recent regional warming involving both vertebrate and invertebrate organisms. Scale this up and there could be serious repercussions for the systems in which these organisms are embedded. As I said before, ecology is the study of scales, and of interactions that reinforce stability by permitting alterate pathways for the flows of nutrients, energy etc. through the system. Humans have been tinkering with these systems quite dramtically for more than a century now, and at an exponential rate with time. It constitutes a global experiment on systems whose functioning we barely understand but which sustain life in a myriad of direct and indirect ways (aka 'ecosystem services'). It gets under my skin when people like DS and the aforementioned TC, people who lack any acumen in the relevant fields, come parading in here with simple little ideas about the benefits of warming or increasing atmospheric C02 levels, whilst not having an even basic understanding of the underlying science.
When they are caught out, they either belittle the messenger or the message, or else ignore their critics entirely. DS made a stupid point about ecosystems in high latitudes benfitting from warming, and when this was demolished, he moves on to something else, such as the economics of fossil fuel use.
I just wonder why DS has decided to pop up now into a Deltoid thread. I guess his absence until now should be seen as something of a blessing.
Springer:
>You got it right. The gist of the paper is that the proxy record can't pick up temperature increases as rapid as what occurred in the latter half of the 20th century.
So what?
I don't think this is all that surprising and I don't think anyone is expecting a proxy temperature record to be accurate over a short period.
Dave Springer, your comments have been consistently off topic. No more comments on this thread, please. Everybody else, please do not respond to him.
Dave Springer:
No it won't.
Is there anything you've actually got right Dave? So far you've just been another Gish-galloping troll.
You gotta love a guy like Dave Springer!
There are too few people out there who has as little intelligence and self-knowledge. His presence in this thread is a source of amusement. Why not keep him? Surely he could be the court jester - he just lacks the hat!
Springer:
>I should think you'd be worried that Mann is right and the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. This paper reveals that Mann showed no such thing and that the earth could have warmed at this rate many times in the past.
Erm, both Mann and this as yet unpublished paper acknowledge unprecedented warming.
From the conclusions in the unpublished paper:
"Our backcasting methods, which track quite closely the methods applied most recently in Mann (2008) to the same data, are unable to catch the SHARP RUN UP IN TEMPERATURES recorded in the 1990s, even in-sample."
Wow, I have an afternoon off and look at this! That is one successful attempt at derailing the conversation! :)
Anyhow, regarding whether the paper is or is not yet peer-reviewed: The PDF linked to even from the journal page says "Submitted to...", which suggests this is the submitted manuscript. The obvious typos and evident need of proofing supports this.
On the other hand the fact that the PDF IS linked to from the journal webpage on their 'Next Issues' section seems to suggest that the journal has at least accepted it, which means it could be at any stage between the reviewers reports recommending it be published being in and nothing else, to it being at the proof stage or beyond.
Is this the same David S as the creationist?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-evidence-for-fro…
Sorry for the O/T, but the very obvious mistakes in a recent post at WUWT are worth mentioning.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/is-hansens-recent-temperature-dat…
Goddard is comparing the recent GISS 12-month running mean with the calendar-year records without distinguishing them, and telling readers that HadCRUt 2010 is looking cooler than 1998 - by showing a HadCRUt graph ending in 2009.
The current HadCRUt graph is showing 2010 hotter than 1998.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
My post on it has been allowed and I expect Steve Goddard will do the right thing.
Tim Lambert
Your post about McShaun and Wyner, as well as many of your commentor's have been consistently off-topic. But I encourage you to continue posting. All of you!
I'm sorry to see you all are so rattled by this. It is only stating the obvious. It doesn't even shatter your belief system. Only that one artifact you held as a holy relic ...
Why not address real issues instead?
I was just wondering myself from under which algae-covered rock Dave Springer crawled.
He used to be a head honcho (under the name of DaveScot) at the intelligent design creationism blog Uncommon Descent. That pretty much tells you all you need to know about his ability to evaluate evidence.
@Jonas N
Ah, my killfile grows fat today...
Dave H,
Is that some kind of veiled physical intimidation toward Jonas N?
If so, is that kind of thing allowed here?
John
John W - is that a joke?
Is that some kind of veiled physical intimidation toward Jonas N?
No. It refers to an ignore option on usenet.
Perhaps John W doesn't know what a killfile is.
"I expect Steve Goddard will do the right thing."
I said. I was wrong.
Unbelievable that he didn't at least amend the Hadley graphic. It's a glaring error.
< /off topic >
Hockey stick is still hockey stick.
Next.
SteveF,
I did not know what a killfile is. Thanks for the help.
John
"Is that some kind of veiled physical intimidation toward Jonas N?"
Yes it is. There is a secret society of Thuggi murderers who use only nailfiles to kill.
If you have a problem, and you can find them. Maybe you can hire them...
"If so, is that kind of thing allowed here?
John"
It's allowed everywhere. If if were ever banned, then the blog owner would wake up one morning WITH A MYSTERIOUS MANICURE!!!
Off-topic discussion on killfiles continued on the Open Thread...
I know DNFTT and all that, but this demonstrates a comical inability to follow a simple plot.
The equilibrium he was referring to is temperature. Since the ocean is a giant heat sink it slows down the rate at which the atmosphere reaches equilibrium temperature due to increased GHG forcing.
So doubling of CO2 is expected to happen sometime around 2050. It will be some decades after that when equilibrium temperature is reached. You've stated that this value should be 1.1 degrees C. You've also admitted that current temperatures are already 0.8 degrees above preindustrial levels. This is vastly higher than what it should be if we won't be reaching 1.1 degrees until the year 2080 or so, given that most of the increase should be on the back end. Obviously, the climate sensitivity you predict is thoroughly contradicted by the evidence.
Just so we are clear:
To "prove" that proxies can't beat "random" sequences at predicting temperatures, they test the performance of random-based and proxy-based fitted models (which tends to make them a bit less random) at interpolating a smooth trend over a short period?
As in, fitting both the random-based and proxy-based model to instrumental record minus a 30 year chunk in the middle, and then triumphantly pointing out that proxies don't do better at following the almost-straight line in the middle?
The money shot is the passage where they point out that proxies do beat random in the extremities - when they have to actually predict stuff, instead of just hugging a smooth line from given point A to given point B. Somehow they manage to see this as a proof of the researchers' carelessness.
Folks, it seems our world-wide conspiracy to convince the world that proxies can resolve minute variations around the long-term trend (as opposed to, you know, the long-term trend
itself) has been foiled! All hail our new line-fitting overlords!
Dave Springer is doing the Gish Gallop:
"One might reasonably wonder if he saw the writing on the wall and decided to be proactive about it."
Right. The paper was published 2 months before the UEA e-mails were made available. This means it was likely written more than 3-4 months before that. Trenberth has supernatural powers!
In the meantime, Jones was resisting frivolous FOIA requests, considering that anyone could ask for the raw data from the holders of said data. But as we know, that's too much work for the deniars.
Yes, Dave Spring/DaveScot/DaveTard is the notorious creationist who used to be co-moderator of "Uncommon Descent", Dembski's blog.
Arguing with him about climate science is as productive as arguing with him about biology.
So Tim Lambert's admonishment to not respond to him is the perfect response to his dribble.
"It will be some decades after that when equilibrium temperature is reached. You've stated that this value should be 1.1 degrees C."
Nope, it will be ~3.3C.
"This is vastly higher than what it should be if we won't be reaching 1.1 degrees until the year 2080 or so,"
Except it will be 3.3 degrees by then. So 0.7-0.8 at the moment is quite within the realms of possibility.
@52 (Stephen Gloor):
The reconstruction cannot be used to determine anything about the past 1000 years because there is too much uncertainty. It is a 100% useless model. So no, I am not saying that the MWP and LIA did not exist. I am saying that the correct reconstruction wasn't meant to show it or not show it. It was meant to show the huge uncertainty, even when the correct methods are used, where it cannot model the reality of the past 1000 years (where the MWP and LIA actually DID exist).
"The reconstruction cannot be used to determine anything about the past 1000 years because there is too much uncertainty"
That is incorrect.
The determination of whether you can determine something or not is a statistical test.
And according to that test, you CAN say something about the past 1000 years.
Now, even absent that, what's the point? If you don't know what's happened over the last 1000 years, CO2 is still a greenhouse gas and it's still 40% up.
"where it cannot model the reality of the past 1000 years (where the MWP and LIA actually DID exist)."
Were you alive then?
No.
Were there thermometers then?
No.
Therefore how can you say they really existed without using proxies?
Wow @151:
To be clear, it is Dave Springer who believes climate sensitivity is 1.1 degrees, and I was responding to him. For my part, I have no reason to doubt that it's closer to 3. As you correctly point out, the current temperature increases we've experienced are consistent with that higher number (and inconsistent with Dave's).
Just out of curiosity, what is the evidence that these things existed? Apparently paleoclimate modeling can't detect them. So what does that leave?
Fair enough, Steve. Apologias.
Just like when you want to know the official time of the Earth, you look to [England](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/06/ipcc_1990_fig_71c_again.php) for the temperature.
Humph, I don't bump into Dave Springer for years, then he goes and gets warned for being off topic. The internet isn't that small a place, so its fun to see someone from after the bar closes here.
Even if they are wrong on everything. His post at #120 is a msterpiece of creationist thinking, seeing the trees but not the wood. (Obviously he knows nothing about oceanic circulation)
61 Wow: "Of course, McI, Right S Fred, Monkey and Watts never do this."
That should be 'Wrong S Fred'?
Thanks to everyone for discussing this paper at length. It's soooooo the new meme from our favourite pretend sceptics that it puts the nail in the coffin of the hockey stick and jumps up and down on the headstone.
Wow wrote:
"where it cannot model the reality of the past 1000 years (where the MWP and LIA actually DID exist)."
Were you alive then?
No.
Were there thermometers then?
No.
Therefore how can you say they really existed without using proxies?"
Apparently back then there were these people that wrote about stuff. I know it sounds crazy, but they made observations of what was going on around them. Apparently they didn't have some computer model to tell them the "truth". Crazier still, speech and writing was well established, and this thing called "history" emerged. This meant that these crazy people wrote down what was happening around them. I understand that this is a revelation to you.
Apparently another stats person has weighed in, and found the paper sound. Best start an attack on their reputation now, Tally ho!
@Harry
> This meant that these crazy people wrote down what was happening around them. I understand that this is a revelation to you.
Of course, given that they did not have the tools to perform any actual measurements, all we can do is look at these many and diverse accounts and attempt to infer from that piecemeal and unreliable record what the temperature may have been - ie, a proxy.
Harry pray tell us how, without instruments or checking the weather bulletin, how you would expect you're scibes to tell the difference between a July afternoon that's 26C and one that's 30C?
Or a winter morning that's 2C or 6C?
And then please tell us precisely which written records you're alluding to, because you're not actually referencing anything so far.
re #162
You're = your
Do that again and I'll sentence myself to two days reading Bishy Hill's blog.
Deterrent enough by any standard.
Does anyone consider it strange that having mentioned bubbles and Antarctic ice-cores in the introduction, that they make no further mention of them. Since the study is all about accuracy, it seems most peculiar, unless there was an intention to mislead.
Why do they mention this? (Bottom of page 5.) Is it scientific? -Erm, sounds political to me!
A little digging reveals:
In 2006 (109th Congress) the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce was Joe Barton, R-TX, Dirty Energy Money rated Barton No.1. Then it was $370,600 (Today it's $1,707,173) (43% Coal: 57% Oil) (Barton's Dirty Money)]
The chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce ,
[Ed Whitfield Funding Then it was $47,825 (Today it's $360,051) 58% Coal: 42% Oil (Whitfield's Dirty Money)]
I'm beginning to think that Final Nail is a brand name and not a description.
"Harry pray tell us how, without instruments or checking the weather bulletin, how you would expect you're scibes to tell the difference between a July afternoon that's 26C and one that's 30C? Or a winter morning that's 2C or 6C"
I'd argue that this isn't required, as we are dealing with a denialist site where people are attempting to eradicate the MWP and LIA from history and to burn a few statistician heretics at the stake. So we are dealing with the reality of rather large events, not the quibbling over decimal points.
The LIA didn't require finely tuned thermometers because the population notice the preponderance of white cold stuff around them. They noted that it was sufficiently abundant as to cause them to get really cold and make it difficult to gather enough food for themselves. Others, also quite hungry, noticed that it was rather difficult to grow the same crops that had been farmed there for centuries. Egads! they thought to themselves, I wonder if this is different to before, could it be colder? No, of course not! I don't have a finely tuned thermocouple and a laptop showing me the thickness of a North American bristlecone, my eyes must be deceiving me. Apparently, in bye-gone times, the man on the land was able to discern the opposite effect during the MWP. Who'd have thunk!
By the way, a thermometer is a proxy too! So your argument is rather silly. You'd best return to the bonfires folks. Plenty more science to burn.
And there's the difference between science and denialism in a nutshell. On one hand, we have numerous coherent criticisms of the paper, and on the other: 'an unnamed statitician said it was good.'
harry said:"By the way, a thermometer is a proxy too!"
That is precious. Keep posting!
You're absolutely right folks, I've got nothing to offer except venting my own spleen with no evidence whatsoever
165 pough,
The Final Nail would be a good name for a (thrash) metal band.
(Sorry, OT).
"You're absolutely right folks, I've got nothing to offer except venting my own spleen with no evidence whatsoever"
Perhaps you might review the posts on this site. A bunch of children waiting for someone to tell them this paper is flawed in some way and that they can go back to believing again, Mashey drops in having trawled some garbage bins, hoping to find some distant relationship to a discredited right-wing politician, but it's early days, so he makes do with some astro-turfing about lying with statistics. Then we get the same chorus proclaiming with certainty that these proxies as are accurate as a scientific thermometer despite requiring the rejection of most samples (apparently only the trees that John West doesn't reject are thermometers) because the average of the spaghetti we get leads to a relatively flat and convenient graph.
The paper deals with the statistical methods used by Mann, it isn't a political document. If there are flaws with it, then find them, and by all means criticise its shortcomings, but do so with the same zeal that you look for the shortcomings in those papers you find convenient to you belief system. I'm guessing with such an approach, the methods of non-statisticians like Mann might be a tad more troublesome.
Oh, and once your done teasing out the fine points, have a thought on how bad that graph's uncertainties would look when the proxies that Mann removed in his "hidden" corrigendum aren't there.
Harry ...
Were these people living in north america, south america, africa, or asia? Help me out, I forget which continent(s) they were living in that prove these events were global...
166 harry,
Ignoring your amusing little story-telling, perhaps you could tell us all where and when all this noticing of, and writing about, the weather was done.
MartinM said:
"And there's the difference between science and denialism in a nutshell. On one hand, we have numerous coherent criticisms of the paper, and on the other: 'an unnamed statitician said it was good.'"
Golly you guys don't like doing your own research ... best look before pontificating, oh sorry, I forgot, you guys don't read inconvenient things. http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2773
I must say, climate science graphs look much neater without the confidence bands.
In other words Harry, you have a head full of unreferenced twaddle and some twaddle web site to direct us to.
Pretty much as expected.
Yeah, because I could totally have found that on the strength of 'a stats guy looked at it!'
I started reading these comments, but then I realised they are a waste of time, since the Watts crowd are just repeating their talking points and pretending they read the paper.
I wish they would go away. Or better yet - read the paper, and find the flaws. "Climate Audit"? Go on - I dare you!
dhogaza wrote:
"Were these people living in north america, south america, africa, or asia? Help me out, I forget which continent(s) they were living in that prove these events were global..."
In questions such as these, where you clearly have a lack of knowledge, I've always advised a first look at the wikipedia entry.
Although it may contain some biased writings, you can scour through the references and make your own mind up. And then, should you be motivated, conduct some of your own research. As for the entry that exists to-date on the LIA, it seems to make reference to a diversity of coldness throughout the planet ... Africa, South America and of course lots of evidence in the northern hemisphere, where as we all know the greater land mass should amplify climate changes. It is curious that these pseudo-science denialist sites invert the logic of northern hemisphere land-mass amplification by claiming that the greater prevalence of reports from the northern regions indicates it might be a local event. Crazy stuff huh!
Oh, and there's probably a little amplification between North-South by the greater emphasis on a recorded literary tradition, but that's probably inconvenient too, so it's best ignored.
"The LIA didn't require finely tuned thermometers because the population notice the preponderance of white cold stuff around them."
Really? So the Amazon basin was snow covered during the LIA.
There's interesting...
MartinM wrote: "Yeah, because I could totally have found that on the strength of 'a stats guy looked at it!'"
Strangely I had this expectation that when conducting a criticism of a science publication, you would have conducted a wider reading than just this site. Apologies.
Apparently there are search engines available which have indeed indexed this publication and a variety of comments on it - though the ones with "real climate scientists" tend to lose lots of posts.
A quick search would have revealed that statisticians are commenting on it. Something that I would have expected to have some relevance prior to tossing it on your bonfire, but alas, what would I know ...
"Apparently back then there were these people that wrote about stuff."
Ah, so when written down, something isn't a proxy.
Well guess what, shylock, the tree ring data has been written down too.
So I guess that makes them just as reliable!
[Shorter Harry said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) "Don't ask me! Check wikipedia!
Wow wrote:
"Really? So the Amazon basin was snow covered during the LIA.
There's interesting..."
Actually 'd be expecting more of an effect on Patagonia and the Andes, Equatorial regions wouldn't be my first place to look for this type of effect. Interesting approach indeed.
@Harry
Golly, I forgot you don't like truth or facts or inconvenient stuff like that! Golly, I forgot you like to equate a paragraph of your own fictitious ramblings with actual evidence! Golly, I forgot you swallow anything you're fed as long as it sounds like what you want to hear! Golly, do you think if you pile enough wrong statements into one space you might actually come out the other side and be right? Only in your own mind.
177 harry,
As expected from an arrogant ignoramus, you have responded with nothing more than vague references and straw men.
Just cut the bluster and show some analysis. (If the information is so accurate and plentiful, why hasn't it been done before?)
... because unless you scour every moonbeam website there is out there, you people obviously aren't interested in research!
182 harry,
Your punctuation is so bad that this is ambiguous. Are the Andes not Equatorial, even in part?
thank you harry, you've reminded me to add another name, Willaim Briggs.
He sometimes writes for Pajamas Media,
specifically his posts, which can be used to calibrate his views.
The hockey stick purports to do 2 things; show the current temperature rate of increase is unprecedented and that current temperatures are unprecedented; the first is rebutted by this:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2…
The second here, Figure 3 is good:
http://dahuang.dhxy.info/ClimateChange/940.pdf
Dave H nails harry's argument:
>*Of course, given that they did not have the tools to perform any actual measurements, all we can do is look at these many and diverse accounts and attempt to infer from that piecemeal and unreliable record what the temperature may have been - ie, a proxy.*
And harry's method is to read wiki entries to find bits he likes. I.e. cherry pick. This is not a valid way of compiling a proxy temperally and spacially.
But given harry's invalid (cherry picked) method you'd expect he'd at least present some anecdote to support his hypothesis of less snow during the MWP.
Even reconstructions published in in the IPCC's report shown there could have been a MWP a little warmer than adjacent centuries. Why hasn't harry confirmed this with his cherry picking proxy?
Vorlath - "So no, I am not saying that the MWP and LIA did not exist. I am saying that the correct reconstruction wasn't meant to show it or not show it. "
So how do you know they do exist. A few vague references to grapes somewhere does not constitute objective evidence. So the LIA and MWP might be just figments of some imaginative chronicler.
Also the ice cores are obviously bogus as well as they rely on calcium proxies to get temperatures. So there goes all the past ice ages and the denier 'factoid' that temperature leads CO2 rises. So really we cannot possibly say, because we are relying on, in your words, bogus proxies to determine the past whether there were any previous ice ages or warm periods. So this one might be the only one according to you. Even sea levels rely on proxies of shell densities etc and ice age/warm periods information are proxies, as are the stalactite records that you people like to trot out as evidence of the global nature of the MWP. They are all out now according to you.
How about you go away and have a chat with the crowd at WUWT and CA and decide amongst yourselves which proxies are OK and which are not.
Fig.3 in Zhang et al 2008 is no help to you,cohey. Oh,and the paper is about the history of the Asian Monsoon as can be divined from one proxy/location,not about hockey sticks and precedents. The warmth around 600AD does coincide nicely with the last time,before the present,when parts of southern Greenland were ice free. How mobile should we make the MWP?
cohenite confirms [increasing rate of warming](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860…)
1860 t 1880 (20 years) Least squares trend line; slope = 0.104956 per decade.
1910 to 1940 (30 years)Least squares trend line; slope = 0.152788 per decade
From 1975 to Presnet (35 years sustained) Least squares trend line; slope = 0.171348 per decade
[cohenite](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…), as usual, also shoots himself in the foot.
[The reference he gives](http://dahuang.dhxy.info/ClimateChange/940.pdf) states clearly:
>"This anomaly suggests that the dominant forcing of AM variability changed from natural to anthropogenic around 1960"
Do you have a point to make about this paper, cohenite, or are you just trying to derail / send the conversation off-topic, as usual.
> I'm beginning to think that Final Nail is a brand name and not a description.
It's not a brand name, it's a contraction of a longer one - "**I Can't Believe It's Not A Final Nail**".
MFS; read what I said which I'll repeat: "show the current temperature rate of increase is unprecedented and that current temperatures are unprecedented;" the Zhang paper shows clearly that current temperatures are not unprecedented; they do say AGW is responsible for the post 1960 increase; good for them, that's another argument.
jakerman; I'm not sure where you get your decadal trend lines; the HadCrut one I posted had a trend equivalence between 1860-1880 and 1975-2009; there's no doubt the 1990s had the highest trend but 1910-1940 was a more rapid increase then from 1976-1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1976/to:1998/trend/pl…
There's nothing exceptional here; decadally, 2000-2010 had asharp decline in rate of increase compared with 1990-2000; if AGW is getting worse why would that be?
cohenite,
The temperature of a cave in China, as you ought to know, no more proves the existence or otherwise of the MWP and LIA than an unseasonally warm spring day would prove AGW. Both are local phenomena, one in space, the other in time.
I repeat, how is your point related to the discussion at hand, which is about the merit of otherwise of [McShane & Whyner 2010](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-2010.p…)
cohentie writes: jakerman; I'm not sure where you get your decadal trend lines;
I get it [from here](http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860…).
>*the HadCrut one I posted had a trend equivalence between 1860-1880 and 1975-2009; there's no doubt the 1990s had the highest trend but 1910-1940 was a more rapid increase then from 1976-1998:*
So [you cropped off 13 years of warming](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcr…) to get a different result. You think that makes your arguemnt better?
The current warming is both faster and more sustained than the pre 1940 warming. And it is taking us higher and higher into more anaomalous temperature ranges.
> ...if AGW is getting worse why would that be?
Good question; shame you only ask it to (apparently) advance a fallacious presumption.
It's all quite Gilligan-esque - this is the one where they almost get off the island! Absolutely for sure - just like last time - the Final Nail is being driven into a fat lady, to make her sing. Oh, and the jig is up. Can't have a denialist circle-jerk without the jig being up.
MFS; again you don't read what I write, which is about Hockey-sticks; that's relevant isn't it?
jakerman; so, you went to the WFT anomaly chart; where are your calculations for the trend slopes you conclude at 193? In respect of trend slopes I suspect you are including 2010 as a full year; that is inappropriate since 2009 is the last complete year so this trend depiction is truer:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/pl…
@cohenite
Ahaha - brilliant parody there, highlighting how the pointless cherry pick of specific outlier years - 1998 in particular - was used in the past to dishonestly create warped trends. I especially liked the use of 40 year trends compared to a 12-year one, that's a really nice touch. Thankfully almost nobody tries this old nonsense on anymore...
Oh. Wait.
There's been much talking of hockey sticks and cherry picks.
This would seem to be an apposite time to make mention of the paper "Phenological data series of cherry tree flowering in Kyoto, Japan, and its application to reconstruction of springtime temperatures since the 9th century" by Aono & Kazui (Int. J. Climatol. 28: 905â914 (2008). [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1594](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1594/abstract)). Their figure 6 is especially interesting, although as it is in three panels the implication of the trajectory is a little difficult to discern.
To make it a little clearer I've done a quick and nasty [cut & paste and rescaling](http://i34.tinypic.com/119cvm0.jpg).
Is it just me, or is there a hint of a cherrywood hockeystick?
[I should have labelled the axes of my graphs](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…), even though they are rather obvious.
The x-axis is time in years AD, and the y-axis is the mean March temperature as inferred from the commencement of blossom burst, dutifully noted by generations of Japanese celebrating the Cherry Blossom Festival.
Yeah, that's right Dave H, nothing happened in 1998, move along folks, everything's normal, nothing to see here. Actually, speaking of outliers, the rot set in in 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/pl…
Now, Dave, where's the outlier? That'll do for me; I'm not going to get any sense on this thread and the image of Bernard and cherry blossoms is just too much.
"Yeah, that's right Dave H, nothing happened in 1998"
Well that's what denialists were saying when 1998 came out as the hottest year ever.
Funny how that changes.
"Actually 'd be expecting more of an effect on Patagonia and the Andes, Equatorial regions wouldn't be my first place to look for this type of effect"
Why? Surely it would get cold in the Amazonian basin.
And what human moves to colder and less hospitable places in the winter?
Maybe the MWP was just people moving south in the winter to get away from all the snow and recording how hot it was (and neglecting, because EVERYONE they were writing for KNEW that, they had moved).
So the MWP is because someone from Carlisle moved to Portsmouth for the winter and thought it rather hotter.
Sorted!
cohenite writes:
*jakerman; so, you went to the WFT anomaly chart; where are your calculations for the trend slopes you conclude at 193?*
I [linked you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) to the working raw data try scolling down to see the slopes results.
>*In respect of trend slopes I suspect you are including 2010 as a full year; that is inappropriate since 2009 is the last complete year so this trend depiction is truer:*
You guessed wrong cohenite. I linked you to the monthly anomaly, it is not using 2010 as a full year is is using only upto 2010.5.
And you are still desperately croping off 13 years of warming. Why? and why is [my warming slope](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcr…) higher than yours if there was a slowing from the beging of 1998 to present?
You are funny Anthony. Desperate, but funny.
cohers, I fixed [your little chart](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) for you. Do you often chop out the data that conflicts with your preconceptions? The world always starts in 1998 for your lot.
Ah yes, William Briggs -
Or so he wrote on January 22nd this year, in a piece called 'Actually Weather is Climate.'
So how much more statistically appropriate can it be to take the unprecedented freak weather conditions prevailing across the globe this year, not to mention the record global temperature overall, to confirm the theory of AGW, given that they are completely consistent with it?
And Briggs seems to have been blissfully unaware in that post that the world does not begin and end in the north-eastern US; rather a remarkable oversight for some putative statistical Solomon...
