If you want the TRUTH about the global warming con...

[dcraig1]

Now that the "climategate" nonsense has come to it's inevitable demise, perhaps we get back to some hard facts about our changing climate.

Nine countries have this year recorded their highest ever temperatures. Including Russia where 1200 people drowned in June trying to escape the heat (probably drunk - they are Russians!). This year will very likely be the warmest ever globally since thermometer measurements were started.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1546

 

[William Waller]

Now that the "climategate" nonsense has come to it's inevitable demise, perhaps we get back to some hard facts about our changing climate.

I find this topic very interesting, but (like a lot of people I would have thought) also find it slightly maddening trying to wade through the endless round of abuse, risible arguments and general nonsense that you seem to get from both sides. Data is routinely twisted, ad hominem attacks are the order of the day, and a disinterested search for the truth appears to be the last thing on people's minds.

For example, there's a commentator who routinely trots out the line that "The earth hasn't warmed for over a decade". This I think is intended to demonstrate that climate change or global warming has stopped. However, given that he picks 1998 (widely acknowledged to be a much warmer than average year) as the starting point this seems to be pretty pointless. A bit like measuring the light at midnight, coming back at noon, and concluding that darkness has stopped.

From the other side, the Hockey Stick. This will chuck out a hockey stick shape even if you feed random data into it. So it is to all intents and purposes useless at best and a fraud at worst. Yet people still defend it.

An unbiased and objective source would be very useful, but it seems impossible to find.

By the way, I don't know if you've looked at the UK climategate enquiries closely, but these struck me as typical official whitewashes. You can tell the outcome in advance. It doesn't alter the scientific basis of course, but they left a lot to be desired.

Sadly, this is normal for the UK - if you believe the enquiries, the Iraq war is just fine and there' nothing remotely iffy about the death of David Kelly. Sexed up dossiers? Absolutely not! On and on.

 

[dcraig1]

From the other side, the Hockey Stick. This will chuck out a hockey stick shape even if you feed random data into it. So it is to all intents and purposes useless at best and a fraud at worst. Yet people still defend it.

The Hockey Stick direct from real climate scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

The Hockey Stick is more of a Hockey Team these days. Multiple studies by independent researchers using different proxies broadly support Mann's original work. The "contrarians" are still arguing with Mann, but science has moved on.

From IPCC AR4:

Most of this stuff (including all the datasets - 92 separate paleo records) is available free on-line here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pcn/pcn.html

The "contrarians" are flogging a dead horse with their hockey stick ramblings.

 

[spinola]

we'll be alright, the earth is going nowhere, it's been hotter before 10 billion humans and industrialisation came along.

My tip, just enjoy every day , and if we get a bit torched , well know that it's all happened before and will likely continue to happen.

Enjoy ! And I'd like it a little warmer to be honest.....

 

[William Waller]

The Hockey Stick direct from real climate scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

Thanks, although I've seen that already actually. I quite like the site by and large, but I don't think that it's best friend would label it as "impartial", and it's got plenty of critics as I'm sure you know. I'd view it more as something to wash in after you've had a look at Climate Depot (I try to read as widely as possible).

Since you focussed on that, going back to the statistical model used is it just a lie then that it mines for hockey stick shapes and creates them out of random data? I've never had a satisfactory answer to this question, but I've seen the accusation plenty of times.

Here's Skeptical Science on it - again, no mention of my question, which surely must be significant?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

I know that Mcwotsit and the other one have got a bone to chew, that seems clear enough, although less explicable is Wegman's conclusion (I nicked this from wikipedia):

The report claimed that the MBH method creates a hockey-stick shape even when supplied with random input data (Figure 4.4), and argues that the MBH method uses weather station data from 1902 to 1995 as a basis for calibrating other input data. "It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the MBH paper. The net effect of the decentering is to preferentially choose the so-called hockey stick shapes."

I don't think many people would want to argue with Wegman on statistics, but are you saying he's got this one wrong?

And if he's not wrong, why don't people just own up to it. It undermines the whole case in people's minds, and would (if true) surely justify some degree of suspicion.