No amount of nit-picking or rotating the Hockey Stick clockwise can actually make the observable phenomena around us go away, and we have to remember that by 2100 the blade's dominance over the handle will be beyond the power of tweaking to ignore.
Whoops, [here is](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010.5/trend/…) cohers chart that I referred to with the up-to-date data that cohers removed.
202 cohenite,
WFT only uses the data available. You can not make it include 2010 as a "full year" as all the data doesn't exist yet. Do you think it somehow makes up the remaining months?
You do understand that the figures are anomalies?
Do you really not know where to find the trend calculations?
jakerman: "and why is my warming slope higher than yours if there was a slowing from the beging of 1998 to present?"
Because your slope begins in 1975 not 1976 where there was a pronounced step or break in the trend; by starting a year earlier your OLS spreads the step from a cooler beginning accentuating the slope; from the endpoint you also ignore the downtrend from 1998, the hottest year of the 30 year satellite period; correcting your warming slope to take account of these 2 dominant factors and your increased warming trend disappears.
The denier song never changes. It has four verses: the "Look, an anomaly!!!" verse, the global warming has stopped verse, the hockey stick is broken verse, and the Al Gore verse. These verses are separated by choruses of "World socialist government! Oh nooooo!"
Which would be apparent if I included the link:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1976/trend/plot/hadcr…
The entire conclusion, rms:
Don't take it out of context.
214 cohenite,
It makes sod-all difference [which year you start from](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1974/trend/plot/hadcr…). Yes, there are differences but anyone who thinks they matter really ought to read [this warning](http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#trends).
I still haven't seen a decent explanation of why one would *expect* proxies to **predict** temperatures. Are they using the word "predict" in a weird and different sense?
For anyone who might be wondering, here's a rough and ready overlay of McShane's and Wyner's graph at the head of this thread, on the [very rough and ready cut'n'paste of the Aono and Kazui cherry blossom figure](http://i36.tinypic.com/2hehf7p.jpg).
They agree quite well after around 1400 AD, but someone's wagon seems to be wheel-less before that time...
Apologies for the poor quality of the graphic - not having my own laptop to hand, I had only Paint and Word to merge the figures together, and little patience to do it carefully!
216 Katharine,
The context being ...?
It's easier to read with paragraph breaks. ;)
219 Lotharsson,
It's gibberish, like their (mis)use of the word "artifact".
They appear not to know what "predict" means.
Of course, I should have pointed out that the pre-1400 divergence is not necessarily inconsistent, as the cherry-blossom figure pertains only to Kyoto, whilst the S&W figure is a global depiction.
The divergence might simply indicate that Kyoto did follow the global temperature trend as closely before 1400 AD as it did after.
If this is the explanation for the discrepancy, the next question would be "why?".
[Wince]
Did anyone spot my Freudian slip?
cohers writes:
>*Because your slope begins in 1975 not 1976 where there was a pronounced step or break in the trend*
So you cut out the warming from 1975 to 1976. And did you expect us not laugh?
>*by starting a year earlier your OLS spreads the step from a cooler beginning accentuating the slope;*
Again what you are doing is removing the warming 1975 to 1976. Why not remove some more and argue that warming is even less?
>*from the endpoint you also ignore the downtrend from 1998, the hottest year of the 30 year satellite period; correcting your warming slope to take account of these 2 dominant factors and your increased warming trend disappears.*
So you cherry pick a subset (1976-1999) warming at 0.17 C per decade. Which is within the [larger warming trend](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcr…) (1975-present) warming at 0.17 C per decade.
Well done for once again confirming that our current warming trend is both faster and more sustained than any other on record.
224 Bernard,
You could've had S&M. Depends on your interests, I suppose.
So this guy did excactly what I expect the alarmosphere to do: cherry pick a phrase or a graph out of context and say "hey it just verifies Manns results!".
McShane&Wyner: "2+2=5 is not true, 2+2 is actually 4"
Deltoid: "MCSHANE SAID 2+2=5!!"
WHAT if you ACTUALLY READ THE WHOLE PAPER, before making any laughable cherry-picked conclusions only to support your belief-system.
Josh's cartoon nr. 31:
http://cartoonsbyjosh.com/tipping_point_scr.jpg
"The hockey stick lives!"
TOUCHÃ!
"WHAT if you ACTUALLY READ THE WHOLE PAPER,"
You mean like the quotes that call Mann's work the best quality, the results correct and never once mentions M&M?
"before making any laughable cherry-picked conclusions only to support your belief-system."
Like your belief that this paper destroys the hockey stick (it confirms it), destroys Mann's work (replicates it) and confirms McIntyre (it doesn't mention it)?
PS, since it's not yet published, wouldn't Watt's printings of it be cherry picked conclusions too?
"Like your belief that this paper destroys the hockey stick (it confirms it), destroys Mann's work (replicates it) and confirms McIntyre (it doesn't mention it)?"
OMG.
HOW ABOUT IF YOU JUST READ THE PAPER instead of ridiculing yourself. Please read even the Conclusions if anything else.
They indeed cite M&M various times (you said they didnt). They support Wegmans findings. They conclude THS is heavily lacking in the data. They conclude even fake noise has more 'predictability'. They critisize the blade from thermometer data (page 3). They critisize almost EVERYTHING that hockey stick is and was. Even the plot you so much love to cherry pick out of context DOES NOT SUGGEST MBH98 was correct. Yeah, it is a bit stickey if you tilt it counter-clockwise.
No. It does NOT replicate nor support THS in the manner you would like to believe it does. Please take your AGW-glasses off.
"OMG. HOW ABOUT IF YOU JUST READ THE PAPER"
I did.
Why don't you try it as opposed to reading on WuwT what you're supposed to think it says.
Does any true believer in CAGW dare to read this paper? Judging from this thread they prefer to read totally misleading and out of context quotes, than find out anything about the paper at first hand.
Wow says MW "never once mentions M&M". True, apart from on pages 5, 16 and 19 and in the references. It should be obvious even to the most ardent true believers who has read the paper that the purpose of MW was to show that even if M&M were wrong in their criticism, and in particular even if all the proxies were perfect, the Mann method produces nothing of any value.
You have to read between the lines to work out whether they really think M&M were wrong, or that the proxies were any good, so that may be a little more difficult.
"I did.
Why don't you try it as opposed to reading on WuwT what you're supposed to think it says."
No you did not, or you just dont understand what you have been reading. Your making yourself a denier now.
Did I say a word about WUWT? I dont give rats ass what Watts says since I can go ahead and read the actual paper from page 1 to page 47. The message is clear unless having CAGW-glasses on. I dont need any bloggers opinions to find out whats in there and what isnt. The paper clearly dismisses THS in both, in the data and in the analysis, they even "replicate it" (I guess your head must be tilted clockwise to see any "replication".)
@Lotharsson and truesceptic: I'm pretty sure the McShane & Wyner paper is using the word "predict" in the standard way that statisticians do. Any time a model constructs an estimate of one quantity (e.g., global temperature at time t) it is quite common to refer to that estimate as the model prediction for that quantity. That's still what you call it even if you (the scientist) actually know the true value of that quantity and don't need to "predict" it in any meaningful sense, or if the event has already happened, and so you're talking about a "prediction" about the past.
In stats language, it's perfectly sensible to refer to the "model predictions for global temperature, years 1000-1850". In fact, except for people who still cling to the old language, the standard name in statistics for "variables you use to construct your model estimates" is a "predictor" [1]. As a stats person I spent most of the paper mentally reminding myself that the "proxies" referred to the predictor variables, and that "temperatures" are the outcome variables. Otherwise the paper makes no sense to me!
In any case, the way that M&W use the word "predict" is really very standard in statistics. It's so common that (a) I've forgotten what the word "predict" means in everyday language and therefore (b) I'm actually worried that I've misunderstood your concerns. Was that what you were disagreeing with, or have I missed your point?
[fn1. the older term was "independent variables", but that's just a terrible name because they're generally not independent of anything in particular.]
"Does any true believer in CAGW dare to read this paper?"
Go ahead and find one.
It's a made-up bogeyman of the rightwing denialist nuts trying to scare people into paralysis by proclaiming all sorts of calamities if ANYTHING is done about the problem.
For example, I've never seen anyone prove that mitigation will COST (net of benefits and losses) hundreds trillions of dollars. Yet they're adamant that it will.
And do either of you see the piccy at the top there?
That's from the paper.
Looks like a hockey stick to me..!
PS I think that this paper is a good start, but statisticians need to talk more to climatologists before we can trust their work.
@killary & Juho
"If we consider rolling decades, 1997-2006 is the warmest on record; our model gives an 80% chance that it was the warmest in the past thousand years". M&W (2010)
And every year since has been [warmer still.](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2006/trend/plot/giste…)
Who exactly do you think you're kidding with your loudly proclaimed, wishful thinking, 5-1 bet on this unreviewed paper killing the extant paleo record?
And more to the point, seeing as you brainboxes must have some other as yet undisclosed mechanism in mind - when do you see the global temperature trending down, because that's what matters, not your trash-driven beliefs.
And lets look at the "mentions" shall we, since the newboi trolls don't want to let anyone know what they're talking about (since they don't know either):
Page 5: "Chairman of the subcommittee on oversight and investigatons formed an ad hoc committee of statisticians to review the findings of the findings of M&M."
Yeah, this isn't really mentioning the report. It's merely reporting. I thought this was supposed to be a research paper, not a newspaper?
Page 16: "similar to the that of McIntyre and McKitrick".
Yeah, this isn't a mention that brings anything more to the table. M&M's paper is mentioned in the same way as the subcomittee was.
Still nothing about the paper except to say "they didn't do it this way either".
And page 19: "it was shown in McIntyre and Mckitrick".
Nothing there either. Nothing about the paper except a blatant assumption that the paper was right.
"It was shown that the Earth is the centre of the universe" was also true.
It was wrong, but there were papers showing that the earth was the centre of the universe. The statement didn't say they were *right*.
And looking on page 21, Fig10 has a lot of graphs that show Current Temps (it ends their graphs on ~1990, so the two warmest decades on record are not plotted...) all look very much like this warming is unprecedented and very much like a hockey stick (though you could call it a scythe).
Did either of you two bozos read the paper yourself, or did you just get instructions?
"@Lotharsson and truesceptic: I'm pretty sure the McShane & Wyner paper is using the word "predict" in the standard way that statisticians do."
And this is the problem with statisticians working in a clique like this: they don't know anything but the stats.
They need to know the physics.
They really should work more with climate scientists because without that expertise, their statistical methods may be correct, but their physical basis is woefully lacking, to an extent that makes the work nearly worthless.
PS how come when Al Gore uses words in a common-sense way, the denialerati jump all over it as being non-science, but when a bunch of math bods may be saying AGW is all wrong, there's a deafening silence when they do the same thing. If anything, a huge rush of apologetics making excuses.
"Did I say a word about WUWT?"
Well, no. You never hear shills saying where they're from because that would negate their efforts.
An astroturf attempt saying "We're from HumungoCorp who sell this and we're saying that I as a normal punter LOVE this product!!! It's *sooo* good!" would not have the effect that kidding on their an ordinary punter, maybe a "happy customer".
So, no, not saying a word about WuwT is no proof that you aren't taking orders from there.
Juho@ 230:
"They support Wegmans findings."
On a scale of credibility from 1 to 10, what level would you assign to the Wegman Report?
Hm. Now that I re-read the thread, I think the difference between the statistical meaning of the word "predict" and the everyday meaning (which I've forgotten) might explain the questions asked by SteveWW and Dean Morrison way back at the start of the thread.
To comment on SteveWW's concern, in stats terms, it's okay to talk about predicting the past: your model can make predictions about any variable, regardless of what it corresponds to. Past events still correspond to "things unknown to the model" therefore the model is allowed to try to predict them. And now that I've finally twigged to the fact that everyday language is different to stats, this also explains Dean Morrison's comment too: in a stats sense, if we had instrumental measures going back to year 1000, these would be perfectly "predictive" of the instrumental measures going back to year 1000, so you wouldn't need to use proxy variables at all. But the point is that "global average temperature at time t" is a variable, and its value is unknown to the model. So the model is allowed to predict it. The authors' concern is that if the proxies lack "predictive power" with respect to those temperature variables, then these predictions will be rubbish. It would mean that the proxies really can't be used to construct sensible estimates of (i.e. predictions about) past temperatures. Obviously, I don't know what the predictive power of the proxies is as regards past temperatures, but that's the issue that they're referring to.
In any case, I'll now shut up about this, but seriously, I'm very excited. I literally had no idea that not everyone thinks about the word "predict" the same way statisticians do. Somehow I'd actually forgotten what the word normally means! My guess is that M&W were similarly blind to the fact that the term isn't obvious to non-statisticians.
And this is the problem with statisticians working in a clique like this: they don't know anything but the stats (emphasis mine)
I think that's unfair. The paper is submitted to a stats journal. They're allowed to use standard statistical terminology in a statistics journal. I really can't convey to you just how standard the language is, and how unreasonable that sounds to a statistician's ear. It would be like asking climate scientists to call (say) "climate" something different, in a climate science journal, because a non-climate scientist doesn't understand the technical meaning of the word. That's insane. Climate scientists get first naming rights on climate terminology, physicists get first naming rights on physics terms, and statisticians get first naming rights on statistics terms.
That said, it's obviously the case that if they want the results to be taken up by climate scientists, they need to do a better job of explaining themselves to that audience. And it's also the case that you generally need a richer understanding of the underlying physical basis of the data to produce a really good analysis, so again I agree that collaboration with people who understand the substantive issues better is a very wise strategy.
What I'm disagreeing with is the implied claim that the use of a standard stats term in a stats journal is evidence of bad behaviour. There are indeed problems with statisticians working in isolation. But this isn't one of them.
re: #13 or statisticians & climate scientists
(this isn't arguing against the comment in #13, just expanding):
1) The meme "climate scientists don't talk to statisticians" mostly originated with the Wegman Report in 2006.
It was already wrong then.
2) I recommend perusal of ASA Climate Change Workshop @ NCAR, October 2007, whose participants were (mostly) world-class climate-savvy statisticians and statistics-savvy climate scientists.
3) All (but one) of the talks are expert, sober discussions of statistics/climate issues and how to make progress.
I especially recommend (statistician) Jim Berger's talk, p.19, which says:
"How can statisticians become involved?
The Key: Becoming involved in a âteam environmentâ with scientists.
Facilitating infrastructure:
⢠NCAR, where teams operate
⢠SAMSI (and NPCDS), where teams can be formed
⢠National labs (both LANL and LLNL have climate/stat teams)
⢠Large interdisciplinary grants available today
Barriers:
⢠Statistics cannot generally fund involvement of statisticians in other disciplines which, in turn, rarely have much money for statistics.
⢠Shortage of statisticians
⢠The time needed for a statistician to get deeply involved with another science and to also learn the statistics needed for it.
⢠Scientists often have a hard time judging what they can do
themselves and when they should seek statistical help."
The two last items are *important* and akin to what I wrote in CCC, Appendix A.10.4. Some top statisticians have learned enough science to be useful and are highly regarded by climate scientists.
M&W show zero evidence of having bothered, and evidence otherwise in Wyner's series of posts mentioned in #11. McShane was doing his PhD in a completely unrelated area.
I've been lucky to have had exposure to statisticians in the (good to great) range and I do not believe this paper is an exemplar of the statistics profession.
BTW, at NCAR, one talk differed strongly from the rest, and it is strangely relevant to this whole discussion.
As an exercise for the reader wishing to hone their Web forensics skills:
a) Which one is different?
b) Is there any chance an audience of experts (especially, but not limited to Ben Santer) might have been irritated by slides 2-4 in that talk, especially slide 4?
c) And where might slides 2-4 have come from? Extra points.
@Wow 237,
You might want to take a closer look at page 5 before you get too much more condescending--if that is possible. You quote page 6 with "Chairman of the Subcommittee..." If you page back to 5, virtually the entire page is a reference to M&M beginning with...
"The first major controversy erupted when McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M)
successfully replicated the Mann et al. (1998) study (McIntyre and McKitrick,
2003, 2005b,a)."
One has to question whether you have, in fact, actually read the paper.
Can anyone explain to me why, when a group of climate scientists do a statistical analysis, subsequently supported by many others, showing temperature rises, increasing trends, etc, etc, a whole bunch of people leap on it screaming "lies, damned lies and statistics", or "oh you can't always trust statistics", or "oh you can make statistics say anything you want", then when someone publishes a statistical analysis implying AGW is all wrong, those same people shout "Oh look! The statistics in this paper prove it's all a scam!"
I understand that many sceptics have a long and distinguished record of wanting to re-invent laws of physics, conjuring up communist conspiracies, annointing classics scholars as world-renowned earth science experts, and many other interesting pursuits, but can anyone explain this bizarre "statistics are unreliable - until they agree with my side" phenomenon to a humble layperson like myself?
Barriers: ⢠Statistics cannot generally fund involvement of statisticians in other disciplines which, in turn, rarely have much money for statistics. ⢠Shortage of statisticians ⢠The time needed for a statistician to get deeply involved with another science and to also learn the statistics needed for it. ⢠Scientists often have a hard time judging what they can do themselves and when they should seek statistical help."
The two last items are important
So very true. Really, I just can't agree with this comment enough.
Dan:
>I literally had no idea that not everyone thinks about the word "predict" the same way statisticians do.
I think most people think of time going in one direction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
I like your posts Dan.
a) Which one is different?
b) Is there any chance an audience of experts (especially, but not limited to Ben Santer) might have been irritated by slides 2-4 in that talk, especially slide 4?
c) And where might slides 2-4 have come from? Extra points.
Slides 2-4 here? http://www.image.ucar.edu/public/Workshops/ASAclimate/wegmanASA.htm
Just what the $#@! were those slides doing in a professional scientific presentation???
(I don't know about anybody else, but I see evidence of axe-grinding eclipsing professionalism there).
Take a look at item #18 (if my counting's correct) on http://www.image.ucar.edu/public/Workshops/ASAclimate/wegmanASA.htm
Here's the text:
In the ice core (Vostok) data that Al Gore illustrates in the(sic) Inconvenient Truth, the temperature time series leads, not lags, the CO2 time series by 800 to 1000 years. What is the causal mechanism? It would seem that temperature increases cause CO12 release, not vice versa. The common answer is that there is an (unspecified) feedback mechanism.
It appears to me that Wegman is a very silly man. I sure hope that he walked away from the lectern sporting a shiny new posterior orifice after the Q&A session!!
re: #248
a)10 points to caerbannog
This wasn't just for a professional audience, it was for a small workshop of topnotch people. (See particpants).
In addition, if you read the whole thing, you might want to check the last page carefully, and then read the Abstract of Wegman's talk at GMU shortly thereafter.
That still leaves b) (Santer, especially) and
c) a 50-pointer on the original source. My original reaction to these slides was similar, but weirdly wrong.
I offer hints: they are extracted from a 7-slide sequence elsewhere, where they make perfect sense in context, and NOT anti-science.
But of course, the 3-slide set delivered to a non-experienced audience ... is different.
As sent Watts:
Mr. Watts, I first heard of ENSO at its AMS symposium debut in 1985. As the Southern oscillation is global in scale and decadal in duration, and McS&W lay 4 to 1 odds of â98 topping the hottest decade of the last millennium, to dismiss it isâ a super El Nino anomaly event, not a super global warming event. Weather, not climate.â does such Moranic violence to the English language that the mind is repelled.
It would be wonderful to see the reception afforded your reply were you to repeat it at the next AMS meeting on the subject- it is far too good for yack radio, and only wants the attention of an SNL writer to assure its 15 seconds of fame
jakerman@225; the current rate of temp increase is declining on a decadal basis [even allowing for the inclusion of the 2010 monthly values, which is a cheat because El Nino, which was strong at the beginning of 2010, has now faded and cooler temps will now push 2010 annual temp back down: it will not set a record for hottest year!];
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1980/trend/pl…
And you are ignoring the steps in temperature which occurred from 1976-78 and 1997-98; these 3 years generated most of the temp increase up to 2000:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1980/trend/pl…
> I literally had no idea that not everyone thinks about the word "predict" the same way statisticians do.
Thanks Dan :-)
I see where I imagined a different concept.
For some reason I interpreted "predicting temperature from proxies", especially in the context of climate science, as being the notion of predicting a set of data for a time period that is **not** present in the underlying proxy data. This is opposed to using proxy data for the time period (and perhaps beyond) where you are comparing the estimates derived from the proxy data with other temperature measures.
For example suppose you used proxy data for (say) 1850-1900 and 1950-2000 to predict temperatures for 1900-1950. It doesn't seem obvious that the proxies outside of 1900-1950 contain enough information on their own to let you infer much about temperatures in 1900-1950.
But if you're using the proxy data for 1850-2000 to "predict" temperatures during 1900-1950 for comparison with other temperature measures in the way that Dan suggests, that seems a whole lot more plausible and useful :-)
So, let me see if I have the analogy right.
It's been arged that height is determined by genetics and by the amount of protein in the diet. We have some recent data (over the last 100 years or so) about the per-capita protein intake for various Western countries. We also have collections fo bones from various cemeteries and burial sites, from North America, Europe, China, Japan, parts of Africa, etc. Over the past 100 years, skeletal heights (predicted by leg length and sex) have tracked average protein intake quite well within each site, although there are differences between nations. Using that information, one set fo researchers used dated femur samples from various locations, came up with mean predicted protein intake for the past 1000 years in Japan, Somalia, Australia, England, Spain, Italy, etc., and combined these into a global average protein index. They reported the data within each region tracked well together, although not always across regions (a famine in Australia might coincide with increased fishing productivity in Japan, for example).
Another set of researchers takes this same regional data, and now tries to see how well each region matches global average protein intake. Over the past 100 years, it tracks relatively well, but there was little agreement between regional values and global values for the previous 900 years. Thus, they conclude that height does not actually track protein intake all that well, although mean height is greater now, and protein intake is also greater now, than is likely at any point in the past 1000 years.
Is this analogy close? If so, which group of researchers is more likely to be correct? If it's not close, why not? (And I won't accept nutritionists and physical anthropologists are arguing for one world government)
stewart,
I think it's a good analogy.
The main percieved problem with the reconstructions is the size of the dataset. As more data becomes incorporated uncertainty is reduced. IMO, at some point statistical criticisms of the original paper will become pointless, as more and more data keep emerging that consistently support the original temperature reconstruction...
Mike (245),
"Can anyone explain to me why, when a group of climate scientists do a statistical analysis, subsequently supported by many others, showing temperature rises, increasing trends, etc, etc, a whole bunch of people leap on it screaming "lies, damned lies and statistics", or "oh you can't always trust statistics", or "oh you can make statistics say anything you want", then when someone publishes a statistical analysis implying AGW is all wrong, those same people shout "Oh look! The statistics in this paper prove it's all a scam!"
I understand that many sceptics have a long and distinguished record of wanting to re-invent laws of physics, conjuring up communist conspiracies, annointing classics scholars as world-renowned earth science experts, and many other interesting pursuits, but can anyone explain this bizarre "statistics are unreliable - until they agree with my side" phenomenon to a humble layperson like myself?"
Look up "comfirmation bias" and I think you will find the answer to that. That is why the term "sceptic" is not always accurate.
Cheers - John
coher writes:
>*jakerman@225; the current rate of temp increase is declining on a decadal basis*
You've cherry picked out such a short time frame that natural variablity is influencial compared to the warming trend. You also tried to divert from question "is is the current warming unprecidented"?.
The evidence still support the answer: yes, the current warming is faster and more sustained than anything on record.
>*which is a cheat because El Nino, which was strong at the beginning of 2010*
What a hypocrite, 1998 was a super El Nino and you want to use that as the new baseline for every anomally. Unlike 1998, 2010 is a period of solar minimum and not a "super" El Nino.
>*And you are ignoring the steps in temperature which occurred from 1976-78 and 1997-98; these 3 years generated most of the temp increase up to 2000*
Bollocks, You're breaking up data in to short enough periods as to conflate internal variablity with forced trends. You are just trying to chop out warming data that contradicts [your false claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…). All little steps were included in the rates I presented that showed [unprecidented warming](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcr…).
>*You're breaking up data in to short enough periods as to conflate internal variablity with forced trends*
I.e. over ten years the trend rise is 0.17 degrees, which is swamped by intrnal variablilty such as ENSO, but over 20 years the [tend breaks through](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1990/trend/pl…).
"You might want to take a closer look at page 5 before you get too much more condescending"
You might want to read the Brothers Dim posts before saying that.
Or cohen's posts.
"One has to question whether you have, in fact, actually read the paper."
Yes I did.
Did you?
Go have a look at the 21st page.
All very hockey-sticky.
And that section from page 5 is merely a news report. Stop thinking of "The Sunday Sport" and start thinking of "Principia Mathematica".
jakerman, you're not reading what I'm writing; the prospect of Joolya for another 3 years must be distracting you. I don't want to use 1998 as a new baseline; what I'm saying is that around 1976 and 1998 are steps in the temperature record and the step up in temperature around those 2 years is the total temp increase for the period from 1976-1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1976/to:1978/trend/pl…
I'm sure you are smart enough to do your own calculations but to save you the trouble:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
"Scientists often have a hard time judging what they can do themselves and when they should seek statistical help.
The two last items are important"
And doesn't this apply to everyone.
Like, oh, I don't know, statisticians? Just swap science and statistics about and repeat.
"I think that's unfair. The paper is submitted to a stats journal."
And the MBH paper was submitted to a science journal.
Yet there's plenty people who have complained about the "poor" statistics and stated that they should have gotten some professional statisticians on board.
That's just as unfair, isn't it?
But both papers are similar:
MBH: Scientists write a science paper to a science journal about science and statistics.
SW: Statisticians write a statistics paper to a statistics journal about science and statistics.
Or is stats always inerrant?
"Now that I re-read the thread, I think the difference between the statistical meaning of the word "predict" and the everyday meaning"
How about this, Dan:
Where you would use predict, use "predictor" and assign that to the element being tested against.
I.e. where you may have said "CO2 levels predict global temperatures", say "CO2 levels are a predictor of global temperatures".
Context should show that CO2 is not the *only* predictor, just one of them.
What do you reckon?
Third time unlucky.
The reference to M&M is, apparently, to a grey literature opinion piece in E&E.
So it looks like I WAS right: they DO NOT mention M&M's paper.
Wow, this is getting a bit embarrassing, I am starting to feel sorry for you. The clue to the fact that you have not read the paper yourself is the word "apparently". Why "apparently"? They either did or did not refer to M&M, and it is a simple matter to find out for yourself rather than rely on others to read it for you.
Please read the paper yourself to see whether or not they refer to M&M 2005. (HINT: page 19)
I can't help but notice that not one of the deniers here has actually made any attempt whatsoever to engage with the substantial criticisms of the paper. Ironically enough, none of them has even given any indication that they've read them.
"The clue to the fact that you have not read the paper yourself is the word "apparently"."
You know, killary, this is rather embarrasing for you.
You see, the "you haven't read the paper" clam came *earlier*.
Or are denialists time travellers from the future?
"(HINT: page 19)"
No, page 19 was already mentioned.
This is really rather a poor showing, killy.
Quote:
"And page 19: "it was shown in McIntyre and Mckitrick".
Nothing there either. Nothing about the paper except a blatant assumption that the paper was right.
"It was shown that the Earth is the centre of the universe" was also true.
It was wrong, but there were papers showing that the earth was the centre of the universe. The statement didn't say they were right."
Hint: this was supposed to be a science paper, not a newspaper.
Did you get directed over here to tag team for the Brothers Dim?
""If we consider rolling decades, 1997-2006 is the warmest on record; our model gives an 80% chance that it was the warmest in the past thousand years". M&W (2010)"
Did you read the WHOLE paper? This is simply out of context. They critisized the DATA itself and said even random noise has better predictability. They also critisized the thermometer-data as the blade (page 3).
So according to this data, the statement is true. But the data itself is *LACKING* and the thermometer data as a blade *MISLEADING* (smoothing etc). Read what the paper says ABOUT THE DATA ITSELF.
So NO, the paper does NOT verity that "now its warmer than in last 1000 years with 80% propability", unless you take it completely out of context. NOR it verifies Mann's results (or I guess your head is TILTED if you think it does.)
"And every year since has been warmer still.
Who exactly do you think you're kidding with your loudly proclaimed, wishful thinking, 5-1 bet on this unreviewed paper killing the extant paleo record?"
According to what? Every year HAS NOT been warmer still, the warming stopped in 1998 as it is still the warmest year. Even 2010 will be only 2nd warmest besides a strong El Nino (except if you cite the oh mighty adjusted and "smoothed" GIStemp artefact which disagrees with DMI(arctic) and with both satellite datasets). Even the trend has flatlined ever since. If you do a Polynomical fit on HadCRUT for example you can also see the clear flatlining, if not beginning of a decline:
http://users.tkk.fi/kse/hadcrut3-quadfit.png
"And more to the point, seeing as you brainboxes must have some other as yet undisclosed mechanism in mind - when do you see the global temperature trending down, because that's what matters, not your trash-driven beliefs."
This isnt about discussiong about any "incoming cooling", its about the S&W paper and what it says and what it confirms and what it DOES NOT. But at least you had a nice try mixing up the discussion.
Re 245 @Mike | August 18, 2010 5:53 PM
"...but can anyone explain this bizarre "statistics are unreliable - until they agree with my side" phenomenon to a humble layperson like myself?""
That's easy Mike, they don't actually believe the crap they peddle; sceptics are people who have vested interests in the fossil fuel industry.
"Did you read the WHOLE paper?"
Did you?
You don't seem to have anything other than quotes mined out to support your belief system.
So tell me why MBH gets a 95% confidence limit agreement with their analysis from proxy to measure yet this paper for most of its extent gets less than 30% when using "fake" proxy data and that this "proves" that MBH is wrong.
Seeing as you've "read thw WHOLE paper" and all...
PS like the earth-centric papers, this paper may SAY that the proxies are bad, but it hasn't actually managed to prove it. All it has managed to prove is that their methodology has no reliable result.
Since they don't use either the statistical tests of the MBH paper nor M&M, what does this prove other than their method doesn't show any skill?
[Part 1](http://deepclimate.org/2010/08/19/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/#more-2478) of Deep Climates M&W analysis is now up.
Cohers writes:
>*I don't want to use 1998 as a new baseline; what I'm saying is that around 1976 and 1998 are steps in the temperature record and the step up in temperature around those 2 years is the total temp increase for the period from 1976-1998
cohers, you are not understanding the basic flaw in your case. You say there are steps, but what you call steps are short term [internal variability](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) that [disappear when looking at the longer trend](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…).
@WOW
Since you didnt read the paper I'll paste the Conclusions. Read it word to word and think again if this validates Manns or IPCC:s results:
"Conclusion. Research on multi-proxy temperature reconstructions
of the earthâs temperature is now entering its second decade. While the
literature is large, there has been very little collaboration with universitylevel,
professional statisticians (Wegman et al., 2006; Wegman, 2006). Our
paper is an effort to apply some modern statistical methods to these problems.
While our results agree with the climate scientists findings in some
respects, our methods of estimating model uncertainty and accuracy are in
sharp disagreement.
On the one hand, we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a
âlong-handledâ hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends
to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data. The fundamental problem is
that there is a limited amount of proxy data which dates back to 1000 AD;
what is available is weakly predictive of global annual temperature. Our
backcasting methods, which track quite closely the methods applied most
recently in Mann (2008) to the same data, are unable to catch the sharp run
up in temperatures recorded in the 1990s, even in-sample. As can be seen
in Figure 15, our estimate of the run up in temperature in the 1990s has
a much smaller slope than the actual temperature series. Furthermore, the
lower frame of Figure 18 clearly reveals that the proxy model is not at all
able to track the high gradient segment. Consequently, the long flat handle
of the hockey stick is best understood to be a feature of regression and less
a reflection of our knowledge of the truth. Nevertheless, the temperatures
of the last few decades have been relatively warm compared to many of the
thousand year temperature curves sampled from the posterior distribution
of our model.
Our main contribution is our efforts to seriously grapple with the uncertainty
involved in paleoclimatological reconstructions. Regression of high
dimensional time series is always a complex problem with many traps. In
our case, the particular challenges include (i) a short sequence of training
data, (ii) more predictors than observations, (iii) a very weak signal, and
(iv) response and predictor variables which are both strongly autocorrelated.
The final point is particularly troublesome: since the data is not easily
modeled by a simple autoregressive process it follows that the number of
42
truly independent observations (i.e., the effective sample size) may be just
too small for accurate reconstruction.
Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxybased
reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models.
We have shown that time dependence in the temperature series is sufficiently
strong to permit complex sequences of random numbers to forecast
out-of-sample reasonably well fairly frequently (see, for example, Figure
9). Furthermore, even proxy based models with approximately the same
amount of reconstructive skill (Figures 11,12, and 13), produce strikingly
dissimilar historical backcasts: some of these look like hockey sticks but
most do not (Figure 14).
Natural climate variability is not well understood and is probably quite
large. It is not clear that the proxies currently used to predict temperature
are even predictive of it at the scale of several decades let alone over many
centuries. Nonetheless, paleoclimatoligical reconstructions constitute only
one source of evidence in the AGW debate.
Our work stands entirely on the shoulders of those environmental scientists
who labored untold years to assemble the vast network of natural
proxies. Although we assume the reliability of their data for our purposes
here, there still remains a considerable number of outstanding questions
that can only be answered with a free and open inquiry and a great deal of
replication."
It is CLEAR the paper is dismissing THS.
"Since you didnt read the paper "
What you on about? I did read the paper.
How about you stop making a laughable cherry-picked conclusion only to support your belief-system?
PS the majority of those conclusions are not supported by the paper.
Try reading it, rather than cutting and pasting sections. Put a little comprehension behind the reading.
Any chance of the 'skeptics' being even a little sceptical of this yet-to-published paper?
MartinM wonders why we have not discussed the "substantial criticisms of the paper". There have been no substantial criticisms on this thread, since most of the posts have been made by critics who have clearly not read the paper.
Tim Lambert's joy in imposing a hockey stick in one of the diagrams is a bit like a credulous person whose faith is strengthened by finding the face of Jesus on a cookie. Anyone who has read the paper knows that it is total destruction of the Mann08 method even allowing for several (very far-fetched) assumptions such as stationarity and linearity of the relationship between the proxies and temperature (why?) and good data collection and selection (they must be joking there).
Ah, so you have clearly not read the thread. OK.
"There have been no substantial criticisms on this thread,"
...that you've answered...
"Anyone who has read the paper knows that it is total destruction of the Mann08 method "
It certainly SAYS it is doing so. Except all it's done is shown that THEIR method doesn't work.
This paper is a total destruction of this paper. It fails to prove anything else, other than they love Wegman and accept it as apparent and evident truth.
Rather odd for a stats paper, to report on how a comittee came to a conclusion. Not common at all.
Then again, this isn't really a stats paper, it's an attempt to fluff up the denialists in the face of overwhelming problems in their position.
jakerman; does it ever occur to you that the internal variability is the trend?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1828v1.pdf
And this just not a condition of ENSO/PDO accumulating heat but such natural factors causing conditions which allow heating to step and not reduce such as interrupted upwelling and cloud cover variation; ie Pinker.
"jakerman; does it ever occur to you that the internal variability is the trend?"
Then the internal variability is trending upward.
Otherwise known as global warming.
Has anyone noticed the curious coincidence that good ol' Steve is away in Europe, but then this M&W paper pops out of nowhere to keep the pot boiling, as it were?
Btw, did I mention that [part primo of Deep Climate's analysis](http://deepclimate.org/2010/08/19/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/#more-2478) is available? I does lead one to wonder just how many more new orifices can be left for part secundo to rip. (Ooops - must be that peer pressure thing).
To denialists, rather in the manner of Bishy 'von Daniken' Hill's book, it all swings along very nicely until critical eyes look at it for what it is.
Killary, J, Juho?
re: #284
1) Well, I said in #10 that others are taking care of stats, and we have DC's typically-thorough post, and I'm sure there will be more.
2) I doubt that Steve's absence is a relevant fact. If you go back to #10, it is clear they have been working up to this for a while.
Many Denialati have descended here with insistent howls that the "hockey stick is broken", and that there is no modern warming (and I see that cohenite is still obsessing about his "breaks", the poor dear â how does his gravity model of atmospheric heating mesh with this, by the way?). A part of the problem seems that they will find any excuse to dismiss whatever proxy is used for historic temperature reconstructions, with no serious explanation of why they do so.
To this end I'd hoped that at least one of them might have a pick at the [cherry blossom-burst record](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…), and what it implies for regional spring temperature trends in Japan. Sure, it's local, and it's vulnerable to non-global stochasticities (somewhat reduced by Aono's et al 31-year smoothing), but it's a damned long record, and blossom burst is after all highly correlated with temperature.
Since I posted my previous graph relating mean March temperatures in Kyoto, as inferred from the commencement of the annual Cherry Blossom Festival, with the McShane and Wyner hockey stick, I have discovered that last June Aono and Saito updated their pre-1400 records. It's interesting to compare this newer data with both [McShane and Wyner](http://i36.tinypic.com/fu9ahx.jpg) and with [Mann et al 2008](http://i34.tinypic.com/z7dhx.jpg), and to this end I digitised the Aono and Saito graph and superimposed it over the respective hockey sticks, using the termini of the instrumental record as references points to locate respective dates in the Cherry Blossom Festival record.
Of course, as I alluded in my previous post, there's no reason to assume that the implicit linear relationship between the mean March temperature in Kyoto and annual mean global anomaly, inferred by the overlaying of either Mann et al 2008, or of McShane and Wyner, with the Aono and Saito 2010 data, actually is linear. There are many other caveats of course, but irrespective of these it seems that a very straight-forward, robust, and meticulously documented proxy for temperature is quite impressively agreeing with Mann et al 2008, and dissing McShame's and Wyner's attempt to hide the non-decline...
"(and I see that cohenite is still obsessing about his "breaks", the poor dear â how does his gravity model of atmospheric heating mesh with this, by the way?)."
I'm sorry, it's my bad and I'm sorry.
I put on a bit of weight in those years.
Sorry.
re: #243, #248,, #249, #250
I.e., statisticians, climate scientists (generally work OK) despite how much Wegman claims otherwise and M&W repeat him.
1) Regarding Wegman's talk: see rattus Norvegicus question-by-question analysis. Note comment about "climate police."
2) Fred Singer & Frederick Seitz were leaders of a continuing attack on Ben Santer for his IPCC SAR efforts, carried out though WSJ OpEds, etc. Hence, Ben cannot have been overly pleased to see 2 Singer books.
3) Wegman's abstract of 11/05/07 talk at GMU included:
"Although both paleoclimate reconstruction and climate modeling have many fundamentally statistical/stochastic issues, the convergence of the perspectives of statisticians and climate scientists is not great. This talk is not an anti-anthropogenic global warming talk, but will probably irritate climate scientists anyway. (It did at NCAR, but discussion is good.)"
He attended a different workshop than the rest of those there, and seems produ of irritating people. In a forthcoming tome, I've assigned a Meme# (an extension of John Cook's list, called:
Meme#f "Faux fight between statisticians and climate scientists."
The statisticians who attended that NCAR meeting know better, as do many others, including this group of fine people. If people haven't read DC's notes on Interface 2010, they should. Wegman&Said put together sessions including Fred Singer and Don Easterbrook (and Jeff Kueter from GMI), Said talked about climategate.
4) I have 2 separate accounts from attendees at NCAR.
One said the reception was frosty, but to be fair, apparently Wegman&Said got lost, as the 2nd day was in a different lab. So they showed up 30 minutes late for his own talk. The other observed that he didn't know climate science and didn't want to.
It may well be that M&W are carrying on this fine tradition.
5) Finally, I've mentioned that slides 2-4 came from somewhere else. If no one finds them soon, I will reveal all, as it is pretty hysterical.
People may be interested in reading Eduardo Zorita's comments on the paper:
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-on-climate.h…
I think some avid klimazwiebel readers will be heavily disappointed that their new favorite "final nail in the coffin" is considered a piece of shoddy work...
Note the frequent references to McShane and Wyner apparently not having read the paper(s) they essentially criticise, and that Eduardo thinks they got their knowledge about the papers from blogs. One wonders which blogs those are...
re: #288 (for caerbannog)
The Wegman October 2007 NCAR talk had amusing slides 2-4.
It tries to raise lots of confounding factors", has a hockey stick as background, etc...
Here is an image I've put together, showing:
a) The first 7 slides of the original presentation for a general audience, aimed to contrast the (purposeful) confusion versus actual scientific knowledge.
b) The first 4 slides of Wegman's talk.
c) One can compare to see the choices made.
Where did they come from?
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/lectures/ScienceOfClimateChange07.ppt
a (big PPT file, long download).
That's right, they extracted the slides from Michael Mann's Sept 2007 talk...
(Not copyrighted, but usually people credit where they got stuff. Not this time.)
Wow @259,
Whether or not I read the paper is irrelevant. But to answer the question, yes, I did.
What I find humorous about your particular brand or rhetoric is your clear belief that you are right--always. Yet you fail to even quote correctly from the very paper you are trying to ridicule. If you had read it, why is it you would choose to quote part of it, then falsely reference the page it came from? You either did it intentionally, or you scanned through looking for a part to suit your needs, or you fail to understand the numerical sequence of the pages. Which is it?
And do spare me vague references to brothers I have never heard of or references to other pages in the paper taken out of context. I don't know who the "Brothers Dim" are, nor do I care. And I am not trying to make this paper out to be any more than it is at face value--a statistical breakdown of Mann's data using his very own data.
I do find it more than a little interesting the amount of time and energy this paper seems to be taking from the AGW devotees--especially from the likes of the omniscient Mr. Mashey who seems to have spent quite some time on this here and at myriad other blogs. There must be more there than nothing, otherwise, why all the concern? And I really wonder why I see posts now questioning whether this journal is still "scientific." They choose to publish a paper some don't agree with and that makes them no longer worthy of journalistic respect? Funny that.
[Bill Walsh sez:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) "There must be more there than nothing, otherwise, why all the concern?"
Because Billybabe as the denialists discovered a long time ago, they can knock out in seconds any old sh*t, which subsequently takes actual time to refute effectively. It's the stock-in trade of globally famous liars like Monckton for example, and one reason that the rest of us are thankful for the efforts of dedicated, interested and knowledgeable volunteers to shed light onto the intellectual corporate darkness you and your ilk would prefer we live in.
So don't go flattering yourself and getting your gonads all a'flutter that your current heroes M&W are any better than the spew of the lowliest and most ill-educated Wattsian dufus.
They're all inconsequential hindrances in the end.
chek:
Actually, In my case, I was *delighted* by M&W, as it was a great example of the continued re-use of the abysmal Wegman Report, even to "artifact" wording and silly Bibliography.
It failed to descend to the level of black helicopters. At least M&W did do some actual statistical work. Still, it will get added as a short Appendix to a little report I've been doing.
"Whether or not I read the paper is irrelevant"
Indeed. You don't have to read it because it's all tosh.
"I do find it more than a little interesting the amount of time and energy this paper seems to be taking from the AGW devotees"
I find it even more than a little interesting in that earlier we had one rent-a-troll on here proclaiming that it was telling that nobody was talking against it therefore it must be true...
Funny how that goes, doesn't it?
"I don't know who the "Brothers Dim" are, nor do I care. "
These:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…
And it's odd that you should proclaim it is no problem since your first appearance here had this to say:
"before you get too much more condescending--if that is possible"
Where you should look for more condescension in, for example,
"So this guy did excactly what I expect the alarmosphere to do: cherry pick a phrase or a graph out of context and say "hey it just verifies Manns results!""
Odd how you were so *VERY* quick to berate the tone when missing those first appearance posts.
Guess your concern about the tone here is a smokescreen.
chek @291,
Billybabe? Me and my ilk? Nice. Condescending with a side of sweeping generalization.
Kindly point out where I make any reference to this current paper being in any way shape or form the way, the truth or the light. You can't. Because I didn't. Primarily because I don't think that. What I did ask was why, if it is such a throwaway, does there seem to be so much scrambling to prove it wrong rather than, even for the short term, accepting it as merely another point of view? One which was apparently valid enough to be reviewed and will soon be printed in a respected journal. One which may or may not stand the test of time.
Sorry to say friend, but if your opinion is that any and all people who disagree with you are "inconsequential hindrances" then you are the poster child for the close-minded and arrogant scientific method.
Nobody knows everything. You might try being humble because the current course of brow-beating those you feel are beneath you will ultimately fail to get the results you desire.
The irony is, I actually desire the same ultimate results despite your inaccurate, and ignorant, belief that I somehow wish harm and doom to the planet. The difference is I don't claim to have all the answers, nor do I claim to be morally superior simply because I think I am right.
Wow,
Wow. Change subject much? You called someone a "newboi troll" and then, later in the same post a "bozo." You do this while quoting page 6 of the paper, but claiming it was page 5. This make me wonder who the bozo is.
Now, what do I claim was "no problem?" And where are all the "denial" posts calling people names and berating their intelligence? Virtually every one of your posts has the tone that you are somehow better than the person you are addressing with the possible exception of those you agree with.
You want to call someone a bozo or a troll? Try getting the basic reference points--read page numbers--correct at the very least when trying to point out how stupid someone is.
BTW, your links don't work the way you posted them but thanks anyway.
Chek, in case you were unaware, the use of the term 'denialist' is a dead givaway when discussing the merits of a paper on the statistical treatment of already available data. People who feel the need retreat to such 'arguments' rarely have anything original or substantial to contribute
And trashtalk seems to abound here: BernardJ, Wow, pough, harry, MartinM, JamesA, Michael, Lotharson, Andrew Dodds, sod, Dean Morrison, Steve Reuland ..
Why are you all so desperate about saving the stick? Hey, everybody knows it was a botch-job to start with. Even you who are looking for excuses to to avoid facing that fact. What are you all so afraid of? Losing faith? Or face?
I just wonder ...
cohenite writes:
>*does it ever occur to you that the internal variability is the trend*
Does it every occur to you that making hopeful, yet baseless claims are completely unconvincing?
Cohers proves his lack of support for his claim by producing the McLean debacle, which was so incompetent that the authors [removed the trend](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/john_mclean_hides_the_declines…) then claimed:
>*there is no detectable sign of any global warming driven by carbon dioxide*
Magic, just like coher's [chopping out years of warming](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) to try and support his cliams.
[Jonas N said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) "Why are you all so desperate about saving the stick"?
Au contraire Jonas, the real question is why so many continued botched assassination attempts on the stick?
And why do they all [fail so miserably?](http://deepclimate.org/2010/08/19/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/#more-2478)
"Wow. Change subject much?"
Not as much as you, Bill.
And newboi troll and bozo were both after that unremarked troll post I quoted.
Funny how your sensitivities are so finely tuned to ignore certain people's output if you happen to agree with them, yet be so very sensitive otherwise.
"Try getting the basic reference points--read page numbers"
Hmm. You mean like when Killie says:
"HINT: page 19)"
When earlier on, I had posted:
"And page 19: "it was shown in McIntyre and Mckitrick"."
You mean that sort of "get the pages right" and "read"???
Ah, but the difference is that you're a concern troll who likes what killie says.
Ah well, time to ignore the troll bait: you've nowt to add and nothing to say.
Chek, as far as I know, all critiques on record 'assasinating' the stick stand firmly. The variois M&Ms, the Wegman-report, the NAS-assessment, and now this one. They deal with partly different aspects and flavours, and phrase their criticism a little bit different. But they all hold water. And Mann's subsequent attempts essentially confirm their validity.
Your Deep Climate link mostly deals with other aspects. Mainly to reframe the history of the controversy. Some few points address the actual statistics, but not to the extent that they would alter the general findings. Had you even read what you referred to? Or what you think it is criticizing?
As I said, people who feel the need to cry out 'denialist' rarely ever have anything original to contribute. Most often they are only cheering on 'their cause' from the sideline.
I didn't trash talk anyone until now, you utter berk.
Wow,
No, my point has been the same all along. That you, clearly, think yourself better and smarter than anyone who disagrees with you. You have proved it thoroughly throughout this thread. Right up to, and including your last post. Can't defend your actions, may as well go with the ad hom. Concern troll? What, are you holding back the Dunning-Kruger talking point for next post?
Happen to agree with them? You mean when he said there was a reference to M&M on page 19? There is one. You just don't like which paper it references.
You seem to fail to grasp that there are those of us out there who have no stake in this, and as such, merely take in the information at face value. I, unlike you apparently, have no preconceived notion on this topic. I think there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate, not just one side. But that is likely not something you can relate to, is it? One size fits all in your world. For me, I don't buy the doom and gloom hyperbole, but I happen to believe in environmental stewardship. This is to say--not that I owe you an explanation--I am all for conservation, but all against using fear to drive it. Sorry if you don't like it.
Lastly, please, again, show me where the personal attacks are coming from those with whom you disagree. I went back through, and even in "killy's" posts I find nothing--whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant. Yet in yours I find words like trolls, shills, bozos, Brothers Dim (still ?), denialist, astroturf, and to cap it off "extremely dishonest and stupid." I think that the proof is right there for all to read.
Thanks for the off-handed dismissal though. I will take that to mean you have no defense for your actions as I suspected. Feel free to continue the name calling if you think it helps your cause. Hint: It doesn't.
[Jonas N said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…)" The variois (sic) M&Ms, the Wegman-report, the NAS-assessment, and now this one. They deal with partly different aspects and flavours, and phrase their criticism a little bit different. But they all hold water".
Hilarious! I take it you mean in the same sense a seive holds water which is, not for very long, like all the other canards in the denialist book of mythologies.
And in my experience people with prissy objections rarely have anything worthwhile to say.
Thanks for the clarification of the term 'predict' as used by statisticians Dan.
I'd sort of twigged that myself - but in simple terms it seems to me it's just a way of saying how good a proxy is. The length of mercury in a tube might be a pretty good proxy for temperature, the width of a tree ring less so. However since the each proxy is tested against modern day instrumental records, it seems odd that they claim that the proxies aren't 'predictive' of the modern day record. If there's no correlation, then surely they fail as proxies at the first hurdle? Perhaps they mean an amalgamated proxy in the form of a principle component or something - in which case it would seem to me they've lost some information along the way, or diluted good proxies with less good ones?
Well Chek, I have read you comments here, and on many other places, and they keep roughly the same level. I think the reflect well what is to be considered to be the extent of 'your experience'. No real need to bother. I mean exactly what I said the first time, and any other ...
But the question still is: Why so eager to defend the already multiply failed? Hilarious or not ...
Bill Walsh @296:
Jonas N:
John Mashey, many thanks for your posts and the paper trail. I wish I had the time to follow all the links and crossed paths that keep coming back to Wegman, but this comment (@290)...
...was a jaw-dropper. Wegman? Plagiarise? Shurely shome mishtake 8^))
Steve C, as you point out, I really don't know how desperate exactly you are. But a whole bunch feel that the term 'denialist' is one of the main arguments here.
I can't speek for the WUWT commentors, but I have read what Deep Climate has to say, and it avoids most of the main thrust.
And BTW, how come that you try to explain to me what "issues [I] don't understand" in the light of the above where you talk of psychic capabilities?
SteveC, Shure is known for microphones, phono pickups and sound reinforcement equipment...
SteveC @398,
First question first. I say scrambling because there are well over 1000 posters--many the same--between here, Tamino, Eli, DC etc coming out of their proverbial shoes to prove this is garbage. It might be. But the sheer effort put in by some folks who show up at all those sites suggests a bit of scrambling. I didn't use the term desperate.
Second question. With regards to Watts, absolutely I would state the same thing. Calling this paper the death knell of anything is just as silly and over the top as saying that it is worthless to the discussion. It may prove to bring real value to the debate, but to label it as the death of AGW or even MBH for that matter is more than a bit premature. It hasn't even been published yet.
With that said, I tend to observe that the discussion at Watts site contains far less vitriol and ad hom attacks--i.e. "you're an idiot, or stupid, or a troll or a denialist etc, etc." There are posts there from Eli and others and they have been treated with respect which is more than I can say for some at other sites. That is not to say all are like that since I am not a big believer in generalizations.
Jonas @310:
I didn't ask you to. I asked, given your repeated claims of much desperation and "trashtalk" here, what you thought the tone of the comments at Watts'.
The main thrust of what? How does DC avoid this "thrust"?
Repeating the same old "the hockey stick is broke" mantra, and when pushed relying on the serially debunked McIntyre & McKitrick paper indicates to me you're firing blanks. Quoting Wegman as a credible source does your position on the McS&W paper (not to mention MBH08 etc.) no favours at all.
re: #309
Oh, grabbing a few slides is no big deal, and I didn't call it plagiarism. The amusement is a) showing to top expdrts, b) who it was taken from, and c) the use of it for non-exprt audiences to have different meaning.
No, the plagiarism is in the 10 pages found by DC,
and the 25 I've found since, although the plagiarism is just the tip of the iceberg... the errors, meaning changes and especially the obvious biases are much more fun.
Here's the WR.
Here are a few nice exercises:
1) How often in the Summaries of Important Papers, while doing cut-and-paste, do they forget to change "our" or "we" to "their", or XXX, et al...? Even undergrads know to fix that. One expects more similarities from sumamrizations, but this goes way beyond.
2) In how many places do MBH do something, but that turns in to "attempt" to do?
3) Is there anything strange about the Mann, et al(200) Summary? Hint: consider the MBH98 Summary.