 

[dcraig1]

The US National Research Council at the request of the US Congress investigated Mann's work. Their conclusion backed Mann but said that his statistical methods could have been improved but it made little difference to the findings. The NRC is THE go to organization for scientific advice to the US government. Wegman or the NRC? - I'd take the NRC any day.

In any case, as I said, multiple other studies using different statistical techniques arrive at very similar conclusions.

The "contrarians" behave as if Mann's original paper is absolutely fundamental to climate science and critical to establishing the reality of a serious enhanced green house effect, but it is not. There are many other lines of evidence.

 

[William Waller]

The "contrarians" behave as if Mann's original paper is absolutely fundamental to climate science and critical to establishing the reality of a serious enhanced green house effect, but it is not. There are many other lines of evidence.

Oh yeah, I've seen some of the swivel-eyed blather based on this. As you say, there are many lines of evidence across a huge range of disciplines.

The US National Research Council at the request of the US Congress investigated Mann's work. Their conclusion backed Mann but said that his statistical methods could have been improved but it made little difference to the findings. The NRC is THE go to organization for scientific advice to the US government. Wegman or the NRC? - I'd take the NRC any day.

From memory, I don't think Wegman describes himself as a sceptic or denier. But on that specific area, surely Wegman would be more knowledgeable?

In any case, as I said, multiple other studies using different statistical techniques arrive at very similar conclusions.

I've seen other studies showing basically the same things, although again from the Wegman report (just Wikipedia again, sorry):

Many of the same proxies are reused in most of the "independent studies" so these "cannot really claim to be independent verifications."

Thanks for the replies, you sound well informed (unlike a lot of people on this topic). Sorry for chopping your post about a bit, just wanted to put things in the order in my head, so to speak.

I still can't find a direct answer in your posts though. I appreciate all the points you've made, but this one does seem to be quite important nonetheless:

In this type of work, statistical competence is extremely important. To my mind, it's worrying if the people who produced what is after all a massively significant piece of work lack this competence.

Worse still would be if they deliberately engineered the hockey stick shape to make their case, although of course this fact alone would not alter the truth or otherwise of their case. That aside, it would surely be appalling if it were the case. It would also surely be very reasonable grounds for being very suspect of their work - after all, integrity is vital in science.

Following on from this, if the accusation that their famous model produces a hockey stick 99.99% of the time (or whatever it is), why did they not investigate this and honestly admit and attempt to account for the error? Surely a scientist would be grateful for somebody exposing such a glaring mistake?

The problem is that unless such questions are addressed they (not unreasonably) taint the whole business in the eyes of the public. After all, if (deliberate emphasis) someone has lied about something so vital, people will naturally wonder what else they might be lying about.

This then feeds into all sorts of areas, like people questioning the temperature record. The reasoning goes that if one set have lied, why might another set not have lied and manipulated the way they compile the record, for example.

That's why I think it's so important to address these issues. I've seen it said countless times that the hockey stick emerges no matter what - I can't believe that any reasonable person would think that this point is not important.

But is it your opinion that this accusation is false?

Nice to have a civilised and informed discussion on this subject by the way - makes a refreshing change .

 

[William Waller]

The "contrarians" behave as if Mann's original paper is absolutely fundamental to climate science and critical to establishing the reality of a serious enhanced green house effect, but it is not.

Just one other thought on this in the interests of balance. I agree with you there, but in fairness to the other side the consensus side did make a great play of it at the time. It was held up as immensely important and of course it also formed the centrepiece of the IPCC report.

So I can understand the emphasis on it.

 

[episteme]

Thanks for the replies, you sound well informed (unlike a lot of people on this topic). Sorry for chopping your post about a bit, just wanted to put things in the order in my head, so to speak.

I still can't find a direct answer in your posts though. I appreciate all the points you've made, but this one does seem to be quite important nonetheless:

In this type of work, statistical competence is extremely important. To my mind, it's worrying if the people who produced what is after all a massively significant piece of work lack this competence.