4) MBH99 is a paper of some importance to the WR. Want to guess:
a) What fractions of the words are exact word-for-word cut-and-paste, in order? [That's relatively algorithmic, doing a local approximations of UNIX "diff", somewhat more conservative than DC, who counts obvious moves.]
b) How much more of it is trivial changes, reorderings, simple rewords that a copy editor might do? I.e., text of striking similarity? This is slightly more subjective... although not really in this case.
M&W certainly referenced the WR a bit, I think it may be one of their main sources for paleoclimate knowledge, starting with "artifact."
> There must be more there than nothing, otherwise, why all the concern?
Because denialism relies on "lies getting half way around the world before the truth can get its boots on".
Oh, and because if someone *really* disproves AGW, they would be pretty much universally hailed as scientific heroes - but to get to that point, their disproof would have to stand up to scrutiny, no? Scrutiny is *an essential part of the process* of finding out what's right, not a sign of desperation.
> And trashtalk seems to abound here
Interesting. What definition of the word "trashtalk" are you using? Does it include disagreeing with positions and advancing evidence and logic to support that disagreement? Since you called me out as engaging in trashtalk, **would you mind quoting an example**?
> Chek, as far as I know, all critiques on record 'assasinating' the stick stand firmly. The variois M&Ms, the Wegman-report, the NAS-assessment, and now this one.
Hmmmm, not so much, IIRC. The NAS assessment essentially validated it, although they indicated that some things could have been done better but they *would not have materially changed the result*. M&M's initial critique relied on an erroneous procedure which *invalidated the conclusions they drew*, which you rarely if ever see acknowledged by those touting it. Wegman was an ... interesting approach, but (a) significantly flawed, and (b) IIRC did not show that the result of improved procedures would have resulted in any significant change to the outcome.
The subsequent work over 10+ years has only strengthened the science.
It will be interesting to see if this new critique stands up to scrutiny, but based on the initial trajectory I would say it's just like many other works highly celebrated in denialist circles - it is over-hyped at first before serious publication review can be undertaken, and significantly under-delivers on the hype once the dust settles.
Steve @398,
I missed this first time round. Perhaps you could share with me the pot shots I have taken and exactly what issues I fail to understand. I had no idea you know so much about people you have never met. Quite a skill.
BTW I read the "robust" critique at RC. Wouldn't call that "working hard" at something. Much harder responding to the litany of holier-than-thou preaching from folks like yourself.
> But a whole bunch feel that the term 'denialist' is one of the main arguments here.
Given the history of denialism and how long many of the commenters here have been following/analysing it, I suspect much of the use of the term "denialist" here is by now not so much an argument as an observation.
That, and in my experience the vast majority of those who appear to be engaging in denialism are quite unwilling or unable to defend their case using evidence and logic. And when called upon to do so, many of them resort to complaints about tone and the descriptive terms used...
> well over 1000 posters
I haven't looked, but seriously? Over 1000 different individuals (or screen names)?
I'd guess there probably aren't even 100 on this thread. Anyone care to count?
Bill Walsh @316:
So instead of jumping on the snark button, how about you share with me (and anyone else reading) the fruits of your skills and knowledge, and tell us what's wrong with Deep Climate's critique? Who knows, some of us may even stop "scrambling" all over the internets long enough to learn something.
Bill @ 296;
"What I did ask was why, if it is such a throwaway, does there seem to be so much scrambling to prove it wrong..."
Well, that is a fundamental of science - while proof is rarely certain, disproof is, and we move closer to the truth by tossing out what is known to be wrong.
It's looking like it might be the latter for this paper.
Jonas M [at #298](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…):
Thanks for including me with the others - it's a compliment to be associated with folk who rely on science when assessing climatological claims.
Of course, I suspect that flattery was not your intention, and thus implicit in your claim is an oxymoronic internal inconsistency...
If by "trashtalk" you were not referring to the patronising portions of my first paragraph of post [#286](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…), but to my points of science throughout this thread, then perhaps you would care to explain why such are incorrect. Indeed, this is exactly what I have been attempting to elicit from you and your newly-apparated troll-brethren, but the only response so far has been cohenite's vaguely homo-erotic slight [at #206](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…).
Please, if there is a fundamental flaw in the interpretation of the blossom-burst data, and what it implies about McShane & Wyner vs Mann et al 2008, then roll out your detailed analysis. I'm inclined to suspect that no credible rebuttal will be forthoming, which leads me to paraphrase your own comment...
SteveC @319,
There are no fruits my snarky friend (without trying to be of course.) I read the critique, and that was what I was referring to as not working hard. As in it only took 15 or 20 minutes to digest. Not difficult. So you misunderstood or jumped to a conclusion, or both. My apologies for not being more clear.
Frankly I am not qualified to assess the quality of the paper or the critique, and I have never stated otherwise. I did find it odd that DC placed a lot of weight on the so-called reliance of the M&M and Wegman reports, when they, M&W, don't rely on those papers so much as they reference them as another source. Your opinions on those sources are yours. I personally think they are more valuable than you do, and less so than, say, Mr. Watts does.
You seem to miss the point. I have nowhere stated I endorse this paper, nor any of the other papers associated with this discussion. I read them, take from them what I can. What I find distasteful is the general knee-jerk reaction by those on the AGW side to berate those with a differing opinion. Yes, some are deserving, but not all. And the arrogant attitude adds to the opinion that something is amiss. There should be no need to constantly act superior because you think you have all the answers. Nobody has all the answers.
Lotharsson @318
As to the comment about 1000 posters, that would be a typo on my part. I meant to say posts. That would have been more clear had you noticed the next part of the sentence where I state that many were from the same person. But thanks for taking yet another unwarranted pot shot.
Stay the course I guess.
Bill writes:
>*I am all for conservation, but all against using fear to drive it. Sorry if you don't like it.*
Are you against presenting evidence that indicats a serious threat to millions of lives?
I hesitate to interrupt such a polite productive conversation between people who have such a high regard for each other, but I do have a question on the science involved here. Now I know that this paper is by a couple of clearly incompetent "scientists" who really are business "experts" whose motivations seem to be drawn from their free market business beliefs and aided by their training in complex statistics. One is clearly 'wet behind the ears', fresh and sure of his omniscient understanding of the universe... And the other bears the heavy burden of a teacher who must now in the real world, demonstrate his teachings to his student.
And clearly, this dynamic duo haven't bothered to read and clearly understand the climate science papers they are criticizing. After all, they are in a rush to make a name for themselves and bask in the publicity (or notoriety) that their work will bring to them... and after all, studying climate science seems like such a dead end career move for either a future business leader, or a teacher of future business leaders... So who can blame them for cutting a few corners on their way to fame (and fortune??).
Lets put all that aside for the moment, and consider whether the sloped hockey stick shown above (based on their work) just possibly might be correct. Let us assume that the world was in a cooling phase for the last thousand years. This means that prior to anthropogenic releases of fossil fuel CO2 and impacts from agricultural practices, the Earth was cooling. This makes the recent rise in temperatures all the more clear a signal of AGW, since the world was clearly in a cooling mode for a long time before the anthropogenic impacts were felt.
From the standpoint of AGW theory, we know the rise in temperature that can be expected directly from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere; the key problem is the positive feedback from increased water vapor in the warmer atmosphere etc. We may be able to estimate the positive feedbacks more accurately if we knew the condition of the Earth in the thousand years before major AGW impacts from rising GHGs.
The worst case for estimating AGW impacts, would be a rising global temperature BEFORE any AGW impacts, since some of the recent warming could be ascribed to the warming trend already in place. A neutral case for estimating AGW impacts, would be to assume the Earth was at equilibrium in terms of the carbon distribution between the sea, soils, and atmosphere, and in terms of the distribution of thermal energy between the oceans and atmosphere (and maybe the ice caps), and that the absorption of solar radiative energy was in balance with outgoing long wave radiation. This is the Earth's energy state consistent with Mann's Hockey Stick reconstruction.
But the M&W downward "Tilted Hockey Stick" indicates that the world was cooling... that the likely energy balance was negative, with more OLR than absorbed solar radiation. To turn this around requires a large AGW effect than the steady state implicit in the Mann Hockey Stick view of the planet.
In short, if by some sheer luck, M&W did get this curve right, in spite of their ignorance, laziness, and incompetence, then they have just made a strong supporting case for a stronger AGW impact!!
Do I have this correct?
re: #324 Paul K2
Yep, sans humans, the Earth should have been on a long slow slide into reglaciation, albeit with the usual jiggles and interesting discussion over orbital effects, for which I recommend Dave Archer's fine book, "The Long Thaw."
Ice-age termination is a fairly sharp rise, but return to the bottom takes ~90K years. it is clear that the bottom is ice age, it is clear that the top is not, exactly where interglacial ends and ice-age begins, I'm not sure. Start of glacier regrowth is clear when it happens, but nobody would call a bit more ice on Baffin Island and Ice Age.
As it is, absent nuclear war or other bad things, we won't have another ice age for a 10s of thousands of years, and likely not for as long as humans can maintain a high-tech civilization - SF6 is a terrific GHG.
While these are still hypotheses of Bill Ruddiman's, I think evidence is piling up that humans have been modifying the climate for thousands of years, via deforestration (CO2), cows & rice paddies (CH4), so that population growth and its effects have tended to cancel the usual orbital effects.
As for some of the jiggles since 1000AD, some of that is surely solar and volcanoes plus usual ocean oscillations, but some may be human-caused as well, from plagues. This is Law Dome CO2 record. Notice the red section, the unusual sharp dip of CO2 into ~1600AD.
Ruddiman (and others) hypothesize that's from a 50M die-off in post-Columbus Americas, allowing massive reforestration and accounting for (some of) the CO2 drawdown. Given all usual effects, CO2 changes get magnified poleward (esp. North) from the Equator.
Hence, it is slightly ironic that European smallpox, etc wiped out a lot of native Americans, but then got the Little Ice Age in return. There's an issue of The Holocene coming out later this year with some interesting papers. We'll see if they stand up.
> That would have been more clear had you noticed the next part of the sentence where I state that many were from the same person.
Not so.
Your "many the same" in the context of your typo should mostly likely be read as (because it relates to "posters") claiming that there are many **posters** posting on multiple sites rather than implying that perhaps you didn't say what you meant to.
> As to the comment about 1000 posters, that would be a typo on my part. I meant to say posts. ... But thanks for taking yet another unwarranted pot shot.
So, you made a typo - fair enough and no worries. But if responding to the evidence (or claims) *as presented* constitutes an "unwarranted potshot" in your book, then I will interpret any future claims coming from you of unwarranted potshotness in that light.
Bill Walsh: I strongly recommend you read Eduardo Zorita's commentary on the paper (my previous post on this thread). Eduardo is no friend of Mike Mann, he and Hans von Storch had their share of conflicts with Mann. But that does not prevent Eduardo from being honest about the paper.
His criticism is devastating, and very relevant to the references to M&M and the Wegman report: on many an occasion, McShane and Wyner misrepresent(!) what has been done by Mann et al. They misrepresent various other aspects of climate science. Their knowledge, as Eduardo indicates, appears to come from "blog science", rather than from actually reading the papers they cite. This also explains their blind acceptance of the criticism by M&M and the Wegman report (even using the same odd "artifact"-term used by the Wegman report), despite the various criticisms of M&M in particular (can't blame them for not knowing the criticism of the Wegman report, that is mostly on blogs they clearly do not read).
In essence Eduardo shows McShane and Wyner attacked strawmen. Question is, where did they get their strawmen?
And Jonas N might do well in reading the NAS report. They made their own reconstruction. Have fun identifying the enormous differences (regardless of how 'wrong' short-centered PCA may be, using other methods didn't change much).
Paul K2@324
I said much the same thing in one sentence @ 10.
Tr Sptc wrt: "s xpctd frm n rrgnt gnrms" nd nthr brb frm Dv H. t sms tht t s tm fr th sl nd vr brng d hms t strt. Srr, n tm t pl wth chldrn. hv t mn f m wn. ff t th bch fr fw dys. Hv t t, prhps y nd t vnt fr whl, shk blf systms tnds t rqr ngr tbrsts vr s ftn.
[*DNFTT - Tim]*
And as expected, another abuse of the english language by harry.
Harry, me old mucker, that wasn't an ad hom.
Dave HAS proven himself an ignoramus. therefore he's called such.
Or do you complain when "habitual thief" is brought to light when sentencing criminals?
Don't let the door knock your ignorant, hypocritical old ass on the way out, Harry. And take a crash course in logic while you're away, because a two position freezing or not freezing thermometer is only of some limited use in a freezer.
Recap Harry @166 "Harry pray tell us how, without instruments or checking the weather bulletin, how you would expect your scibes to tell the difference between a July afternoon that's 26C and one that's 30C? Or a winter morning that's 2C or 6C"
I'd argue that this isn't required, as we are dealing with a denialist site where people are attempting to eradicate the MWP and LIA from history and to burn a few statistician heretics at the stake. So we are dealing with the reality of rather large events, not the quibbling over decimal points.
The LIA didn't require finely tuned thermometers because the population notice the preponderance of white cold stuff around them. They noted that it was sufficiently abundant as to cause them to get really cold and make it difficult to gather enough food for themselves. Others, also quite hungry, noticed that it was rather difficult to grow the same crops that had been farmed there for centuries.
Ok Bill, specifically what "real value" may this paper bring to the debate?
Does it show that proxies don't track temperature? No, it shows that proxies which are predictive of local temperatures aren't predictive of global temps. Duh. Who cares? That's not how climate scientists are using proxies anyway. The title of the paper suggests that they're aiming to test whether proxies are reliable predictors of temperature, so why not at least test that in a manner that's consistent with the way climatologists have actually used the proxies?
Does it show that Mann's reconstructions are wrong? No, it uses an entirely different method which induces more uncertainty.
Does it show that reconstructions can't capture abrupt changes? No, it shows that this method can't. Given that no one has used that method before, who cares?
Does it show that interpolation with synthetic data is better than the proxies? Sure, if you limit the interpolation to short windows and compare proxies that are predictive of local temperatures to the global average.
So you have a paper that shows that a method that no one used creates large uncertainty and doesn't capture abrupt changes. Further, they demonstrate what climatologists have been saying for years, that local proxies aren't good at capturing global trends. Duh. The value of the paper is hidden where?
>The value of the paper is hidden where?
Like the recent crocks by McClean, Lindzen etc, its real value is in its potential for PR purposes.
Ah, using *their* model - but model results are not to be believed unless they are proven to be reliable, such as in the case of Newton's laws of gravitation (and we know they're not reliable at high speeds or with massive objects orbiting eachother). Without evidence that the model makes correct predictions which are better than chance (and not random, that's chance given any apriori data which goes into the model), then the model is simply bogus. In short, the paper should probably not have been published. If someone publishes a paper demonstrating that a certain proxy technique was defective and gave entirely the wrong results, then I'll be more inclined to look into it and believe the result. However, the word "model" usually has me laughing; until the model is shown to be valid, I make the assumption that it is rubbish.
"until the model is shown to be valid, I make the assumption that it is rubbish."
And this is why the statisticians need the climate scientists.
Climate science (heck, all science) comes with some statistics, but how much climate science does a statistics course come with?
Therefore a science paper without a professional statistician may be improved, but a science paper without a scientist is flawed.
John Mashey and Paul in UK; thanks for the confirmation that a downward tilted hockey stick as Tim Lambert shows in this post, actually would mean the impact of GHGs on heating the planet in the last 150 year is even stronger than we supposed. It would mean the greenhouse gas forcing had to overcome an negative energy balance that had been in place for over a thousand years.
I suspect that when it dawns on the rather "thick" skeptics that a tilted hockey stick is worse for their cause, they will abandon their support for M&W. In a rational discussion, they would begin to support the level handled hockey stick of MBH (and many others since then), but I doubt they can walk away from all the negative energy they invested in beating on that stick.
Jakerman @323,
Interesting question. At least it is civil.
No.
With that said, define evidence and what period of time this extinction will occur.
Can I guess the evidence is the standard scientific explanation and prediction of AGW? Can I guess the time frame to be roughly in the range of 100-150 years? Can I guess you're baiting me with this question?
Lotharsson @326
I never used the term "unwarranted potshot" with regards to anyone here. I did use the term "condescending" with regards to Wow, mostly because that term fits when discussing his method of posting.
Mike G @332
Read more closely. I never said this paper brought value, I stated it *might* have value, and that time would tell if that was the case. I am not qualified in statistics so I cannot state one way or the other what value this paper brings to the discussion. I will say that it seems clear that the publishers of the journal seem to disagree that it is worthless else it would not have passed review and would not be scheduled for publication.
And finally, Marco @327
I did read that review and you have yourself to thank for that. I went there due to your post. Never been before. Again, I cannot say it enough, I do not endorse this paper as anything more than what it is--a statistical paper. Nowhere here, or elsewhere, have I stated anything different. I will digest all I can and follow where it heads from here.
Not sure how it came to be that I am somehow here to try to prop this up as something it isn't. I am not. I entered this thread because I grow quite tired of the arrogant and self-important attitude many seem to have, even when it is clearly not justified. I addressed one person, and one person only. He then chose to escalate that into any number of unrelated topics which finds us here.
With that, I have to be done playing for now. Work to do and all. Good luck.
> I never used the term "unwarranted potshot" with regards to anyone here.
Well, except when you [used it with regards to me](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…):
> But thanks for taking yet another unwarranted pot shot.
Bill Walsh: you were surprised that this paper was attacked, and linked it to undue defence of Mann. The fact is that this paper is a mirror of what it pretends to debunk: bad statistics by scientists. It became bad science by statisticians. Rather than resolve anything, it has shown something that Hans von Storch also noted was a problem with statisticians (self-acknowledged by some statisticians, it should be said): they have trouble understanding the science. You can't choose the right methodology if you do not understand the science. You can't have a science paper by statisticians reviewed by statisticians. This is what happened and should be criticised.
Bill Walsh said:
The "debate" between deniers and scientists is not a debate about "opinions", it is a discussion of the facts of climate science and the dishonest ramblings of anti-science syndrome sufferers (ASS'S). You deniers never offer any scientific evidence for your opinions but talk about world wide conspiracies and world government take overs. It is no wonder that serious scientists get so ticked off at your nonsense.
re: #339 marco
Let us not get carried away over-generalizing about "statisticians", who as a group likely cover and even wider range than climate scientists. The point is, you have to get the *right* statisticians, and if the "right" statisticians had reviewed this, it might be different.
M&W were/are statisticians in a (top-notch) business school.
Some statistical methods are common, but this is yet another example of overconfident generalist statisticians jumping int an area they don't know. Most do not do that. Good ones don't. Go back to that NCAR meeting I mentioned and look at the participants.
Of that list, Berger, Berliner, Bloomfield, Cressie, Dominici, Guttorp, Stein, Tebaldi are all statisticians. All have published at least one (usually more) serious climate-related papers.
Some applied-statistics journals may have the problem that they cover a wide domain, and if they do not have a similar breadth of editorial board coverage, they may get papers that sound OK statistics-wise, but not domain-wise. If they can't get a proper review, they need to say "not here."
They didn't seem to, although the allowance of the obvious political junk seems really odd.
The awful Said, et al(2008) article in CSDA may have had similar problems, only worse. It was a Social Network Analysis (SNA) paper sent to a journal that didn't really handle SNA, rather than Elsevier's sister journal Social Networks. Of course, this was likely a wise choice, especially to get the article acepted in 6 days:
-Wegman had been CSDA advisor for 20 years
-Said was then an Associate Editor
and then
-Social Networks' editorial group included one of the authors plagiarized, and two more who were coauthors of authors who were plagiarized, all re-using text in the WR that was taken from Wasserman&Faust(1994), of de Nooy, Mrvar, Bateglj(2005). The paper may not have been received well there.
As one more example of this, I offer Anderson, et al (2005), a Federal Reserve Bank Working Paper (i.e., taxpayer-funded). Take a look at the footnote on p.3. Is there anything strange about this in an economics paper?
Where might that have come from? A hint may be gained by noticing the uncited reference:
McKitrick, Ross (2004). âThe Mann et al. Northern Hemisphere âHockey Stickâ Climate Index: A Tale of Due Dilgence,â mimeo, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, October. A mimeo??
Q: Do any of the authors have any obvious paleoclimate expertise?
A: None that I could find.
Q:(US taxpayers): aren't we *pleased* that our economists do this?
Lotharsson @338,
Apologies for denying my use of that term. I did. And in retrospect it was accurate since you chose to attack the semantics of my post rather than the substance. Seems unwarranted to me.
And Ian @340,
Same Ian Forrester who claims over at RC that the journal publishing this paper is now bunk as a result? Don't like the message, must be a crappy messenger, eh? Peer review only works one way I guess.
Regardless, absolutely none of your claims regarding my posts are accurate. None. Denier? Nope. World wide conspiracy? Nope. One world governments? Fail again.
But you already knew that.
Bill Walsh you need to take a course in interpretation of the English language. You are completely wrong in your interpretation of my comments.
You are denying that my opinion of you is accurate, how appropriate for a denier.
By the way why don't you learn the difference between RC (Real Climate) and DC (Deep Climate)? You are pathetic but are a good example of the lack of educational ability of the typical denier. Lack of education must be a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to become a denier.
Bill:
>*I am all for conservation, but all against using fear to drive it. Sorry if you don't like it.*
Are you against presenting evidence that indicats a serious threat to millions of lives?
>*Interesting question. At least it is civil. No.*
What a relief!
>*With that said, define evidence and what period of time this extinction will occur.*
I was referring to threat to millions of human lives (this will bite progressively deeper as the century progresses, and for centuries to come). Not Extinctions, that said extinctions are a huge risk for many alpine species and more, the current extinction rate s already more than 50 time greater than that to of the paleo record.
>*Can I guess the evidence is the standard scientific explanation and prediction of AGW?*
Together with the evidence and that informs the he scientific explanation and prediction of AGW. Does that make a difference to your answer?
>*Can I guess the time frame to be roughly in the range of 100-150 years?*
No, mega floods, mega fires and crop failures, and threat "multipliers" occurring already are consistent with predictions.
Ian @ 343,
Oh you got me there Ian. Sorry, RC, DC, yet another typo. Better get a new keyboard.
Let's take a look at your comment from DEEP CLIMATE (better?)...
Ian wrote...
"Is this journal, âAnnals of Applied Statisticsâ, to be taken seriously when it accepts such editorializing and political posturing? It seems that it may be vying with E & E as the most discredited so called âscience journalâ."
So, exactly where am I wrong in stating that your opinion is that this journal is now a rag because they have the audacity to publish a paper you disagree with? Hard to interpret your comment otherwise. And do you not see the irony in calling out a publication for "editorializing and political posturing" when science journals such as Nature and Science could be called out for the very same offense on any number of occasions? Perhaps I am wrong as those journals are far too pure for such things, yes?
As for the rest of your personal attacks and weak rhetoric, you only serve to prove my point that arrogant and full of yourself is no way to go through life and serves no purpose when trying to make a valid point. In this case you have no point. All you do is call me names. Sad really.
Do tell, how do you rate "educational ability?" Can you even define that term? Doubtful.
Oh I do wish I could be a smart as you Ian. Really, I do. But then apparently I would have to become a first class d-bag.
Bill Walsh yo ustill don;t get it.
I have never heard of "Annals of Applied Statistics" so I have no preconceived idea of its standing. However, reading the paper discussed did not look like the type of paper I am familiar with in the decent scientific literature. I did not call the journal a rag I asked a legitimate question on its scientific merit.
Deniers like you are always jumping to conclusions and putting words in peoples' posts and deliberately misinterpreting what they say. That is not how real scientists discus things. Therefore you are not a real scientist but a typical denier.
The reason I questioned this journal is that I am not used to seeing political posturing in a scientific paper. Perhaps you know of others, I don't. Science and Nature have editors and they write the occasional editorial. That is completely different from putting political comment in a paper. You do understand the difference between an editorial and a science paper, don't you?
You also do not seem to be able to understand the difference between honest comment in reputable journals and the rubbish found far too frequently in the denier blogs you seem to spend your time on.
I call a spade a spade, get over it. If you continue to spread denier misinformation you will be called worse than what I have called you.
You deniers seem to have very thin skins.
You are the one who is using insulting and disparaging language. There is a difference between calling some one a liar or a denier when it is obvious to any intelligent person that it is a true statement. You, on the other hand use such profanities as d-bag. Very childish indeed.
John @341
No sign of the Anderson paper via that link.
The McShane and Wyner paper is the chalkboard squeak heard 'round the world. Referenced earlier, the paper debunks again MBH98/99/08 (aka, the `hockey stick' graph) and is inspiring other statisticians to examine the silly science of Mann and his sycophants and then pick up the chalk and outline the dead bodies.
These statisticians don't even have to take sides. There are so many ways to kick this cat, it's becoming a fun pastime for geeks. That global warming is a hoax is not even the issue because the math isn't a debate.
The "Medium is the Message," and that message is now very clear. There is absolutely no 'signal' in Mann's proxy data. The 'consensus' is shot to schitt.
The claimed 'consensus' concerning global warming is really just the opinion of those who have been destroying the culture and the society all along. And, all of them who sign on to that anti-America/anti-capitalism bandwagon are outing themselves as science pariahs.
Support for the global warming agenda is being lifted from websites. "The White House has recently revised its energy and environment website, stripping references to a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases and a pledge to funnel $150 billion into clean energy research. Gone from the site is a section titled 'Closing the Carbon Loophole and Cracking Down on Polluters.'" (Energy & Environment)
Very exciting, huh?
Wagaton:
Get to a hospital as soon as possible. Your frothing-at-the-mouth is a bad sign.
michael @ 347, re #341
Oops, sorry, that's: this or this, as it has been revised a few times.
This paper, which may have gotten the odd footnote from McK, is then discussed by McI, a clever style of meme-laundering.
[Wagathon](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…).
You've missed the whole point of the dissections on this thread. I'm sorry to tell you, but the chalk board squeak is the one where all of BlogScience winces at a massive own-goal.
First, as a number of commenters here and elsewhere have indicated, if the data really do describe the trajectory that McShame and Wyner produced, then climate sensitivity to anthropogenically-produced greenhouse gases is greater than previously supposed, and the whole issue of current warning is of greater concern than has been currently suggested.
Second, and again as commenters on Deltoid, Rabbet Run, and elsewhere have explained, M&W made errors in their process, rendering their output flawed.
Third, one needn't look to the various Mann permutations of proxy analysis to see a hockey stick. As I keep harping on about on this thread, a simple analysis of meticulous millenium-long (and longer) records of Prunus blossom burst, a phenomenon which is closely correlated with temperature, [shows a hockey stick](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) too, albeit a regional one for Japan. And if this doesn't suit, then hit the scientific literature covering phenology - it contains hundreds of examples of range shifts and alterations in phenological timings that also describe, or at least directly imply, a hockey stick trajectory for global temperature over the last 1000 years.
You can scream "neener neener neener" as much as you like, but is won't change the fact of empirical evidence.
Bill, the key point that you seem to be missing is that this is a paper published in a statistics journal. It was presumably reviewed by statisticians, not climate scientists. It's acceptance means that it didn't have glaring statistical errors that would preclude its publication, not that it adds anything useful to the scientific discussion. The stats in the paper are valid (as far as I see), they just ignore the underlying physical reality of what the data mean and how climatologists are actually using them in the real world. They got the right answer to irrelevant questions that no one asked- though they pretend that Mann asked.
> And in retrospect it was accurate since you chose to attack the semantics of my post rather than the substance. Seems unwarranted to me.
Then I beg you to reconsider. Let us review:
At #291 [you wrote](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…):
> I do find it more than a little interesting the amount of time and energy this paper seems to be taking from the AGW devotees--especially from the likes of the omniscient Mr. Mashey who seems to have spent quite some time on this here and at myriad other blogs. There must be more there than nothing, otherwise, why all the concern?
To which [I replied at #315](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…):
> Because denialism relies on "lies getting half way around the world before the truth can get its boots on".
> Oh, and because if someone really disproves AGW, they would be pretty much universally hailed as scientific heroes - but to get to that point, their disproof would have to stand up to scrutiny, no? Scrutiny is an essential part of the process of finding out what's right, not a sign of desperation.
This seems to address the earlier version of your key substantive point. Admittedly it's not the same *statement* of your argument that you complained about lack of substantive response to, so let's continue the review.
In a separate flow of blog conversation, at #296 you responded to chek by [introducing the "scrambling" term](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…):
> ...why, if it is such a throwaway, does there seem to be so much scrambling to prove it wrong...
SteveC in #308 pointed out that [it's rather difficult for anyone to know who else on a blog is "scrambling" or not without being psychic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…), to which [you responded in #312](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…):
> I say scrambling because there are well over 1000 posters--many the same--between here, Tamino, Eli, DC etc coming out of their proverbial shoes to prove this is garbage. It might be. But the sheer effort put in by some folks who show up at all those sites suggests a bit of scrambling.
To which I responded [at 318](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) pointing out that **the substance** of this version of your argument based on supplied evidence (rather than psychic ability) doesn't seem to hold up because the evidentiary claims ("well over 1000 posters") appear quite likely to be incorrect.
Given that the only change in this particular point in #312 compared to #291 is the evidence supplied, it seems ridiculous to argue that your argument's substance has been ignored in favour of an "unwarranted potshot" - especially as:
a) the "unwarranted potshot" was in fact an accurate critique of the essential change in the argument between #291 and #312.
b) the key point - which had not changed from #291 to #312 - had already been addressed.
So, now that you've corrected the "1000 posters" error and complained that I haven't addressed your substance, to ward of further complaint:
I don't see any point responding to your claims that there was a lot of "scrambling" going on, nor the claim that "sheer effort" (of 1000+ comments by a whole bunch of different people) **implies** "scrambling" in the first place, because those claims are opinion that (based on pretty much the same evidence) I don't happen to share). **And** more importantly because the **essential substance** of this new and corrected version of your argument [is also (and already) addressed by my response in #315](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…).
Bill Walsh, Wagathon provides a [perfect example](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) of why people in the climate science and science blogging worlds are interested in whether they can figure out if there's any **scientific** merit to this paper sooner rather than later. (And that's disregarding the entirely normal genuine scientific interest in finding out what's real and what's not.)
Why the interest? Because - before it's even published - this paper is being used to pronounce the death of AGW and push for rapid change to policies that would attempt to deal with it.
This tactic of hyping a paper for political reasons before post-publication review can thoroughly assess it has been done over and over again. If the paper doesn't actually have any impact on the science impact, then you want to find out as soon as possible because the truth is still getting its boots on when lies are half way around the world.
(I can't tell whether Wagathon is a Poe or not - but that doesn't change the point...)
Ian @346,
You're right, I don't get it. I don't get how you can accuse me of putting words in your mouth when I quote you directly. No, you don't call it a rag, but you insinuate as much. And for the record, I know nothing about it other than it seems to have a reasonably good reputation although I believe it is rather new. As for the rest of your immature rant, I really think it stands all on its own as a testament to why folks like yourself aren't helping the cause. If I am Mr. Lambert, I am not excited about having your input.
MikeG @351,
Sorry, incorrect. I know where it *will be* published. It hasn't been published yet. But what you don't seem to understand is that I don't, nor have I ever said I do, understand the statistical value of this paper. I have not once stated that I endorse the findings. I simply read it and noticed a glaring error a poster here made and pointed it out. Other than that, I leave it open to judgment once it is actually published if and when that actually happens though it would appear to be soon.
Lotharsson @352,
You know what, I completely agree. But I never questioned the interest. It's more what I see as mild panic over a potential chink in the proverbial armor. If the science is sound, then it should stand scrutiny on its own merit. Why worry? Let it be published and respond accordingly, if at all. What I see with some here is the "bizarro" Wagathon.
> I don't get how you can accuse me of putting words in your mouth when I quote you directly.
I think it may have been this, which struck me as putting words in someone's mouth:
IanF [my emphasis]:
> Is this journal, âAnnals of Applied Statisticsâ, to be taken seriously **when it accepts such editorializing and political posturing**? It seems that it may be vying with E & E as the most discredited so called âscience journalâ.
Bill Walsh [my emphasis]:
> So, exactly where am I wrong in stating that your opinion is that this journal is now a rag **because they have the audacity to publish a paper you disagree with**?
Your emphasised statement does not seem to be a fair reading of IanF's quoted statement, especially the emphasised part.
But maybe that's just me.
> It's more what I see as mild panic over a potential chink in the proverbial armor.
OK, I'm fine with you thinking that, but you don't seem fine with people disagreeing.
*You* see mild panic about a "potential chink in the armour"; others *don't* see that. They point out:
a) reasons why the actions you observe and see as evidence of "mild panic" may in fact not be generated or motivated by "mild panic", and
b) reasons why this may be mild panic, but NOT about a "chink in the armour" but rather a set of claims that may not/will not stand up to scrutiny, but are useful in the meantime for the denialists and propagandists.
I guess we'll have to disagree on that view.
> If the science is sound, then it should stand scrutiny on its own merit.
That is correct, as long as you *limit your concern* to merely the impact of a paper on the science.
If you widen your concern to the impact of a paper on public perception, politics and policy and ultimately people and the ecosystem (as I've pointed out a number of times), then figuring out fast whether there's an actual scientific issue or whether it's just the latest in a loooooooooooong line of "nails in the AGW coffin" that don't stand up to extended scientific scrutiny is kind of important - and the quicker the better. The impact of the initial hype can be way out of proportion with the *scientific* impact of the paper itself - as we have seen any number of times in the past.
What part of that don't you get or think should be handled differently? Or are you actually advocating ignoring how papers that may in fact turn out to be crap are used to influence politics/perception/politics?
[This description](http://deepclimate.org/2010/08/19/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/#comment-5156) of the problems with M&W2010 is one I found particularly clear and well expressed. Thanks to Timothy Chase.
Temperatures and proxies are represented by numbers but they themselves are not numbers. They are aspects of a physical system. And a large part of the problem with a statistician attempting to do statistical analysis in climatology without the benefit of a climatologist will stem from his lack of knowledge of physics, chemistry and possibly even biology.
For example, it has already been pointed out that in their analysis they did not take into proper account how polar amplification results in larger swings in temperature at higher latitudes â and that when estimating temperature variation at lower latitudes on the basis of proxies at higher latitudes one has to scale down the variation, that is recognize that the swings in temperature will be smaller at those lower latitudes. Likewise, a statistician will not automatically be aware of the difference between proxies of low resolution (which may be good at estimating average temperature on a decadal or even centennial scale) and proxies of high resolution that are good at estimating temperature at a yearly level.
For example, stoma count (where stoma are the holes in leaves where leaves engage in respiration) is apparently has a resolution no better than the lifetime of the plant. Or borehole temperatures with which one estimates surface temperatures, but where heat diffusion into the lower layers of the earth involves a progressive, laregely linear, loss of resolution with depth â which will also be dependent upon geological factors.
Lacking a background in climatology or plant physiology a statistician is unlikely to be aware of this. Judging from the evidence, the two authors were unaware of polar amplification and what this implies in terms of how one derives information from proxies at different latitudes. Likewise they appear to have been unaware of how different proxies will have different resolution â and therefore attempted to judge models based upon an annual resolution when the proxy-based model was not designed for this.
Furthermore, a statistician who is unfamiliar with climatology may be inclined to treate its problems as exercises in curve-fitting instead of as problems that are ultimately physics problems. Some suggestion of this exists in McShane and Wynerâs testing of proxy-based and noise-based approaches by means of problems in which the endpoints are known and the approach is used to fill in the middle.
A proxy-based approach does not actually work on the basis of such interpolation as the very point of using proxies is to be able to extrapolate beyond what is known â beyond the instrumental period. But a noised-based approach using the Lasso method often quite similar to or even reduces to simple linear interpolation â and given largely linear trends over an especially brief amount of time a noised-based largely interpolating method will âdo wellâ in a way that is quite irrelevant â where the âbest methodâ would simply be to connect the dots by means of a straight line.
Nothing mystical or magical about it. Simply a matter of background knowledge, familiarity and expertise.
There are a number of problems with their reliance on grey literature.
First, rather than attempting to familiarize themselves with the field by means of peer reviewed literature they rely upon grey literature, then there isnât much of any assurance of quality to that information. Their sources may be prejudiced, slanted or simply uninformed â and there wonât be even the most basic checks in place to suggest otherwise. And having relied upon such grey literature for their background regarding the technical issues that are involved, it would seem that they havenât done any of the homework prior to taking the test.
Second, such grey literature may appear to justify a given methodology when the proper methodology actually has to be justified by other means. The proper methodology is not a matter of pure mathematics but is largely grounded in empirical science, e.g., the temporal resolution of borehole temperature measurements at different depths as a proxy of surface temperature at earlier times.
Third, misinformation is misinformation. If they are including misinformation in their essay, then they are responsible for spreading that misinformation. And this is most certainly something that should be critiqued â irrespective of what it might have to say regarding their math.
Fourth, it suggests a certain lack of professional and academic standards that have been put in place in order to preserve a level of objectivity and quality â which suggests that they may be granting something else precedence. It further suggests that in their view it is OK for others to grant such things precedence.
Fifth, it pollutes peer-reviewed literature by allowing material which has not been quality checked to enter peer-reviewed literature by means of a back door. Which means that at later points their peer-reviewed article may be referenced by other peer-reviewed literature for precisely those points that did not in fact pass peer review.
Delayed post [shows up](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…).
Well, I guess insofar as my motives have been impugned, you could call this a response. But, I really don't care about the opinions of climate science authoritarians who believe Mann can be right even if the math is erroneous. Even the IPCC knows that is pure lunacy.
We already know enough to model the climate. And, we can do so with astounding accuracy and not just 100s of years out but even billions of years into the future.
The variation in cosmic ray flux is a key independent variable. Related to that is the sun's solar cycle which effects cosmic ray flux and also the climate in ways that we capture with factoring in the changes in the polarity and the variability of the Earth's magnetic field. Related also to the variation in cosmic ray flux is the changes in the amount of cosmic rays that bathe the Earth, like being hit by a galactic gravestone that falls on your toe, as the Earth dashes through the leftovers of busted stars.
There's only one problem. We humans don't have the 'computation power.'
The UN-IPCC admits on page 40 of the, "Independent Summary for Policymakers - IPCC Fourth Assessment Report," that, "[i]t is not formally known if today's climate models are a suitable basis for projecting climate." What that means, of course, is that GCMs lack substance - they are illusory and are not to be considered as conforming to a proper methodology and therefore more social than natural and having an obviously insubstantial character.
Why is the UN-IPCC forced to admit this simple truth? For starters, it is because the grid blocks that are used in the constructions of GCMs are too large to accurately simulate real-world climate conditions such as thunderstorms, hurricanes and other natural processes that transfer huge amounts of energy from the surface of the Earth to the stratosphere. Accordingly, various `parameters' to account for what cannot be conceptualized and captured and, in any event, cannot be be quantified due to the limitations of the computing power that Earthlings have at their disposal. As a result, simple approximations of real-activity are used because the ability of GCMs to accurately represent actual, observable physical processes is impossible.
Moreover, because these various `parameters' are selected simply to make the model agree with empirical data, the resulting models cannot be used to as evidence of reliability in capturing reality or forecasting the future. And, the UN-IPCC admits that the usefulness of such parameterization is unproven and the use of GCMs generally is unjustified because We cannot assume that a "model that has been `tuned' to give a good representation of certain key observations," may actually provide any predictive ability when such `closely tuned' models have not been formally evaluated to assure that such "tunable parameters" not exceed "the number of degrees of freedom in the observational testing scheme for the GCMs." The UN-IPCC admits that too: "There has been no formal evaluation of the extent to which current GCMs satisfy this requirement." (Id. at 40)
Again, the UN-IPCC admits all of this: "`parameterization' is the process of constructing empirically-based procedures that account for the significant large-scale effects of processes that cannot be resolved (i.e., represented within the computational scheme) because of basic limits in computational power. These limits are induced by the scope of the climate modeling problem. Empirical parameterizations are not unique. Because empirical parameterizations can be invented to force a model to match observations, the ability of a model to represent observed conditions cannot be cited as grounds for confidence in the model's physical realism." (Id. at page 39)
Wagathon, are you perhaps confused? The real IPCC summary or policymakers has only 18 pages. Perhaps you were referring to the tripe produced by the Fraser Institute and dubbed the NIPCC.
Wagathon:
And you believe Mann can't be right even when the maths is correct as it has been in every paper after 1999. That makes you a denialist authoritarian.
Wagathon, what on earth does Mann's paleoclimate work have to do with climate modeling?
Wagathon, your off topic talking points are answered [here](http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php). If you don't have anything to say about the topic of the thread, then STFU.
Wagathon what you have written is complete nonsense. As noted above, The SPM for WG1 is only 18 pages long. [Here is what it actually says about climate modeling](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf):
@Bill Walsh
Why are commenters at anti-AGW spots like WUWT "scrambling" to make hay out of this particular paper? By your logic they should shut up and let the science stand on its own merit, no? By your logic, the fact that there are many times *more* comments of that ilk than those you pointed to surely indicates that there is some massive flaw in their position that they are desperately trying to cover up, no? If I went over to these places would I find comments from you critical of their mad dash to slay MBH98 yet again?
234 Dan
Thanks. I was not familiar with that usage. I can see that it makes sense in a way, but is that still true if there is no way of testing the "prediction" other than by making other "predictions"?
Just so there's no confusion about what the IPCC admitted you can verify the legitimacy of what i quoted by comparing them for yourself in the "Independent Summary for Policymakers - IPCC Fourth Assessment Report."
Whether the confustion is by those who genuinely fear polar bears falling from the sky whenvever some right wing oil company executive lights a pipe or simply out of superstitious ignorance, the McShane and Wyner paper is not about using GCMs to predict runaway global warming. It is about the use by others of such GCMs who have no understanding of the statistics underlying the GCMs.
Those who are interested in using GCMs to identify long term trends will not want to ignore statisticians like Wegman, McShane, Wyner, McIntyre and McKitrick and the debunking of MBH98/88/08 (the 'hockey stick' graph). Hans von Storch said, âDie Kurve ist Quatsch.â McShane & Wyner are not breaking new ground with respect to debunking that.
The only thing the staticians have to do is stick to the math. The truth will speak for itself and even the IPCC admits as much.
Errors, misinformation, bias and distorted reporting of natural events is the problem today, not the weather, not the climate and not the relentless barrage of 'climate porn' like receding glaciers, melting icepacks and polar bears falling from the sky.
Ignorance of history and statistics is the problem facing humanity, not CO2. Showing the misuse of statistics by the deceivers is the best plance to start and the statiticians do not even have to take sides on the political debate: the 'Medium is the Message."
"... Western education about science and especially the environment assumes uniformitarianism. This is the concept that change is gradual over long periods of time. In fact, significant change occurs all the time. For example, the orbit of the earth changes every single year primarily because of the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter, a scientific fact we have known for approximately 150 years, yet until recently most school texts said the orbit was a fixed unchanging slightly elliptical orbit. Similarly, few people are aware that four temperature trend changes have occurred since 1900. The world warmed from 1900 to 1940, ooled from 1942 to 1980,warmth from 1980 to 2000 and has cooled from 2000 to the present."
The UN-IPCC admits in the "Independent Summary for Policymakers - IPCC Fourth Assessment Report," that, "[i]t is not formally known if today's climate models are a suitable basis for projecting climate." What that means, of course, is that GCMs lack substance - they are illusory and are not to be considered as conforming to a proper methodology and therefore more social than natural and having an obviously insubstantial character.
That is what the McShane & Wyner paper is about. And, that is why global warming alarmists oppose it.
242 Dan,
Did anyone say that? Some certainly questioned the usage, just as they did the use of "artifact".
The actual complaints have been of the generally odd nature of the paper. Much of it reads like tabloid journalism rather than a serious paper. And that is to ignore the problems with the actual statistics, as shown by Martin Vermeer and others.
Wagathon:
"The UN-IPCC admits in the "Independent Summary for Policymakers - IPCC Fourth Assessment Report," ..."
The 'Independent' SPM was not written by the UN or by any team associated with the UN. You keep claiming that in it, "the UN admits..." This is false.
This is also dreadfully easy to know or find out - which means you are either being willfully ignorant, or dishonest.
Wagathon,
Dude you are one sorry SOB. You are *not* quoting the IPCC, you are quoting the Fraser Institute's NIPCC, just as I thought.
Everything else you say is contributing to global warming because it is just so much hot air.
Wagathon @367 said: "That is what the McShane & Wyner paper is about. And, that is why global warming alarmists oppose it."
No, what M&W's paper is about is misusing statistics as detailed in posts [no.5](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) and [no.357](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) which clearly explain their problems in layman's terms.
That you're dripping eager and willing to accept sub-standard falsities in support of what you believe says more about your own standards than anything else.
The great thing about getting the greater community of statisticians involved in this matter is that they don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. "You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish."
IPCC
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
8.1.3.1 Parameter Choices and âTuningâ Parametrizations are typically based in part on simplified physical models of the unresolved processes (e.g., entraining plume models in some convection schemes). The parametrizations also involve numerical parameters that must be specified as input. Some of these parameters can be measured, at least in principle, while others cannot. It is therefore common to adjust parameter values (possibly chosen from some prior distribution) in order to optimise model simulation of particular variables or to improve global heat balance. This process is often known as âtuningâ. It is justifiable to the extent that two conditions are met:
1. Observationally based constraints on parameter ranges are not exceeded. Note that in some cases this may not provide a tight constraint on parameter values (e.g., Heymsfield and Donner, 1990).
2. The number of degrees of freedom in the tuneable parameters is less than the number of degrees of freedom in the observational constraints used in model evaluation. This is believed to be true for most GCMs â for example, climate models are not explicitly tuned to give a good representation of North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) variability â but no studies are available that formally address the question. If the model has been tuned to give a good representation of a particular observed quantity, then agreement with that observation cannot be used to build confidence in that model. However, a model that has been tuned to give a good representation of certain key observations may have a greater likelihood of giving a good prediction than a similar model (perhaps another member of a âperturbed physicsâ ensemble) that is less closely tuned (as discussed in Section 8.1.2.2 and Chapter 10).
Given sufficient computer time, the tuning procedure can in principle be automated using various data assimilation procedures. To date, however, this has only been feasible for EMICs (Hargreaves et al., 2004) and low-resolution GCMs (Annan et al., 2005b; Jones et al., 2005; Severijns and Hazeleger, 2005). Ensemble methods (Murphy et al., 2004; Annan et al., 2005a; Stainforth et al., 2005) do not always produce a unique âbestâ parameter setting for a given error measure.
-----
i.e., The UN-IPCC admits that, "[i]t is not formally known if today's climate models are a suitable basis for projecting climate." (see, 'Independent Summary for Policymakers - IPCC Fourth Assessment Report')
312 Bill Walsh,
Why do you suppose that is?
I'll give you a clue: "sceptics" often claim than Watts, McIntyre, etc. do not censor; only the "alarmist" bloggers do that. What do you think the truth might be?
Oh, and just how do you define vitriol? Perhaps you self-edit as you read? I suggest you read [this thread](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/15/comment-of-the-week/).
Wagathon, you're a liar, delusional and unable to address yhe issues with M&W that have been raised.
Maybe they'll adopt you as their poster child.
Perhaps a sock puppet?
336 Paul K2,
You got the quotes the wrong way round. It should have read
thick "sceptics"
Yes, they are thick; no, they are not sceptics. Sceptics look at the evidence and employ critical thinking. They do not display obvious ideological bias in every sentence they write.
348 Wagathon,
Thanks. Brilliant Poe test.
'Wagathon' seems to have copied something from some guy posting at Amazon-- here's the only source found by Google's search for the chunk at the end of his last huge text dump:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22formally+known+if+today%27s+climate+m…
@wegman:
>>i.e., The UN-IPCC admits that, "[i]t is not formally known if today's climate models are a suitable basis for projecting climate." (see, 'Independent Summary for Policymakers - IPCC Fourth Assessment Report')
You are not quoting the IPCC report, which is why you did not provide a link. You are putting in quotes something not in the IPCC report, and something the UN never said.
You seem to admit your mistake in your last post by actually quoting the IPCC, but then include an "i.e." statement, with quotes, as if the IPCC backs up your erroneous quote.
It does not. The only thing the IPCC admits here is that "the tuning procedure can in principle" cannot "be automated using various data assimilation procedures." The IPCC states that the tuning process cannot be "automated"--not "is not formally known if today's climate models are a suitable basis for projecting climate." Comment 364 sums up what the IPCC says about the climate models.
Wagathon,
Here is what the IPCC says in the executive summary for chapter 8:
If you chose to read the actual Chapter 8 Executive Summary, you will find that models have both strengths and weaknesses which are readily admitted. Regional changes on subcontinental scales are pretty iffy, but using regional climate models fed with input from AOGCMS seem to provide better information. The crap about parametarizations is pure BS. What parametaizations in AOGCMS provide is modeling of sub gridscale processes which are based generally on theory and observation. There are not many, for example GISS Model E has about 6 and all of them are constrained by physics.
You might read the real thing rather than the shit from the NIPCC. I don't really feel like rereading all of chapter 8 to refute your points since hot air is hot air. Welcome to the big leagues -- the NIPCC has exactly 0 people who know anything at all about climate modeling.
To DaveH @365,
I think I have made it clear. I am equally against anyone celebrating this paper as more than it is. Which is to say, I am not enamored with the rah rah love over at WUWT. It is what is it is. A paper. We shall see. But, the logic is the same. Which is to say I agree with you. I am as much against the love there as I am the hate here and other similar places.
And yes, I think you would find that my only post there, under the name "BPW", is supportive of an open-minded approach to the issue. I endorse Deech56 though perhaps in a different way than he meant it. I use a different name there to remain consistent with earlier posts.
Answers to the rest tomorrow (and by the rest I mostly mean Lotharsson. I am puzzled by your defense of Ian, Loth. Really. But I will answer in full tomorrow. I have a daughter who is requesting my presence and it is late here).
But I will answer.
And to those that care, BPW at RC is me too. Like I say there, I am looking forward to their honest opinion on this and am happy they are taking their time.
Wow, more than I thought. I will follow up, especially Lotharsson's reasonable questions.
Wow. Bill, you've posted such a flurry of comments here in defense of the criticisms of these papers, there MUST be something to these criticisms.
Thr s smthng t ll f th crtcsms. Tht smthng s wht mks th glbl wrmng hx s ntrstng t std bt ths mst ntrstd n stdyng t nw r n th rs f psychlg, sclg nd phlsph.
ll f ths wth n rpttn t prsrv hv btn pths twrd th N xts lng g. Bt, th rfsncks wh cntn t spprt th ndfnsbl kp prtndng MBH// (k, th 'hck stck' grph) hs nt lrd bn shwn t b prvn scntfc frd.
McShn nd Wynr r nt vn ddrssng th mttr f dt mnpltn nd crrptn. ll th'r syng s tht thr s bsltl n 'sgnl' n th dt--nt bsd n n dlgcll-mtvtd prcncptn bt bsd n thr sttstcl nlyss f t.
Wht's ntrstng t sttstcns s nt th fndng bt th w th rsrchrs rrv t th prf. nd, tht s wht th d hm ttckrs f McShn & Wynr fl t rlz: thr r mn mr wys nd t sttstcns, fndng thm s mr ntrstng t thm thn th fndngs. Tht s wht scnc s rll bt.
nd w'v sn bfr th mthds ths scnc thrtrn dfndrs f Mnn nd hs crcl-jrk clt f sychphnts s whn t cms t sttstcns wh ctll ndrstnd mth tht ndrls th nvrfblt f th lng trm prjctns f GCMs, .g.,
BS ND CNCLMNT N TH PCC PRCSS: TH HCK-STCK FFR ND TS MPLCTNS Dvd Hllnd BSTRCT
Th clmtc hck stck hypthss hs systmc prblms. rvw hw th PCC cm t dpt th hck stck s scntfc vdnc f hmn ntrfrnc wth th clmt. rprt ls n ndpndnt pr rvwd stds f th hck stck tht wr nstgtd b th S Hs f Rprsnttvs n , nd whch cmprhnsvl nvldtd t. Th dvrgnc prblm nd th slctv nd nrlbl ntr f tr rng rcnstrctns r dscssd, s s th nstsfctr rvw prcss f th PCC Frth ssssmnt Rprt tht gnrd th nvldtn f th hck stck. Th rrr fnd rcntl n th GSS tmprtr srs s ls ntd. t s cncldd tht th PCC hs nthr th strctr nr th ncssr ndpndnc nd sprvsn f ts prcsss t b ccptbl s th mnpl thrt n clmt scnc. Sggstns r md s t hw th PCC cld mprv ts prcdrs twrds prdcng rprts nd rcmmndtns tht r mr scntfcll snd. (nrg & nvrnmnt (), Vl. , N. +, -)
It is amazing how little information is lost by disemvoweling one of Wagathon's posts.
> It is amazing how little information is lost by disemvoweling one of Wagathon's posts.
I think there's probably a net information increase ;-)
> I am as much against the love there as I am the hate here and other similar places.
Perhaps it would help if you defined what you mean by the "hate here" that you see, as opposed to skepticism, disagreement, critique...and the like?
Because I don't recall perceiving anything I would call "hate" (although I may have read and dismissed it), but I'm seeing plenty of skepticism, disagreement and critique - which are traditional and valued attributes of scientific discourse - and that seems to be occurring even though this is merely a blog about science frequented by a mix of non-scientists and scientists, rather than a scientist-only forum.
Wow @384,
No, there is nothing that dictates that there MUST be something to the criticisms. There MAY be something to them, I defend the criticisms because to not do so would be hypocritical. What I don't defend is knee jerk reactions that are useless until some thorough study has been done. This goes for Mr. Watts et al as well. And I suspect, when the code is explored more deeply by others who are qualified, faults will be found. Whether they dismiss the paper, or are inconsequential remains to be seen.
TrueSceptic @373,
Why do I suppose that is? Well, I don't think it has anything to do with censoring. I know Watts seems to snip ad hom attacks, but by no means do I think his is a perfect world. But sorry, my impression is that there does not seem to be the same level of hostility. I see posts from Eli, Deech and others and the tone in general towards those folks is usually pretty fair.
How do I define vitriol? How about...
n. Sharpness or bitterness of feeling, as in speech or writing; venom
And if your point is that there are those at WUWT who engage in this, no doubt you are right. But that isn't the point. Because someone else does something doesn't make it alright.
More to answer Lotharsson's questions @356 in a few. First day of school tomorrow. Gots to prep the kids.
1) I mentioned this briefly before, but found more and took a quick look.
McShane&Abraham references: Green, Armstrong, Soon "Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for Public Policy Decision Making" (2009).
All may be pleased to know that they forecast that every year for the rest of the century to be within 0.5C of 2008.
Take that, laws of physics!
2) This may be just a coincidence, but Armstrong and Abraham do work in the same building (but not same department) at Wharton.
Bill Walsh,
I think the criticisms fall into a few categories:
1) (and my pet peeve) They didn't benchmark a new method, well actually a couple of new methods, against synthetic data which is common practice in the field today. As a result we have no idea whether or not they produce reconstruction that are in the ballpark.
2) These were a couple of statisticians who waded into complex waters w/o knowing (or apparently even trying to understand) the issues faced in paleoclimate reconstructions.
3) Weaknesses in the verification methodology. It is interesting that proxies outperformed the noise they generated (and it has been a lot) only during the first and last verification blocks. These blocks are interesting because they are the only ones which do not have the two endpoints constrained. I also think, although I have not confirmed, that they did not detrend the temperature series before figuring out the noise function. This was a mistake which M&M made in their papers. The actual noise function can only be adduced after detrending. Letting the longer term climate signal into the noise generating process adds a big hint as to what answer the noise should produce. (If I am wrong, someone out there please correct me).
Quite frankly, M&W would have done better by writing two papers. The first should have examined the performance of their method against synthetic proxy data. This could have included their investigation of verification performance of noise (w/o the signal) vs. synthetic proxies. The second should have been further investigation, if their method had any validity at all, of the performance on actual proxy data. Obviously this would have entailed a lot more work and probably actual collaboration with scientists who work in the area -- one of the barriers to entry which both myself and John Mashey have highlighted earlier in this and other threads. As it stands, the work seems rather shoddy and is at odds with work by other statisticians (see the Li, et. al. papers cited in M&@) using similar methods.
eli's drop-in critique of M&W at Watts seems to be the most substantial; eli said this:
âIt looks like the basic error on this one is that by calibrating against the hemispheric average, rather than smaller grid cells, they loose information and kill the signal to noise. Averaging out the local signal means that noise looks better than signal and in their words, noise provides a better fit than the proxys.â
This is not true and there is a good thread at Jeff ID's which shows it; amongst other parts of the paper section 3.6 seems to be germane. At least eli has conceded the paper does have some value.
Someone raised Ruddiman above in some context; Ruddiman's thesis about the long-term effect of AGW is egregious and I'm [not] surprised it is still making the rounds. Sage notes that human agriculture and therefore humanity got a kick along 15000-12000 years ago when CO2 levels went from 200 to 270ppm:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00009.x/a…
The point here is that if CO2 went to 270 ~15000bya and CO2 levels were 280ppm when AGW allegedly kicked off in 1900 then Ruddiman has ~ 10ppm to work with in the meantime to substantiate his thesis of the long-term AGW influence of humanity; that's 10ppm over about 5000 years.
That is an interesting link cohenite. But I can't read the paper since I don't have a sub. The abstract doesn't say how they came up the 200 number, but it does seem to be at odds with the commonly accepted numbers of 260-270.
However, this really doesn't have much to do with Ruddiman's hypothesis which involves land use changes as a human influence on climate in the early holocene.
I think Sage is right:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/291/5501/112
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/fig_tab/nature06949_F2…
And Ruddiman talks about the late Holocene after the sharp increase in CO2; the point is the CO2 increase came before the human activity which, Sage argues, could only happen because CO2 levels assisted the development of agriculture.
[Cohenite](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…).
Assuming a mean global temperature of 15 C at the commencement of the Industrial Revolution, and a sensitivity of 3 C, the 10 ppm increase to which you refer represents an increase of 0.16 C. Whilst this is not a biosphere-threatening increase in and of itself, it is still sufficient to shift the distribution ecosystems and the phenologies of species.
More importantly, if one considers [the Petit Vostock data](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg), one can see that without the almost immediate (in geological terms) biospheric and lithospheric drawing-down of CO2 from the atmosphere, temperatures since the last glacial event have similarly resisted their typical decent toward a new glacial event.
In this light, if the effect of humans during the Holocene has been to raise atmospheric CO2 concentration by 10 ppm, in the face of having it otherwise decrease as it is mineralised by the lithosphere or sequestered in biomass, then humans have indeed had a profound effect on Holocene climate, and most especially on modern climate. It is completely irrelevant to your criticism of Ruddiman that the original increase in CO2 concentration preceded human influence on it.
Given humanity's reliance on the current mild global climatic conditions in order to achieve its extraordinary global dominance, Ruddiman is bang on the money making the claims that he does.
Without it, we might be living in a very different cultural world. Shifting toward a glacial event now would alter how we live near the poles: just as warming the planet will greatly alter how we live in equatorial and in arid areas. And this is to not even touch on the profound biospheric effects which will ripple around the planet.
Quite simply, cohenite, your point about Ruddiman is a strawman - a ruddy great - egregious, in fact - and ill-informed strawman.
Further, your argument about the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 200 to 270 ppm enabling the expansion of human agriculture ignores the contemporary increase in global temperature as the planet emerged from the last glacial event, and the fact that it was only after the last glacial event that humans learned to domesticate food crops, and how to cultivate them. By the time they had done both, they were largely already working in a modern CO2 concentration environment.
As much as you might wish it otherwise, in order to make your "climate sceptic" claims, there are other factors beside CO2 concentration that influence the developement of human agriculture.
The other thing about the [historical CO2 level](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400ky…) is that is shows that our biosphere is adapted to a range of 180 to 300 ppm - so Tim Curtin's hysteria, and that of his sympathisers, that the biosphere cannot function without elevating atmospheric CO2 is entirely misplaced.
Oh, and one should not forget the influence that the use of fire, for cooking and for warmth and for smelting, had on human cultures during the early Holocene. This technology itself had a profound enabling effect on agricultural practices.
Yes quite BJ, if your assumptions are correct: 0.16C over 5000 years; about 3.2*-05C per annum.
> No, there is nothing that dictates that there MUST be something to the criticisms.
Apparently from the same commenter who wrote:
> There must be more there than nothing, otherwise, why all the concern?
Double standards, much?
"I defend the criticisms because to not do so would be hypocritical."
In what way would that be hypocritical?
Why would you accept and defend criticisms of the hockey stick yet refuse to accept criticisms of the criticism? Surely that is the hypocrisy.
Or is any cockamamie story put forward by a miniscule set of nutjobs necessary to defend against the majority? Just because they are a minority?
If so, that is merely dogma, not principle speaking.
Cohenite.
[Non sequitur]
Discuss.
Cohenite.
[Non sequitur](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…).
Discuss.
Bernard: "The other thing about the historical CO2 level is that is shows that our biosphere is adapted to a range of 180 to 300 ppm - so Tim Curtin's hysteria, and that of his sympathisers, that the biosphere cannot function without elevating atmospheric CO2 is entirely misplaced"
I don't think that is what Tim Curtin says but why don't you ask him yourself? In addition your slant on adaptive parameters is rather strange; generally organisms adapt against each other not the environment; survival of the fittest and all that, but I see you are in an eristic state of mind so we'll leave it at that.
[Cohenite](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…).
Oh, puh-lease!
Do you actually have any idea at all about the relative input of biotic and abiotic factors in driving the evolution of species?!
Yours is a completely fatuous statement.
Go back to divorce lawyering. At least there you have training and experience.
Of course, if you wish to dispute my claim that your statement is fatuous, you need only to write the monograph that proves me wrong.
Have at it.
*generally organisms adapt against each other not the environment; survival of the fittest and all that*
This is utter nonsense. Where oh where cohenite to you dredge up such gibberish? Organisms need to adapt to both the biotic and abiotic environment. Both factors determine the limits of a species distribution both locally and globally. If abiotic environmental conditions were not so important, why would there be such enormous biodiversity at lower latitudes whereas ecosystems towards the poles are much more species-poor? Moreover, species do not necessarily adapt 'against' each other; many co-evolved mutualisms are also vitally important.
Most vertebrates exhibit thermoneutral zones outside of which they must increase their metabolic rates to survive. Invert activity patterns are based on local abiotic conditions and on behavioral phenotypic plasticity to changes in these. Certainly, intra- and interspecific competition, as well as trophic interactions, play a critical role in determining the success of species and local populations. But abiotic conditions are also critical: temperature, moisture, etc.
Moreover, cohers, do you know what the term fitness means? Your vague reference to it suggests not. Care to define it for me off the top of your head?
The bottom line is that cohers is well out of his depth on this topic. I stayed out of this discussion until now but that last comment of his was so utterly DUMB that I had to jump in.
"Based on the arguments presented here, a null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed: It is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change to the Earth's climate, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago."
Summary: The energy transfer processes that occur at the Earth's surface are examined from first principles. The effect of small changes in the solar constant caused by variations in the sunspot cycles and small increases in downward long wave infrared flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on surface temperature are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth's climate. The effects on surface temperature of small increases in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.
R Clark. A null hypothesis for CO2. Energy & Environment. 21:4, Aug. 2010, 171-200
-----
And for any victims of Hot World Syndrome who want to break through to fearmongering and venture outside Plato's prison cave, here's a quick summary of the summary: the AGW hypothesis cannot be proven; everything else is dogma.
Null hypothesis: Wagathon can't tell credible sources for scientific papers from bad.
Data: Wagathon quotes paper from Energy and Environment
Hypothesis confirmed!
That null hypothesis summary is completely wrong.
"The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth's climate."
Absolutely incorrect.
"The effects on surface temperature of small increases in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change."
The flux averages about 324W. The change from 100ppm increase is easily visible and the exit fluxes are measured and 9W/m^2 difference is measured, easily within the error estimates of the sensors.
"The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid."
Only by circular reasoning.
I.e. not at all.
The solar changes cannot warm a nighttime temperature.
Nighttime temperatures are increasing.
The hypothesis of Solar changes being effective to explain the climate changes is therefore shown false.
Wagathon [says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…):
Does this [remind anyone of something](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IBnfkcrsM&feature=related)?
Just quietly, cohenite, [Jeff Harvey has given you some very good starting material](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) with which to learn and to understand why [your comment about adaptation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) is completely off the mark.
Perhaps you should run everything that you type past your buddy [David Stockwell](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/australian_politicians_overest…) for scientific soundness before you engage you mouth in public. I'm sure that even he would wince at your latest...
You might also revisit your [bizarre non sequitur](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) - changing the subject a la Tim Curtin will not make it go away.
Scientists have told so many lies, I would think all but science authoritarians would welcome the null hypothesis. Isn't this the correct way put science back in the driver's seat?
Who is it who wishes instead to continue disemvoweling 'rsn' and continue to superstitiously bow to the mysticism of 'The One' known as CO2? Whose interests are being served by continuing to sacrifice Americanism on the altar of a self-defeating philosophy that 'Earth is the center of the universe, redux.' Galileo is weeping.
Wagathon,
Straw man: "'The One' known as CO2". Whoever claimed that CO2 was the only climate forcing agent?
"Whose interests are being served by continuing to sacrifice Americanism on the altar of a self-defeating philosophy that 'Earth is the center of the universe, redux.'"
Whoever said that free enterprise, freedom and the free market are inconsistent with effective policy on climate change?
Wow has quickly demonstrated the flaw in the E&E paper. Why don't you show some skepticism, curiosity and demonstrate that you have an ounce of interest in real science by accepting that R. Clark might not be the guru you suppose he is. To further pile it on:
"*The effects on surface temperature of small increases in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. *"
Completely laughable. This is an ignorant statement since satellite measurements in the infra-red and ground based upward looking FTIR observations of GHGs are either directly or indirectly observing the change in the greenhouse effect due to the addition of GHGs. How do you explain this?
Worden, 2008. Satellite measurements of the clear-sky greenhouse effect from tropospheric ozone, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo182.
Without changes in the downward LWIR how would thermal IR observing instruments function?
"The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth's climate."
Then why hasn't the stratosphere warmed, and why do the satellite observations of solar irradiance flatly disprove this (w/o assuming a v. large sensitivity)?
This further goes to prove that E&E desperately needs to instigate some effective peer review. Interestingly, I can't access the article since my institution doesn't deem it to be a scientific journal.
*[Off topic. Wagathon, you don't seem to be able to stay on the topic of this thread. Please do not post to this thread again.]*
So it seems to me that one thing Wagathon has shown is that Americanism = out-of-touch-with-reality-ism.
Let's hope not all Americans believe in Americanism.
Sorry ... the lead to the comments said, "Using our model, we calculate that there is a 36% posterior probability that 1998 was the warmest year over the past thousand. If we consider rolling decades, 1997-2006 is the warmest on record; our model gives an 80% chance that it was the warmest in the past thousand years.
"Discuss."
I thought that was a good idea to suggest that we 'discuss' why models fail, e.g., that they demonstrate no 'hindcasting' ability -- which is what the McShane and Wyner paper is about, but apparently the 'topic' has changed and I will not 'post to this thread again' as you requested.
"Scientists have told so many lies"
Indeed, there are many scientists working for vested interests in fossil fuels that have told many lies.
Yet you still believe them.
"I would think all but science authoritarians would welcome the null hypothesis."
They would also appreciate a correct investigation into it rather than a pack of lies.
"Isn't this the correct way put science back in the driver's seat?"
It is, which is why your parroting of the horrendous E&E paper here is so unwelcome. You're trying to pull the steering wheel from the drivers hands. Just because you don't like the road.
Oh dear, I've ruffled some feathers; Jeff says:
"Organisms need to adapt to both the biotic and abiotic environment. Both factors determine the limits of a species distribution both locally and globally."
I said: "generally organisms adapt against each other not the environment; survival of the fittest and all that"
Fitness in biologic terms is a matter of differential reproduction, one species being able to reproduce quicker than a competing specie[s]. Of course abiotic parameters are important but let me ask you, can a species be more fit than another in a deteriorating environment? The point is from a comparison of reproductive rates between species, from the viewpoint of the loser[s] the environment is always a deteriorating one. Of course from the catastrophic view of AGW, all species will be disadvantaged equally and all will be less fit. Have I got that right?
Lotharsson @398,
Well, you have me there. Fair enough. I'll own it.
How about this? It would seem that there MAY be something to the paper based on the reaction. And there MAY very well be something to the criticisms as well. It will take some time and some others to (in)validate the conclusions properly.
Rattus @391,
I don't have issue with what you write. But again, the issue is jumping to conclusions rather than waiting for it to actually be published and, if possible, tested and replicated. As for whether they asked scientists, if I understand it correctly--and I have no doubt I will be corrected if I don't--all these guys did was take the raw data available and compared it to useless data to see if they could verify the original result. Not sure where asking a climate scientist their opinion would have changed things as they were not creating new data. Now, I freely admit I am not a statistician, or a scientist so if there are important ways to interpret the data that they failed to do, I would guess that will be exposed soon enough. But that will take time. At least enough for the paper to actually get published in its final form with, what I read, will be added commentary from others to add clarity.
Wow @399,
You really want to try to show you are smart, don't you? Inferiority complex or something? Whatever it is, it's not working for you. What I said was I defend your right to criticize this paper, just like I defend the right of another to criticize those who are critical. To not do so would be hypocritical. What about that do you not understand? Or do you just grab at straws so you can squeeze in a few more condescending remarks? Do I understand you to say that this paper is a "cockamamie story" and that the writers are a "miniscule (sic) set of nutjobs" despite the fact that the paper was reviewed and will be published? Who the hell made you judge and jury anyway?
Of course from the catastrophic view of AGW, all species will be disadvantaged equally and all will be less fit. Have I got that right?
of course you have it wrong. the globe is WARMING. can you figure out for yourself, which species might benefit and which ones might have a bigger disadvantage? you have heard, that some species are specialists, while others are more generalists? can you figure out the problem?
oh and while you are at it, here is a hint: the first animals that left water. can you figure out, that they were adopting to the environment?!?
ps: cohenite, what you wrote was plain out stupid. just admit it and move on.
[Cohenite](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…).
No.
> It would seem that there MAY be something to the paper based on the reaction. And there MAY very well be something to the criticisms as well.
You MAY indeed have that opinion - and you seem to acknowledge that you (like most of us, myself included) don't have the statistical chops to figure out how good (or otherwise) their results are. Which makes it particularly strange that you're essentially trying to say that the critical reactions are somehow inappropriate.
Especially as your basis for asserting the reactions seem inappropriate is the *rate* or *number* or *tone* of comments, rather than their substantiveness (or otherwise).
And even more especially when others have pointed out to you that it would seem that there MAY be denialist propaganda value to the paper even if there is zero climate science value to the paper - which might provide a *much better* explanation for the early reaction than "there's something of scientific impact to their claims".
> It will take some time and some others to (in)validate the conclusions properly.
It may, but some of the early criticisms of many of the conclusions seem pretty potent already.
Even so, I suspect you miss the forest for the trees. The hype surrounding the paper is not because of its conclusions; it's because of how the conclusions are framed - and spun. You seem to me to be arguing that there should be no response to that, even though it's pretty clear that much of the framing seems on its face unjustified.
> ...all these guys did was take the raw data available and compared it to useless data to see if they could verify the original result.
If I have it right - and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I don't - that's not even close.
They took the raw data of which there are two key classes - instrumental records and proxies. They *made up* some new procedures that *no-one in climate science* appears to use for reconstructing temperature records from proxies. When you do a reconstruction from proxies, you certainly want to know how good it is - and a key class of methods for determining this is to compare against the instrumental record in various ways.
So they tested the results of their newly created reconstruction procedures against the instrumental record, and also tested some "simple" interpolation/estimation methods against the same record - including some specially crafted noise sequences that may not be quite as purely random as some people would like to make out.
On the basis of those comparisons it has been widely proclaimed that the *proxies* weren't any better than some of the random sequences at matching the instrumental record - which has been framed and spun to imply that the **proxy data inherently**, rather than **the proxy data under their particular reconstruction method**, is no better than some of the specially crafted noise sequences at reconstructing temperature, and therefore that the whole field of paleoclimatology is inherently bunk. (There's more, but that should be enough to chew on.)
Do you see where the problem lies, and (if I'm approximately right) why your description of what they did is so far off the mark? And why early reaction to the spin might be entirely appropriate - and assertive?
I offer nothing to the "debate", other than to point out that the use of [sic] with "miniscule" is wholly inappropriate (unless there is some obscure grammatical point I'm missing).
Both spelling forms are listed in the Shorter Oxford English and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate dictionaries, from which the following is derived.
The usual spelling (which I generally prefer, I hasten to add) is "minuscule". This originates in the E18C and derives from the Latin minuscula. "Miniscule", a variant spelling, probably dates from the M19C (based on usage of the prefix mini-).
P Lewis @421,
To appease your, generally fair, comment, I hereby retract the (sic) though the word is but a variant and does come up as red in the spelling thingy included with this comment window. I too prefer and generally use the more known "minuscule." I stand by the rest of my comments regarding Wow.
Lotharsson @420,
I think you misunderstand why how it is I even got involved in this discussion, or what I am for or against.
First and foremost, it is not the critical reactions themselves that I have issue with. It's the fact that the vast majority of them are voiced by people like you and I--no statistical chops--but are voiced in a way as to make those who have differing opinions out to be loons, heretics, denialists, idiots, fools, rubes, bozos or worse. You don't put stock into it, fine. But since it is too soon to have substantive issues with it--it hasn't been published--there seems to me to be no reason to act high and mighty and condescend those who ask reasonable questions. Not to say that some don't deserve it which is clear regarding some on this thread. But not all do.
In other words, yes, my issue is one of tone more than substance. You, for instance, seem to be rather reasonable. You point out an error with a bit of snark, but I deserved it in that case. Fine. Calling me an idiot with no other substance to the argument brings zero value.
"It may, but some of the early criticisms of many of the conclusions seem pretty potent already."
I haven't seen any that I would deem thorough enough to call "potent" just yet. I have read most I have seen linked. But they are brief, opinionated and not altogether thorough.
"Even so, I suspect you miss the forest for the trees. The hype surrounding the paper is not because of its conclusions; it's because of how the conclusions are framed - and spun. You seem to me to be arguing that there should be no response to that, even though it's pretty clear that much of the framing seems on its face unjustified."
True. But just the same, many of the AGW arguments tend to be framed, and spun, in a similar manner. To give an example, you I am sure watched the "plant food" video. In my opinion, that was entirely spin with a lot of "might" and "could" and "has the chance to" type statements, not to mention a general "weather in this case is global warming" mantra. I understand the popint they want to make, but since there is nothing conclusive to point to AGW in these cases, I think the video borders on propaganda. Weather is weather, climate is climate. Heard it a hundred times if I have heard it once. Can't have it both ways.
I am not sure, other than how Watts has lauded/framed the paper for a week now, just where the framing is unjustified. Regardless of where these guys got the idea, or their opinions on the subject, it shouldn't matter if the work stands up.
As for defining the paper, you likely did a better job than I, and I would agree with your assessment as much as I understand what you state. For instance, to state that this paper invalidates paleoclimatology, even in the slightest, is laughable. That said, I would prefer to see less attacking, and more looking, because there is the chance that there are pertinent pieces to the study, even if it is flawed in places. An open discussion rather than a pissing match of insults would be preferable.
Apologies for format. Haven't figured out how to properly quote posts and set those apart.
Bill,
Use the greater-than sign at the beginning of a line and any paragraph directly after it will be rendered as a blockquote.
">this is a quote" would be rendered as
>this is a quote
Hope this helps
MFS @423
">Use the greater-than sign at the beginning of a line and any paragraph directly after it will be rendered as a blockquote."
Thanks for the tip.
But it didn't work. Did I do it wrong?
You can also use the <blockquote>text</blockquote> tags to set off a multi paragraph quote. This is because of the CSS on this site, it doesn't work everywhere, but it does on most sites.
As for the criticisms I outline in my post:
1) Is just based on what seems to be considered best practice in the field right now. Gavin recently brought this point up in a reply at RealClimate.
2) Is just a matter of professional ethics as pointed out by John Mashey in an earlier comment in this thread. He also brings up the Berger presentation from the NCAR 2007 Climate and Statistics workshop, which is worth looking at. Consider Berger's point on barriers to entry.
3) The problems with their noise model is the only thing that requires statistical chops, but it doesn't require much. If your noise model includes the forced trend, then it is no longer purely noise. There is no real reason to conclude that a composite of the proxies, which have different temporal resolutions which vary from type to type, will have the same characteristics, will have the same noise characteristics as the very high resolution temperature record. Including the forced trend in the noise is just wrong in this case.
There is a reason that statisticians who collaborate with climate scientists have worked on these problems for a long time. The fact that the Li, Nychka and Ammann papers cited by M&W come up with very different results should be a clue.
Slightly rushed comment, got to go somewhere.
> ...it is not the critical reactions themselves that I have issue with.
I may be mistaken, but it sounded very much like it was.
> But just the same, many of the AGW arguments tend to be framed, and spun, in a similar manner.
The key distinction being that many of those very same arguments have significant scientific evidence backing them, and years and years of post-publication scrutiny.
> ...you I am sure watched the "plant food" video...
Sorry, haven't seen it. But I am quite comfortable arguing on scientific grounds that the claims that it responds to are clearly bogus.
> ...but since it is too soon to have substantive issues with it--it hasn't been published...
Not at all.
It's the "being spread far and wide" that makes it fair game for comment, whether or not it has been formally published. Otherwise you're condoning gaming the publications system for propaganda purposes.
> I would prefer to see less attacking, and more looking, because there is the chance that there are pertinent pieces to the study, even if it is flawed in places.
Attacking and looking are both part of scientific progress - noting that this is not a scientific forum, so judging how much scientists are "looking" at this by how much evidence you see of "looking" on this forum or others like it is...questionable.
> ...but are voiced in a way as to make those who have differing opinions out to be loons, heretics, denialists, idiots, fools, rubes, bozos or worse...
Welcome to the Internet. Debate about just about everything here has been ... er, robust ... for a number of decades now ;-)
"Inferiority complex or something? "
Yes Billie, you DO seem to have an inferiority complex.
Why else would you decry criticism by tone trolling? After all, you haven't shown the arguments I made are wrong.
Again you have nothing to say of substance.
Because you're a denialist kidding on.
"What I said was I defend your right to criticize this paper,"
Except when it does get criticised, you state this is PROOF the paper has some validity.
Oddly enough, the reams of criticism (almost the entirety of which has been shown to be in error) hasn't led you to believe that AGW is real. Despite so many orders of magnitude more reams being written in uncontrolled forums against it.
ABSTRACT: Although considerable attention has been paid to the record of temperature change over the last few centuries, the range and rate of change of atmospheric circulation and hydrology remain elusive. Here, eight latitudinally well-distributed (poleâequatorâpole), highly resolved (annual to decadal) climate proxy records are presented that demonstrate major changes in these variables over the last 2000 years. A comparison between atmospheric 14C and these changes in climate demonstrates a first-order relationship between a variable Sun and climate. The relationship is seen on a global scale.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/i42
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/i44
"A comparison between atmospheric 14C and these changes in climate demonstrates a first-order relationship between a variable Sun and climate."
Except that the sun doesn't shine at night.
So why are nights warming quicker?
maybe your mummy turns the heater on
Oooh, there's clever.
> Oooh, there's clever. *And then there's sunspot.*
Fixed it for you.
Yet again we have a "sceptic" demonstrating inability to stay on topic. Do they have some problem with basic comprehension?
Can someone suggest a reason for this behaviour, especially when the blog always has an Open Thread available?
Wow @428,
Riiiight. Except that your "arguments" presented towards myself are nothing more than empty words on a page and random attempts to browbeat. I have addressed any worth addressing, and yet you still come with more nonsense. The term "tone trolling" is meaningless to me pal. It's one of those ridiculous internet generalizations that make it easy for those like you to dismiss those you don't agree with without having to actually think. Much like "denialist." Shall we go back and compare the number of ad hom attacks from you as opposed to myself? I would say we are approaching 25 to 1. And I am being generous with your number and giving myself the one just in case I slipped.
As for the criticisms, I don't state anything about them being proof of validity, only that there would seem to be no need for such extensive critical review prior to release were there nothing but lies and hot air. Seems logical. As for AGW, IT IS REAL. We pollute. We cause environmental problems. We affect the planet. It is the level of it's reality and, more importantly, the level of the future reality that I question.
Interesting that I am willing to objectively take a look at all parts and generate an opinion, yet you seem to be able to do nothing but retort with the standard talking points, refusing to accept that there actually may be something else out there at play. But your mind is made up, and I don't even wish to try to change it. But your message would be more tolerable without the baggage of your constant "I'm smarter than you so shut up" attitude.
Bill Walsh said:
Mmmm please tell me about what else is out there, in your "opinion" of course, that is causing the recent global warming.
Since you only have "an opinion" and no scientific facts to back it up does your "opinion" include pixie dust, little green men from Mars with lasers, unknown forms of radiation emanating from outside our galaxy which we have no method to detect. Hey, I can go on for paragraph after paragraph coming up with nonsense like your "opinions" (oops you haven't actually told us what your "opinion" is, that is why I am guessing).
Why do you not study some science, it will result in changing you "opinions" to facts. Try it some time, it is very enlightening.
By the way, I see no ad hominem comments in WOW's posts only statements of fact.
Ian,
It's the whales, of course. Or lack thereof...
We hunted down whale populations to a small fraction of their original stocks. Whales eat krill. Without whales krill stocks boomed. Krill eats phytoplankton. With booming krill phytoplankton is declining. Phytoplankton use sunlight to make biomass (photosynthesis). With less phytoplankton, more sunlight is turned to heat instead of biomass!
The good news is that phytoplankton makes DMS, and DMS seeds clouds. Therefore we are in the verge of seeing (any moment now...) increasing albedo and global cooling. Possibly a new glaciation...
/sarcasm
Actually... this is good enough to start a bona fide conspiracy theory... I could make money out of this... ;)
Lotharsson @427,
You, sir, I find to be a reasonable individual with genuinely worthwhile input, and if it matters, I don't take offense to your few corrections of my posts--i.e. the double standard take.
Now, with that said, I don't have issue with criticism toward this paper, or any other--especially since this one was made most public by the "skeptic" side. Look at it critically all you want. But be reasonable with the discussion rather than combative. I have issue with declaring it crap and stating that it is but another in a long line of "denialist" tripe. Perhaps, but the point is it is too soon to say that.
Your distinction is a fair one. But there is still the use of that material to create what I see as a false sense of fear for the future of, say, our children. When the science gets twisted by political posturing, the message tends to get lost and becomes less effective. People shun ideas due to political bias alone. This should not be a political issue. The facts get skewed far too easily.
Spread "far and wide" does make it fodder for criticism--again this is fine. Just not knee-jerk dismissal based on predetermined beliefs. Same goes for knee-jerk acceptance based on opposing beliefs.
Not sure I would agree that "attacking" is part of a healthy scientific process. Disagreement, skepticism, discussion and questioning of science are healthy. Attack implies anger and I am not sure I see the need. Very few scientists I work with--and I work with many--find themselves under "attack" based on their work. They do, however, find their findings questioned, which is fine and good. Perhaps it is merely semantics which divides us in this case.
With regards to your thoughts on the "plant food" I assume you are stating that CO2 is not food per se which is to say more is not better in that regard. That was the point of the video. what I was referring to is the implication in that video that recent events in Pakistan and Russia are a direct result of rising CO2, or in other words, AGW. I would assert there is absolutely zero evidence that is the case and that such statement are hyperbole and exactly why people are turned off by many pro AGW arguments. Like I said, weather, not climate. Watch it and see if you agree.
Lastly, debate is good. Even fun. I can just do without the petty name calling. Detracts from the discussion.
Thanks for not participating in those tactics.
Bill writes:
>*I don't state anything about them being proof of validity, only that there would seem to be no need for such extensive critical review prior to release were there nothing but lies and hot air.*
Could you expand on this reasonsing? Debunking lies and hot air is a very important part of communications war that is waged. Its very important simply becaue of the amount of lies and hot air that are perpetuated.
[See cohenite's, and Dave Springer's contribution in this thread as examples.]
Secondly, does a paper need to be "*nothing but lies and hot air*" to deserve extensive critical review?
[Eduardo Zorita](http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-on-climate.h…) and [RC](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/doing-it-yourselv…) show shortfalls in MW's comparision that undermines the way the paper is is being used judge Mann's methods.
Attacking Mann has become propaganda game. To impune Mann's methods by showing the shortfall of a non-Mann method seems to be less helpful to users of science and more helpful to users of anti-science.
> I don't state anything about them being proof of validity, only that there would seem to be no need for such extensive critical review prior to release were there nothing but lies and hot air. Seems logical.
Seems entirely *illogical* to me - because as I've indicated voer and over again, the paper is being used **right now** as part of a propagandistic meme. Propaganda is effective **even if** it is "nothing but lies and hot air", so countering it as soon as possible is vital.
It's as if a boxer is being confronted by someone threatening him with a pistol, and you're arguing that the boxer must refrain from attempting to defend himself until the bell rings.
This can only HELP the cause of those who want to spread false claims about science to influence politics and policy.
> But there is still the use of that material to create what I see as a false sense of fear for the future of, say, our children.
You're changing subject and shifting the goalposts.
There is significant weight of scientific evidence behind the proposition that there are potentially significant negative consequences of current greenhouse gas emissions.
I have no doubt you can find material that pushes that case a little too far, but in any fair accounting the overwhelming weight of non-adherence to the scientific cases lies on the side of the denialists.
> Just not knee-jerk dismissal based on predetermined beliefs.
Fair point.
The problem is you're not equipped to judge the paper, and that means you're not equipped to judge much of the critique either. Dismissing the critique on that (lack of) basis is *precisely the same behaviour that you're objecting to*. I haven't gone back to read your reasons for rejecting each piece of critique, so there may be fair comment amongst that too - but it seems to me the line you're pushing here is inconsistent with your own behaviour.
> Not sure I would agree that "attacking" is part of a healthy scientific process. ... Attack implies anger...
Not to me in terms of scientific debate, so I think this is merely a semantic difference as you suggested.
> I would assert there is absolutely zero evidence that is the case and that such statement are hyperbole and exactly why people are turned off by many pro AGW arguments.
Yes, I was talking about the presumption that it responds to the "CO2 is plant food, so more of it is an unmitigated good". I haven't seen it, so I'll assume your quote is a fair statement of what it does at some ponit.
Yes, it's not possible with the state of our data and science to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any *specific* weather event would not have happened without AGW.
But it is possible to make a pretty solid case that AGW will increase the frequency and intensity of some of these types of events.
So if one says that these are precisely the kinds of events we would expect to see more of (and worse instances of) due to AGW, some (and IIRC there is quite a bit of research that shows this) will likely misinterpret it to mean "we can't be sure about this particular event" and then make the leap to "therefore we shouldn't really worry about AGW". Scientists communicating to scientists make a nuanced case clearly communicating uncertainties - to those who know how to understand it. Most amateurs hear the nuance and interpret it as a "we don't really know, therefore nothing to worry about yet" signal.
Feel free to suggest how to communicate the issues so that far fewer people make that leap. When you communicate to a non-scientific audience, you have to change the way you communicate if you want the scientific case to be taken seriously.
The SPPI have 'reprinted' this yet to be published paper in its raw form.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/are_reconstructions_of_surfac…
How does that work?
Doesn't the academic journal have some copyright issues with that?
Presumably the authors gave the SPPI consent?
re: #442
On Ferguson does that on occasion, when he runs out of Monckton material. You might rummage a bit and see.
However, in this case, it's sitting at ArXiv, I see no copyright notice. Maybe the final version will.
> The SPPI have 'reprinted' this yet to be published paper in its raw form.
Maybe now Bill Walsh will think it's legit to critique it? ;-)
Ohhhhh, I love those pretty pictures they use for the cover, they're so colorful!
Who was it that said, if more ink is used to illustrate a point than is absolutely necessary to get the point across, the extra ink is there to hide something?
Anyway, I find it hilarious also that they are presenting it as a 'reprint', when it's a submitted draft and not even a reviewed pre-print version.
> Anyway, I find it hilarious also that they are presenting it as a 'reprint', when it's a submitted draft and not even a reviewed pre-print version.
Says a lot about their ability to get **basic** facts right.
"However, in this case, it's sitting at ArXiv, I see no copyright notice. Maybe the final version will.
Posted by: John Mashey"
Berne Convention doesn't require the copyright notice, nor does it require registering copyright (though in the US you need to do so to get full statutory damages).
There is no way to get something under the public domain specifically, which is a weakness of the copyright laws in just about every country in the world. Then again it is the people who benefit from the restrictions of copyright not the people being restricted who are getting their input into the copyright laws, so this imbalance is inevitable.
Even this post is copyrighted.
re: #447 wow
Yes, of course, but thanks for the reminder to clarify.
What I meant was that:
a) As it stands, the authors are McShane and Wyner, it's just sitting in ArXiv, the Annals has no obvious rights.
b) When the *final* version is done, buyable from the Annals of Applied Statistics, it may well have acquired a Copyright notice from them.
Whereas the Annals might well take action against SPPI if it put up b), given everything else, I'd guess M&W may not mind at all to have a) there.
And I would guess that from SPPI's view, a) is at least as good as b), particularly since it doesn't have any attached discussion that might be annoying...
Ian @437,
In my opinion Ian, recent warming is a combination of natural and human factors. I think that's been established and since I never disputed it, why would you assume I think otherwise? Because of your preconceived notion that I am the dreaded "denier?" Do you see other colors than black and white, or do those two suffice for you?
My opinion is that there are FAR too many variables to accurately predict the feedbacks which will be necessary for CAGW. No amount of modeling can possibly account for all the factors. So, in my OPINION, most predictions are hyperbolic and used primarily for their political value in trying to create policy. Judging from earlier posts by our friend Wow (235),apparently there are no "true" believers of CAGW. If so, why do we hear so much of that line of thinking? And I am all for doing SOMETHING, just not strictly out of fear of the unknown. I'm for doing something because it's the right thing to do whether we are doomed or not. And I think it's safe to say that an immediate end--or even massive reduction--of the use of carbon-based fuels, something that has no chance of happening,will cost more than just a ton of money--there are sociological impacts as well--is just as much, if not considerably more, a fact as any climate prediction 30, 50, or 100 years into the future.
Lotharsson @441,
Just on question about this post. You mention you haven't watched the "plant food" video, yet you have a handful of comments on that thread discussion. Why didn't you watch?
and @444,
C'mon now. I have made it clear there is nothing wrong with critiquing this paper. Dismissing it as bunk so quickly is another matter regardless of their reasons for doing it, or the fact that it way well have some flaws. Simply stating it is worthless because you don't like the motive or the conclusion holds no water with me.
Now, I have to be honest, I am not, or at least wasn't, familiar with SPPI. But, after taking a look, the fact that they too want to tout it is something it is not is equally stupid as Watts leaving on the top of his page for over a week.
Let me ask you this sincerely. Do you think there is a group of people out there that could be assembled which could independently evaluate papers/claims of this type where most could agree on the decision? No bias either way. You asked me to suggest a better way to communicate. I think this is a necessary step because, right or wrong, the perception is there that no such group exists and that all are biased and jaded by the politics surrounding the issue. Climate detente so to speak.
"In my opinion Ian, recent warming is a combination of natural and human factors."
Gosh. So do the IPCC.
"My opinion is that there are FAR too many variables to accurately predict the feedbacks"
When you ask: "Because of your preconceived notion that I am the dreaded "denier?"", the answer as to whether you're a denier is given in that sentence above.
Your opinion, and a dollar, will buy a can of soda, if you're lucky.
"No amount of modeling can possibly account for all the factors."
But are all the factors needed to be accounted for?
No.
"And I think it's safe to say that an immediate end...of the use of carbon-based fuels ... will cost more than just a ton of money"
Only in your opinion.
Funny how you left that out this time.
"there are sociological impacts as well--is just as much, if not considerably more, a fact as any climate prediction 30, 50, or 100 years into the future."
Again, you forgot the "in your opinion" bit.
I make the point because that's a load of horseshit you're shoveling there. With both hands and a power digger...
"C'mon now. I have made it clear there is nothing wrong with critiquing this paper. "
Indeed not, you've positively LOVED it and proposed this:
"There must be more there than nothing, otherwise, why all the concern?"
So if there's any criticism, it MUST be proving the piece being criticized has something on it.
Yet MBH98 is far, far FAR more criticized. Therefore it must be DEFINITIVE PROOF.
And I guess your concern, Billy, about AGW and mitigation shows that there's something to all this man-made climate change after all...
Bill Walsh asked:
Yes there is, they are called scientists and they have knowledge and expertise in, guess what, science.
You continue to show that you are a denier, in fact you even deny that you are a denier, how fitting.
As WOW said your opinion is worthless unless you can support it with hard facts and honest comment. Otherwise you are just a run of the mill dishonest denier.
You have not quoted one article which can be construed as science since you started posting, I think that tells us everything we need to know.
Bill, When you refer to CAGW, in which the 'C' presumably stands for 'catastrophic', exactly what do you mean? How damaging does it have to be to be called catastrophic? Would you call it catastrophic if it resulted in a million people dying of starvation in the next century? How about if a third of the population died? Ten percent of all species becoming extinct or 90%? Perhaps you don't consider it would be catastrophic until all humans died off, or perhaps until all life was killed. Could you give some examples of possible effects that you would consider to be catastrophic?
As far as I can tell, CAGW is a term only used by denialists in retreat from 'Glogal warming is a hoax' to 'Global warming won't be that bad'. If you want to continue using the expression, you should let us know what you mean by it.
> Why didn't you watch?
I haven't prioritised spending the time to learn things I almost certainly already know, presumably about arguments I already know are bogus.
But the meme - that "CO2 is plant food, therefore more must be better" - is one that I've addressed on other threads, so following this post is a natural continuation of that.
> I have made it clear there is nothing wrong with critiquing this paper.
**Strawman**.
I wasn't responding to a claim that one **should not** critique this paper. Here's the quote you were responding to, with added emphasis:
> Maybe **now** Bill Walsh will think it's legit to critique it? ;-)
I was pointing out that you have repeatedly claimed that critique should **wait** until publication (and some suitable but probably not short period of post-publication contemplation). Do you see the difference, and how it makes your response moot? (And it's not like I haven't made this point over and over again...)
> Dismissing it as bunk so quickly is another matter regardless of their reasons for doing it...
Dismissing it as bunk **for the purposes to which it is being put by propagandists** seems eminently justified, because it seems clear that the propagandistic claims are not well supported by the paper.
People aren't dismissing it as completely useless **to science overall**. It's always useful to try novel methods and see how they perform (although it seems that even on that criteria they didn't do a very good job). But as it stands, their work appears to have precisely zero impact on paleoclimatology, because they (a) haven't addressed methods used in that discipline, (b) haven't shown that their method is better than others, and (c) haven't shown that their comparative results generalise to all methods used.
If you can't distinguish between the two reasons then you'll end up drawing some unjustified conclusions...
> Simply stating it is worthless because you don't like the motive or the conclusion holds no water with me.
I totally agree, but again (at least as far as it applies to me, and I suspect to many commenters) this is a **strawman**.
I fear you are unable to see the distinction between "because someone doesn't like the motive or conclusion" and "because the conclusion does not hold up to scrutiny". Stating that a claim that it is worthless (actually made because of the latter reason) is somehow invalid because of the former (inapplicable) reason is a fallacy. As is dismissing claims made for the latter reason *because* other claims made for the former reason exist.
> I am all for doing SOMETHING, just not strictly out of fear of the unknown.
This is another strawman. The motivation to do something is out of a fear of the "known + likely uncertainties". There is no "strictly out of fear of the unknown" at work here.
> Do you think there is a group of people out there that could be assembled which could independently evaluate papers/claims of this type where most could agree on the decision?
The closest we have is the IPCC.
Do you think that were such a group as you suggest to exist, and it did its job without bias, that there would be another group who would use all sorts of means to cast doubt on those results and seek to substitute their own, up to and including arguing that the group without bias was actually biased or corrupt? I don't know - perhaps they would aim to create:
> ...the perception is there that no such group exists and that all are biased and jaded by the politics surrounding the issue.
Further question: if these two groups were at odds over the results, how would you robustly tell them apart, and what strategies would you use to remove the false "information" from the public sphere (or at least from unduly influencing policy)?
> ..."known + likely uncertainties"...
...could be better expressed "what we know + the likely uncertainties".
I was trying to make the distinction between two views of knowledge. The first is black and white, i.e. that on any issue there's only two states of knowledge - "utterly certain" and "haven't a clue", although often the term "uncertain" will be used instead of the latter. This view of knowledge is often used to argue that we should delay action until we (suddenly!) transition from "haven't a clue" to "utterly certain".
Using "uncertain" has propaganda value in this context, because scientists are almost always "uncertain" (in the sense of having *some* level of uncertainty) and when speaking about their work to one another clearly communicate that fact - ironically in order to be more accurate and to avoid others attributing unjustified levels of certainty to their work. The conflation of the scientific use of "uncertain" with "haven't a clue" when communicating with scientifically unsophisticated audiences lets the conflaters deceive those audiences about what scientists are saying and how much scientists actually know.
The second view is that on any issue the state of knowledge can lie *anywhere* between "haven't a clue" and "utterly certain" - including "we know quite a bit but also have some level of uncertainty". Most policy has to be formed under some level of uncertainty of knowledge, so this is in a sense a completely normal state of affairs.
Wow @450,
Brother, being called a "denier" bores me to the extreme. And your liberal use of the term tells me plenty about you.
That said, a few points to respond.
My comment regarding variables defines me as a denier? Sorry, but that is true. There ARE TOO MANY VARIABLES to accurately predict the future. That friend is a FACT. If you do not like it, sorry. Simple logic dictates that you can have an educated guess, but not KNOW jack shit about the future. End of discussion. So, there is no denial. If I am wrong, I would love to hear your prediction of, say, next years hurricane season. How many? How strong? Of course it's a ridiculous question, but you expect me to think you can accurately predict the next 100 years?
My biggest problem with all of this is the sense of egocentric crap that spills through some of these posts. My concern, unlike yours, has nothing to do with what I believe about the future. I do what I can to live the best I can because it is the right thing to do, and for no other reason. Resources are finite last time I checked, so there is no other motivation needed other than the FACT that someday we will run out. The scare tactics of the political aspect of AGW are not only questionable, they are counterproductive to the entire cause because, when you tell someone we will see more and more hurricanes for instance, and then 5 years goes by with below average hurricane activity, people tend to think they have been mislead. And most people don't like that any more than they like having some high-horse riding scientist tell them they are stupid for basing their opinion on real events as opposed to predictions. You may think it's crazy, but it is the situation where we find ourselves, like it or not. Tell the world we are warming out of control, show them that CO2 has been rising steadily, but temps have not followed, and guess what, the average layman will take that to mean nobody has a clue what is happening. There are no shortage of skeptics. Do you really expect people to believe they are ALL misinformed idiots? You probably do.
Ian @452,
Yes, scientists. See they get to do the work, but not to then also judge it. My question was in that vein. Once again, the perception is there is no group free of conflict that currently exists--the IPCC included. Not just my opinion clearly. But instead of doing some damage control to right the ship, the game plan is to stay the course and disregard any perceived problems. Nothing to see, right?
Then, not just one, but four "deniers" and a deny in your next weak attempt to berate me. And then a strawman claiming my posts are worthless because I haven't quoted any articles on science. Yet I am not trying to prove the science one way or the other, so why would I do that? I have not denied a single thing, yet the best you can do is to call me, and many others, names. I am just trying to understand the hostility.
To that end, here's a YouTube video that has a "science" twist to it. I suggest you watch because there is more than a little truth to what is said. And maybe you will find you actually have a sense of humor since you, and many others, seem to be lacking this very important human characteristic...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
And Lotharsson @454,
So you didn't watch because you already know what was going to be said? Then you comment on what you didn't watch? Interesting approach.
First "strawman." I don't know what the hell you are talking about here. Why would the mention of the paper on that site make any difference in my opinion that folks on both sides should wait until a paper is actually published to pass judgment. Nobody knows what the final draft will look like, so what is the point?
As for claims, it seems to me that NONE of the claims I have read, pro or con, are not well supported which is kind of the whole point.
Second "strawman." No, I very clearly see the difference. What you fail to see apparently is that the latter reason has no legs yet, so all we are left with is the former, that opinions are formed, both pro and con, on the basis of it either supporting or conflicting with one's beliefs. Not because anyone has actually spent the time to confirm the results because they HAVEN'T BEEN PUBLISHED YET.
Third "strawman." What the hell is the definition of a "likely uncertainty?" If it's likely, it shouldn't be all that uncertain. Anyway, my point is that fear in general is a shitty motivator for the long term and it is proving itself a failure in this debate.
The IPCC is not getting it done, sorry. But the rest of what you say I agree with, and therein lies the problem. I don't have the answers to your questions, but they are fair.
I am now done posting to this thread, but if you wish to have your last words, do feel free. I will undoubtedly read them.
Enjoy the YouTube vid if you actually watch. He was an insightful man.
> There ARE TOO MANY VARIABLES to accurately predict the future.
It depends what you mean by "accurately predict the future".
If you want to predict weather patterns more than a couple of weeks out - then yes, it can't be done. If you want to predict equilibrium climate changes which are largely constrained by relatively well-known physics...you can do quite well. The fact that you appear to argue that the latter is not possible suggests you don't know enough to make the claims you're making - or you are (the word fits) denying it.
And it also hinges on how "accurate" you insist it be. Some denialists use this "accuracy" concern (or equivalently "uncertainty") to argue we do nothing until the accuracy is very very high. This is folly (I don't merrily keep driving until I'm very certain I'm going to hit the car in front of me before I brake).
> Tell the world we are warming out of control,...
Strawman, frequently used by denialists (e.g. the "any positive feedback means runaway warming" fallacy), but not claimed by climate scientists.
> ... show them that CO2 has been rising steadily, but temps have not followed...
Fallacy, frequently claimed by denialists, often by looking at one or more of (a) regional weather, (b) global weather, (c) trends over timescales too short to see climate signal amongst weather noise.
And you keep saying you're not a denialist? You're doing a really good impression of one.
> See they get to do the work, but not to then also judge it.
Ah, so someone **less qualified** gets to judge it? That's good to know. I guess we can outsource marking exams at university from the (comparatively) better-paid lecturers to the much cheaper janitors.
> So you didn't watch because you already know what was going to be said? Then you comment on what you didn't watch? Interesting approach.
I think you'll find that you are mistaken - I'm *not* commenting on the *content* of what I did not watch.
> First "strawman." I don't know what the hell you are talking about here.
I'm talking about you apparently misinterpreting a comment I made - by responding as if I'd written something else.
> Why would the mention of the paper on that site make any difference in my opinion that folks on both sides should wait until a paper is actually published to pass judgment.
To illustrate my point - that your insistence on waiting until it's published is bogus? To probe at what counts as "publication" in your view, and why it makes (or may make) a difference in legitimacy to claims? To poke fun at the idea that publication makes a difference to the accuracy of claims?
> Second "strawman." No, I very clearly see the difference.
You give a very good impression of not seeing it. I guess it's because you believe this to be accurate:
> ...all we are left with is ... that opinions are formed, both pro and con, on the basis of it either supporting or conflicting with one's beliefs.
I'd be highly interested in how you "know" this, especially given that some of the opinions appear to be coming from those that don't think climate change is a big problem, and that you probably don't have psychic powers.
> Not because anyone has actually spent the time to confirm the results because they HAVEN'T BEEN PUBLISHED YET.
Pull the other one!
The results that have been propagated around the Internet (and "republished") by the SPPI, cannot be confirmed **because they haven't appeared in print**? The claims that they find the proxy data is not much use - despite NOT testing the methods used by climate scientists - will somehow gain legitimacy that they do not currently have **by virtue of appearing in print**? What magical properties does print confer on claims that other forms of communication does not?
You can rightly claim that one cannot critique **the final paper** until the paper is ... actually final. But arguing that one cannot critique widely publicised **claims themselves** merely **because** they are not yet found in a final paper is really head-in-the-sand silly - or rank denialism.
> What the hell is the definition of a "likely uncertainty?"
In most scientific domains and investigations we can put reasonable bounds on uncertainty intervals. That doesn't mean events can't occur outside of those bounds, but such occurrences are unlikely.
> Anyway, my point is that fear in general is a shitty motivator for the long term and it is proving itself a failure in this debate.
Weird. Fear of significantly detrimental outcomes that are within reasonable uncertainty bounds is a "shitty motivator"? Or are you arguing that whatever fears are expressed in this context are unjustified?
> The IPCC is not getting it done, sorry.
Getting what done? Trying to distill a defensible, relatively conservative summary of the science that can be used to drive policy? I'd argue it appears to be doing that quite well. Or were you referring to producing a summary that "most can agree with"? If the latter, why do you think that is, and do you think the answer has anything to do with those who foment disagreement for their own reasons *regardless* of the accuracy and defensibility of the summary? In other words, are you fallaciously claiming that "mass agreement" is what determines scientific legitimacy?
Oh, I see you're done posting here. Never mind - I have a pretty good idea what most of your answers will be anyway.
Bill writes:
>*I do what I can to live the best I can because it is the right thing to do, and for no other reason. Resources are finite last time I checked, so there is no other motivation needed other than the FACT that someday we will run out.*
Bill this comment shows a lack of appreciation of the [tragedy of the commons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons).
Take for example fish stocks. As stocks are depleted, price singal sends a pervese signal to fish harder.
If it were simply enough to recognise that resources are finite (and depleating), if this were the only motivation needed, then we would already be on a trajectory to reduce ecological footprint back towards the Earth's carrying capacity. We are failing here, currently we are consuming the Earths capital at [2.6 times its rate of replenishment](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/) and a dominant incentive for further acceleration of consumption.
Clearly we need more than awareness, we need an economic signal to align economic feedbacks (our dominant short term force) with environental feedbacks. (And we need feedbacks that provide a signal early enough to overcome the lag effect of our actions).
>*The scare tactics of the political aspect of AGW are not only questionable, they are counterproductive to the entire cause because, when you tell someone we will see more and more hurricanes for instance, and then 5 years goes by with below average hurricane activity, people tend to think they have been mislead.*
Scientist have duty to convey what the combinatin of evidence and theory tells them. Further more 5 years is not an appropriate time to judge hurricane activity. Just like so called "skeptics" were [none to skeptical in their premature pronoucements](http://www.skepticalscience.com/3-levels-of-cherry-picking-in-a-single-…) that warming had stopped in 1998.
>*And most people don't like that any more than they like having some high-horse riding scientist tell them they are stupid for basing their opinion on real events as opposed to predictions.*
You are being quite selective in your use of "real events". You seem to be mistakenly infering that the evidence informing scientist did not come from observations of real events.
>*You may think it's crazy, but it is the situation where we find ourselves, like it or not. Tell the world we are warming out of control,*
An unfortunate Strawman there Bill. Unfortunate given that you position yourself as railing against exageration, yet the IPCC and most scientist do not claim we are "warming out of control". They claim something like keeping warming below 2 degress has a 50% chance of avoiding dangerous feedbacks (though the rate of loss of Arctic ices since 2005 indicates this may be optimistic). We might be warming out of control, but you have not accurately represented the claims of the IPCC.
>*show them that CO2 has been rising steadily, but temps have not followed[...]*
Well that's just wrong Bill. To make such a bogus statement as temp has not followed CO2 requires erroneous use of short term data or ignoring other variables such as aerosols.
Lotharsson,
So sorry, just had to add one last thing. Do go over to RC and go to the link for the IAC review of the IPCC. Read it. Then come back and tell me why they seem to agree with much of what I have been saying. Are they denialists as well? I think section 3 addresses some of what we have been discussing, especially much of your last post discussing that oh so descriptive "likely uncertainty."
I particularly like, beginning on page 33...
"Another issue is whether it is appropriate to use quantitative subjective probabilities when statements are qualitative in nature or imprecisely stated. Many of the 71 conclusions in the
âCurrent Knowledge about Future Impactsâ section of the Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers are imprecise statements made without reference to the time period under
consideration or to a climate scenario under which the conclusions would be true. Consider, for
example, the statement:
--In Central and Eastern Europe, summer precipitation is projected to decrease, causing higher water
stress. Health risks due to heatwaves are projected to increase. Forest productivity is expected to
decline and the frequency of peatland fires to increase. (High confidence; IPCC, 2007b, p. 14)--
There is no indication about when these events are expected to occur or under what conditions. What changes in climate would give rise to these results? What is assumed about adaptation? It
could be argued that, given the imprecision of the statement, it has an 80 percent chance of being true under *some* set of circumstances.
In the Committeeâs view, assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty. If the confidence scale is used in this way, conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of
âvery high confidenceâ will have little substantive value.11 More importantly, the use of probabilities to characterize uncertainty is most appropriate when applied to empirical quantities (Morgan et al., 2009). The following statement may be true but should not be assigned a
probability of occurrence"
As to the rest of your post, we disagree. And I think you are not understanding many of my points and are arguing semantics. You also seem to miss the part where I mention that both sides of this debate are unrealistically critiquing the paper for their purposes, not just one. And where I say I don't agree with either side making unsubstantiated claims about the content until it's published. But no matter.
Much of what else you choose to discuss is exactly what this committee is stating that "assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty."
Will I now hear that this review is somehow unfair or distorted? Because from what I have read do far, it jibes with my opinion that there is some serious work for the IPCC and the scientific community to do to re-establish their credibility with the general public. I will just wait for everyone to tell me this committee isn't qualified to make judgments on climate. Or something like that.
But then you feel they "are doing quite well." Clearly not everyone agrees.
And yes, I am aware this report is "Prepublication CopyâSubject to Further Editorial Revision" but this is apples and oranges to a complicated statistical peer-reviewed paper.
Not to mention they posted it on their own site...
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html
Gives me the impression they are pretty comfortable with what they wrote. To be fair, it is far from entirely negative, but it sure as hell doesn't read as a ringing endorsement.
"Gives me the impression they are pretty comfortable with what they wrote."
And Seitz was pretty comfortable with what he wrote about tobacco and second hand smoke.
The tobacco industry were comfortable with it even though they KNEW (from memos released in the court investigation) at the time that their story was bunkum.
Heck, Kim Jong Il is pretty comfortable with his statements that he shoots an 18-hole in 38 under and bowled over 300 on his first ever game.
"being comfortable" is no indication of veracity.
Just look at Monckton wrt HoL and G&T wrt the second law of thermodynamics.
"Brother, being called a "denier" bores me to the extreme. And your liberal use of the term tells me plenty about you."
Yup, it tells you that we've seen through your disguse and that pisses you off, don't it?
You liberal abuse of logic and reason and your steadfast refusal to listen and accept any grounded counterpoint display denialism. Your on-again/off-again relationship with basis for argumentation being printed only is denialism (if the paper cannot be criticised because it's not in print, then these criticisms cannot be criticised by you because they too are not in print). But you chop and change your basis for acceptance based not on reasoning but on desired outcome.
And your desired outcome is to deny any problem with AGW.
You're quacking, waddling and swimming but fluff up your mallard-coloured feathers when accused of being a duck.
Sorry ducky, you're a denialist.
> I think you are not understanding many of my points and are arguing semantics.
I doubt the former although I may be wrong about that, and agree the latter - semantics are very much necessary for understanding and communication.
> I am aware this report is "Prepublication CopyâSubject to Further Editorial Revision" but this is apples and oranges to a complicated statistical peer-reviewed paper.
Unbelievable. Clearly there's no point further pounding home the point that publication does not magically change the truth value of *any* claim - regardless of whether it's an assessment of a report or a "complicated statistical paper".
So what we have here appears to be you touting a report as accurate and true, and which agrees with your (pre-existing) opinions? Would a Bill Walsh looking on at you making that claim exclaim that "your opinion of the report must have been formed *because* it agrees with your existing opinions"?
You *have* had time to thoroughly check that the claims made by the report are representative of reality, I take it, before you tout it as good and accurate? And - given you quoted the IAC quoting from the Summary For Policymakers - have you determined whether the IAC is merely complaining that the **summary** does not contain sufficient evidence for the uncertainty characterisations attached to various statements or additional precision in the statement itself, or whether the detailed report as referenced for each such statement is also lacking in that evidence and precision?
Regarding the quote:
> In Central and Eastern Europe, summer precipitation is projected to decrease, causing higher water stress. ... (High confidence; IPCC, 2007b, p. 14)--
the IAC complains:
> There is no indication about when these events are expected to occur or under what conditions.
And yet, the WG2 Summary For Policymakers section that quote is contained in starts out [my emphasis]:
> The following is a selection of the key findings regarding projected impacts, as well as some findings on vulnerability and adaptation, in each system, sector and region **for the range of (unmitigated) climate changes projected by the IPCC over this century**(8) judged to be relevant for people and the environment.9 The impacts frequently reflect projected changes in precipitation and other climate variables in addition to temperature, sea level
and concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The magnitude and timing of impacts will vary with the amount and timing of climate change and, in some cases, the capacity to adapt. These issues are discussed further in later sections of the Summary.
Now it's quite likely that the IPCC could do a better job, but it sounds to me rather like the IAC **didn't look very hard** for a description of the time period and circumstances and adaptation assumptions applying to the quote! Never mind that the offending quote itself references Ch 12 section 4 (a reference that the IAC excised from its quote - hmmmmmm).
> Much of what else you choose to discuss is exactly what this committee is stating that "assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty."
I disagree. The fact that there may be imprecise statements whose uncertainty characterisations should be improved in no way invalidates ALL OTHER (more precise) statements with uncertainty characterisations attached.
> But then you feel they "are doing quite well." Clearly not everyone agrees.
Well, the IAC report that you quoted certainly does, even as they seek to improve it further:
> The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well. The commitment of many thousands of the worldâs leading scientists and other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right. Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment.
And on communicating uncertainty, whilst providing various recommendations for improvement they ALSO say:
> The IPCC uncertainty guidance provides a good starting point for characterizing uncertainty in the assessment reports.
They seem to be talking about communicating uncertainty to relatively sophisticated readers - not the general public which is another problem entirely. Despite your:
>... opinion that there is some serious work for the IPCC and the scientific community to do to re-establish their credibility with the general public.
...this report will NOT address *that* credibility issue, because research shows clearly that the kind of uncertainty communications that scientists do - and that the IAC wants more of - lead the general public (often aided by spin doctors) to the false conclusion that the scientists "just don't know anything" about the issue, rather than "know something, with a given level of uncertainty".
Bill Walsh said:
Well now we know why Bill Walsh is so anti-science and so retarded. He doesn't believe in evolution because it left him in the gutter back a few hundred thousand years.
Bill, most of us have evolved beyond the mindless nonsense from the likes of George Carlin, too bad you haven't moved forward. However, repeating your early eduction should move you forward a few years.
Another piece of nonsense from BW:
Too bad you only read biased and uninformed sources. But we knew that already from previous nonsense you have posted.
Grrrr, my last comment should have looked like this towards the end:
Despite your:
> ... opinion that there is some serious work for the IPCC and the scientific community to do to re-establish their credibility with the general public.
...this report will NOT address that credibility issue, because research shows clearly that the kind of uncertainty communications that scientists do - and that the IAC wants more of - lead the general public (often aided by spin doctors) to the false conclusion that the scientists "just don't know anything" about the issue, rather than "know something, with a given level of uncertainty".
Wow @462,
Nothing you say "pisses me off." I would have to actually have respect for your opinion for that to be the case. Given your absolute and unwavering arrogance--here and, from what I can tell, on every thread--that is not likely to change. Quite to the contrary, you seem to be the one with anger issues. And since I have yet to deny a single thing in this thread, your conclusion is an epic fail.
Loth @463,
So the report is worthless and the IAC fails to get it? I figured there would be some reason why their conclusions--that, although the IPCC has "served society well" changes need to be made to better make it a reliable and unbiased conduit for bringing the AGW message to the masses--would be found invalid. Impossible to actually accept the criticisms and change I guess. They simply don't get it.
This review has already been presented and as such is nothing like the M&W paper. Not to mention it is a review, not a statistical paper which one can either reproduce or not. There is nothing to prove or disprove.
Ian @464,
As suspected, zero sense of humor. He was a COMEDIAN jackass, not an authority. And mindless? I guess that's why he was so successful. But verrrry nice "retard" blast. I am sure you have endeared yourself to those here with friends or family members who actually suffer from mental disabilities.
Do me a favor, keep posting to show us all your superior intelligence, errr, I mean complete lack of ability to comment without pathetic, mindless ad hom attacks and insults.
You've certainly convinced me that I should listen to what you have to say. Perhaps you should become a comedian because your thoughts are indeed laughable.
"I would have to actually have respect for your opinion for that to be the case."
If you didn't only believe your own propoganda, Bill, that would really *hurt*.
"Given your absolute and unwavering arrogance"
Hehehe. Projecting again.
"Quite to the contrary, you seem to be the one with anger issues."
Nah, you just hate the world because it doesn't owe you a living and that your comfortable lies are not believed by reality.
"He was a COMEDIAN jackass, not an authority."
a) why did you take him as an authority then?
b) I refer the right horrible gentleman to his earlier statement:
"Given your absolute and unwavering arrogance"
and
"Quite to the contrary, you seem to be the one with anger issues."
It's really funny. You couldn't make this sort of thing up, people wouldn't believe that someone could be so dumb as to say that and IN THE SAME MESSAGE display those characteristics he pawned off on someone else.
One last question Ian. Why is the IAC report "biased and uninformed?" It would seem to be exactly the opposite. What is their bias? Why were they chosen to conduct a review? Perhaps you don't like what they have to say? Do share your insight.
I only ask because the folks over at RC, where I found the link, don't seem to be under that impression. From thir post...
"It appears mostly sensible and has a lot of useful things to say about improving IPCC processes..."
Do you know something they don't? I am sure you must given your level of intelligence.
"One last question Ian. Why is the IAC report "biased and uninformed?""
It wasn't terribly.
What was uninformed is torygraph and other slimemerchant rags' reporting of it.
But you go ahead and infer incorrectly what other people say if it makes you feel better.
Bill Walsh said:
You still have trouble with the English language. Did you miss out on your education entirely or only selected parts, the parts that would have made you a worthwhile addition to the human race? Where did I say that the IAC Report was biased or uninformed? If you ask an English teacher to read my posts they will tell you that you completely misinterpreted some simple English words. What I did say was that you spend too much time on biased and uninformed blogs. I bet you spend a lot of time on climatefraudit, wattsuphisarse and other such dishonest places. Please do not put words in my mouth. That is completely unacceptable behaviour among honest and civilized people.
You are just an example of the fetid flotsam which floats around in the slimy world of AGW deniers and their supporters. You should be ashamed of what you are saying and doing. Do you want future generations to be saddled with untold costs and misery because people believed the lies you are spreading and do nothing about the effects of AGW?
You are pathetic.
People should keep a close eye on MW, and there has been recent interesting discussion at DC's thread on this.
Bill, [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…).
Ian @471,
Let's see, from post 464...
"Too bad you only read biased and uninformed sources. But we knew that already from previous nonsense you have posted."
Now, since I was discussing the IAC report, your comment is a direct statement that said report "biased and uninformed." What was that you said about comprehension?
The rest of your post is the typical tripe I have come to expect from you Ian. Here's a quote you might wish to take some stock in...
"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong."--Jean Jaques Rousseau
BTW, I take it you don't possess the stones to admit that your use of the term "retard" was deplorable. But you probably think it was in good taste. Hope you never have a kid with Downs.
Wow @468,
I didn't post Carlin's piece as anything more than what it is at face value--the opinion of one well spoken, 5-time Grammy winning comedian. That you can't see it as what I stated it was is not my issue. That you can't laugh and that you take yourself so very seriously is also not my issue, it is yours.
"Your absolute unwavering arrogance" is an observation, and an accurate one to describe you. It was not spawned from anger. You, on the other hand, seem to have endless time to post on these forums, and nearly every single post smacks of bitterness and hubris. I am not angry. I am amused. It's ironic that it is folks like yourself are the supposed champions of this issue. Ironic and sad. If something is pathetic, it is that you and Ian are so insistent on being perceived as "right" that you can't have a cogent discussion with anyone lest it is on your limited terms. Shame.
And @470,
Hello Strawman. Where did I mention the report other than the link at RC and the subsequent comment there as well? Oh, that's right, I quoted the ACTUAL REPORT. Sorry, fail again. How it is spun by the media was not discussed, nor did I skew what was written in any way.
Care to go another round?
Bill Walsh continues to put words in my mouth even though I showed how wrong he was. Keep up the good work Bill, you are only showing how ill-informed and under-educated you deniers are.
As for my "usual tripe" nothing more than an honest appraisal of your character as anyone can see who has the strong stomach to read through your posts.
A little hint to you Bill Walsh, when you are in a hole stop digging, your recent comments only confirm our earlier views of you.
Can you guys keep it (if loosely) on topic?
Ian @475,
Pot, meet kettle. The words I quote are yours. No need for me to make any up or put any in your mouth. They speak all for themselves. Can't own them? Seems not since you can't still see the problem with your tactics and offensive language. In fact, you can't own anything you say besides "denier, idiot, pathetic denier!" Not exactly stellar journalistic skills for someone who accused me of not having a grasp of the English language. Where was it again where you "showed how I was wrong?" I'll wait while you go searching.
See Ian, I won't stoop to your level, and it really seems to bother you that I won't. You can bait me all you like, but you will never get me down there. I'll just watch you from the high road and chuckle. You lost the debate the minute you chose insults over substance. That would be about the first time you chose to address me. Too bad that fact eludes you.
MFS @476,
I would be happy to if not constantly harassed by the likes of Ian who seems to have no end to his obsession with name calling and off topic rhetoric. Do go back and see where, and with whom, that started.
MFS my apologies for stooping as low as the deniers who pollute this site.
Unfortunately, I have a particular dislike for people who smear, libel and insult honest scientists.
I will try and be a little bit more less offensive unless people like Bill Walsh continue in their odious denier habits of mocking and insulting scientists.
Ian @478,
That is your single most laughable post yet. Find one, just one, instance of me posting anything derogatory towards scientists. Specifically, I would like to see specific instances of where I smear, mock, insult and most of all, libel scientists.
PROVE IT. Do it, or retract your own libelous statement and crawl away with your tail between your legs. Anyone who goes back and takes the time to read, regardless of their opinions about what I do say, will clearly see I have done no such thing.
You are a discredit to what this site is trying to be Ian. I sincerely doubt you would find much support here for many of the things you have said.
You are a waste of my quite valuable time and I won't bore anyone with this any longer. Especially myself.
Lotharsson,
One last thought on our debate and perhaps better taken to a different thread. I bring this up only in light of the events of the day in Maryland. You discuss how things are spun in the media, and seem to add that your opinion is that I am not fair, that I somehow side with the right-wing machine. That *how* it is spun by the media--things like M&W and the recent IAC report--is what you combat and critique and that somehow I am against that action. I am not.
With that said, the Drudges of the world have spun the guy at the Discovery Channel in MD totally as a green nut who was sent because he watched Gore's movie. But the guy was crazy, and that is the real story, and he could have just as easily been a right wing loon. The Baltimore Sun, on the other hand, has it pretty much a Page 2 story since he was stopped with only his own life lost. And that is the local paper for the most part so if his *reason* was so important it might be mentioned. But Gore or his movie are not mentioned, which is proper because it makes no difference what his motive was. If he had attacked the EPA for instance, the stories in each outlet would be different. So you we agree that that type of reporting--over biased to the extreme--is bogus. But only if we agree it cuts both ways.
To that point, I would say this. The media are much like the police. People hate them until they need them or they help, and then they are man's best friend. So blaming the media one way or the other doesn't really work. The truth is, each side is represented by different outlets.
Anyway, in light of the last dozen or so posts, I will say I appreciate your relative lack of hostility. See you perhaps on another thread.
Ian,
Meanwhile, I'll be waiting here for that proof from you detailing my hate and libel of scientists despite the fact that I work with them--scientists that is--every day and would be unemployed were it not for their work. Good luck Ian. Can't wait to see what you find.
I'll check back tomorrow after I return from, ironically, a physics lab at CU Boulder. You will likely be sick to know that I consult at any number of labs in the western US. Equipment, not science in my case.
Have fun with that search and let us know what you find.
Bill has no clue about his own posting history:
"I say scrambling because there are well over 1000 posters--many the same--between here, Tamino, Eli, DC etc coming out of their proverbial shoes to prove this is garbage."
"With that said, I tend to observe that the discussion at Watts site contains far less vitriol and ad hom attacks"
(with a side order of "don't know what an ad hom is, a sure sign of a denialist in sheeps' clothing)
"BTW I read the "robust" critique at RC. Wouldn't call that "working hard" at something."
"It's more what I see as mild panic over a potential chink in the proverbial armor."
"To give an example, you I am sure watched the "plant food" video. ... I think the video borders on propaganda."
This one all the while stating that he doesn't know jack. So why the conclusions?
> So the report is worthless and the IAC fails to get it?
Goodness me! Way to *totally* miss my point! Try reading and comprehending **what I said**, rather than a caricature of it. (And if I recall correctly, this is not the first time. Pre-emptive apologies if I'm not recalling correctly...)
> I figured there would be some reason why their conclusions--that, although the IPCC has "served society well" changes need to be made to better make it a reliable and unbiased conduit for bringing the AGW message to the masses--would be found invalid.
Yet again - did I say that, or did you merely presume I did? Feel free to quote my words that support your contention - or retract it.
I note you didn't respond to my questions about your methods, other than to assert without any compelling logic that "this report is different":
> This review has already been presented and as such is nothing like the M&W paper. Not to mention it is a review, not a statistical paper which one can either reproduce or not.
I'm not arguing that "presentation" (or "publication") makes a disseminated work fair game for criticism, nor that those events might change the truth value of any claims made.
> There is nothing to prove or disprove.
Bill Walsh might disagree, as he seems to be [trying to use it to prove some position he is advocating](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) - in which case its accuracy is a relevant attribute.
And you dodged my pointed question:
> You have had time to thoroughly check that the claims made by the report are representative of reality, I take it, before you tout it as good and accurate?
...which was not particularly about *this* report - rather Bill Walsh's methods for **determining** which reports to tout as worthy, and when he feels it is legitimate to do so.
> I bring this up only in light of the events of the day in Maryland.
I don't know the reference...
> ...seem to add that your opinion is that I ... somehow side with the right-wing machine.
Nuance doesn't seem to be your thing. I stated over and over again that the criteria you advocate for allowing or disallowing criticism aid and abet the denialists (and are in and of themselves illogical). This is very different from saying that you "somehow side with the right-wing machine".
> So blaming the media one way or the other doesn't really work. The truth is, each side is represented by different outlets.
I don't agree. Even the US "mainstream" media is very poor on reporting the science and its implications - and implying that there are "two [credible] sides" to the science is a false frame in the first place.
lotharsson
The Maryland reference is to that poor deranged man who was killed today at the Discovery channel building. He took hostages and threatened to shoot and blow up some of them (and I'm grateful I wasn't one of them). He had a whole lot of demands about stopping immigration, babies and global warming.
So some of the less pleasant news organisations are touting this as "AGW alarmists are violent people". Nasty but predictable.
Bill Walsh continues with his deceitful tactic of putting words in peoples' mouths then arguing against what he thinks they said rather than what they actually said.
It is not worth continuing any rational discussion with someone who uses these tactics.
I think the majority of posters on this blog know exactly what kind of a person he is.
I'm finished with his nonsense.
This is the first of his anti-science statements which showed exactly what his position was, there are many others (post 296):
>*I think the majority of posters on this blog know exactly what kind of a person he is.*
Yep!
"So some of the less pleasant news organisations are touting this as "AGW alarmists are violent people"."
So what about McVeigh? Or that kook who flew into the IRS building? How about that one who killed the police because "the government are coming for my guns!"? Not to mention the christian who killed that abortion doctor.
But the christian connection is always disavowed with "he wasn't a christian".
All,
Enjoy your zealot-like lives I guess. Lotharsson, I actually tried to agree with you, yet you still somehow spun it the other way.
Ian, you failed on every occasion to do anything but prove nothing. Since you could not find anything more than one comment taken completely out of context to attempt prove your asinine assertion, you fail.
Jakerman,
Why are you even bothering? Frankly, you should be ashamed to back your young friend Ian. Yet you stand together as one.
Wow, you're apparently nothing more than someone with nothing better to do with your life than haunt this blog.
Hate to tell you guys, if you feel like you're fighting the good fight, you aren't winning. Call me whatever pathetic insult you can come up with next, I do not care. I will continue to help shape science as you know it--renewable energy included and emphasis on--and you can continue wasting your time pretending you know more than the rest of the world. But however right you may be, you are failing. Miserably.
You are fools.
Good night now.
Enjoy the anger and h
>*Jakerman, Why are you even bothering? Frankly, you should be ashamed to back your young friend Ian. Yet you stand together as one.*
Bill you are correct that Ian and I see your character in your response.
For instance I gained a sense of your charater from the volumes you write as contrast against your [failure to face](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) and address the [weakness in your assertions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…).
Bill I'm not unfamiliar empty types breezing in with so called skepical agruments, and I've read my share of those who's stock and trade is abuse. Unfortuntly you exhibit both traits, with little but empty argument and abuse to get you noticed.
Lest I be misunderstood, by "fools" I meant only Wow and Ian. Especially Ian. Not ad hom, just observed.
Ian, whenever you want to back up that libel claim, I am all ears. But you won't. Because you can't. Anyone who reads this thread through, if they can tolerate it, knows it's true.
Lotharsson,
I think we might have a language problem. Can't tell where you might be from and it seems something is lost in translation.
The rest reading, god help you, I have no opinion of you.
Tim, if you by chance read this--god help you as well for getting this far--you need to check some of your posters. Words like "retard" are not an acceptable slur for any blog, much less one like yours.
Just my opinion, of course. But remember, everyone has one. Just like Ian. (that was a cheap shot Ian. Get it? You should.)
Best.
> I actually tried to agree with you, yet you still somehow spun it the other way.
I'm sure there are points where we are in agreement, but I suspect most of them aren't newsworthy (or are stated once and then debate moves on). In this instance I'm not sure what you're referring to as the "tried to agree" part - but I wasn't focused on those bits, because the areas of disagreement were more significant.
And on the points where I have consistently disagreed with you throughout this thread, you don't seem to understand why and frequently mischaracterise the basis of my disagreement.
> I think we might have a language problem. Can't tell where you might be from and it seems something is lost in translation.
I have lived in Australia, the US and the UK. They all have their differences, but I generally don't have communication problems with people from any of the three.
>*Lest I be misunderstood, by "fools" I meant...*
Did you want to retract or clarify anything else Bill?
"Enjoy your zealot-like lives"
A zealot is one so wedded to their ideals that they DO NOT HEAR any criticism of them.
You are unable to even HEAR the criticisms laid against you, nor the ones laid against this paper.
Just because we don't agree 4+4=Mango and INSIST that it is equal to 8 and will not condone a plea of "Well, it COULD be Mango, show that it isn't!" doesn't make us zealots.
But someone who proclaims "It COULD be Mango, because you don't understand their workings" and doesn't even acknowledge that Mango is not a number therefore doesn't pertain to a maths solution is themselves the zealot.
This paper merely proves that their bad method of analysis is a bad method of analysis and concludes that other methods of analysis are also bad.
You don't listen and just keep parroting "It COULD be true, though!".
It "COULD" be Mango too.
But go ahead and enjoy your life where you are the only moderate and everyone else is an extreme zealot.
Bill Walsh:
This from someone who thinks he knows more about some aspects of climate science than 97% of climate scientists. What a hypocrite. Note, this is not being abusive. It is a statement of fact.
Ahh, back from a long weekend in the mountains to find that Ian, not surprisingly, failed to back his accusation that I made even one disparaging, much less libelous, remark about scientists. Wonder why?
Jakers,
No, why do you ask? I simply wanted to clarify that I don't think all who post here, regardless of opinion, are fools. Only some. Perhaps you wanted to be included?
Wow,
I call you a zealot, because consistently in this thread, and in many, many others, you have proven yourself to be exactly what you state a zealot is--"one so wedded to their ideals that they DO NOT HEAR any criticism of them." That describes you to a tee since you clearly think your opinions and posts are without fault. I, on the other hand, am not wedded to any one idea and am able to see that there are merits to both sides of the discussion. That the issue is NOT black and white which seems to be how you choose to look at it.
Chris,
Since yours is a "statement of FACT" kindly go back and find the posts I made where I state either directly or implicitly that I know "more about some aspects of climate science than 97% of climate scientists."
I will wait patiently for your response. I won't have much choice since you will undoubtedly fail in your quest since I made no such statement. Nice of you to chime in with the standard accusation though.
Lastly, Lotharsson,
As I said, we seem to be off a bit. I don't choose to mis-characterize your statements and I may well miss the basis of your argument in some cases. Again, there seems to be something lost in communication. Perhaps on another topic--since this one has clearly run its course for now--there will be another opportunity.
>Did you want to retract or clarify anything else Bill?
Bill:
>*No.*
Bill in that case [my response](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) still applies.