Worse still would be if they deliberately engineered the hockey stick shape to make their case, although of course this fact alone would not alter the truth or otherwise of their case. That aside, it would surely be appalling if it were the case. It would also surely be very reasonable grounds for being very suspect of their work - after all, integrity is vital in science.

Following on from this, if the accusation that their famous model produces a hockey stick 99.99% of the time (or whatever it is), why did they not investigate this and honestly admit and attempt to account for the error? Surely a scientist would be grateful for somebody exposing such a glaring mistake?

The problem is that unless such questions are addressed they (not unreasonably) taint the whole business in the eyes of the public. After all, if (deliberate emphasis) someone has lied about something so vital, people will naturally wonder what else they might be lying about.

This then feeds into all sorts of areas, like people questioning the temperature record. The reasoning goes that if one set have lied, why might another set not have lied and manipulated the way they compile the record, for example.

That's why I think it's so important to address these issues. I've seen it said countless times that the hockey stick emerges no matter what - I can't believe that any reasonable person would think that this point is not important.

But is it your opinion that this accusation is false?

Nice to have a civilised and informed discussion on this subject by the way - makes a refreshing change .

I would refer you to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

and especially:

At the request of Congress, a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[6] U.S. Rep. Joe Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported the view that there were statistical failings, although their report has itself been criticized on several grounds.

 

[William Waller]

I would refer you to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

and especially:

At the request of Congress, a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[6] U.S. Rep. Joe Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported the view that there were statistical failings, although their report has itself been criticized on several grounds.

Thanks Episteme, although I've actually been quoting from that page LOL.

I'm still trying to get an answer on that specific question though. Wouldn't you find it extraordinary if something that was held to be so important produced the same results (or "desired" results as sceptics would no doubt put it) no matter what information you fed it?

Would that not be a huge scandal? In fact, it has been, and I am concerned that legitimate concerns about the possible effects of climate change are suffering because of it.

This is the kind of thing I was talking about really - it's a simple question, but it seems impossible to get a straight answer. And you know that anything that looks like evasiveness will be used against legitimate scientists.

Plus it raises all the usual and in fairness valid questions, such as "why did they do it?".

Put it this way - if I attempted to prove something to you with a device that was only capable of giving one answer (the one I wanted) what would think? I'd imagine you'd have a pretty low opinion of me and be very careful in your future dealings with me, because such a thing looks very like fraud.

Can I ask you (if you've got any interest in the subject) do you know if the allegation is true or false.

 

[episteme]

Well given that a number of these panels have not raised that concern - and have been generally suportive of the model then I would be very confident that it's just a load of nonsense. If it were true then these panels would note more than just some minor statistical failings - so I think you are just buying into some of the denialist bull****.

 

[William Waller]

Well given that a number of these panels have not raised that concern - and have been generally suportive of the model then I would be very confident that it's just a load of nonsense. If it were true then these panels would note more than just some minor statistical failings - so I think you are just buying into some of the denialist bull****.

Well they haven't addressed it in fact, nor do any of the supportive websites (Real Climate etc) that I read.

Have you got a rebuttal of the claim? I don't know why Wegman (who is not a denier but is unquestionably one of the world's foremost statisticians) would invent something like that. If he did, it would be easy to disprove.

Do you believe it to be true or not? Why will nobody address this simple question?

By the way, not to criticise, but it might be better to rely on argument and evidence - I understand the frustration behind "denialist bullsh1t" but it does tend to alienate undecided people, especially when it's a matter of answering a simple question.

 

[episteme]

My understanding is that the statistical methods were 'flawed' i.e not perfect.

However, that does not mean the results were necessarily wrong. I believe that other methods have been employed and the results are similar. So lets say that even if you could have got the same result from noise from that approach - it doesn't matter - other approaches have shown the result to be true.

 

[William Waller]

My understanding is that the statistical methods were 'flawed' i.e not perfect.

However, that does not mean the results were necessarily wrong. I believe that other methods have been employed and the results are similar. So lets say that even if you could have got the same result from noise from that approach - it doesn't matter - other approaches have shown the result to be true.

I agree that if the accusation is correct that does not in itself disprove the hypothethis but - sorry to harp on - is it not extraordinary that such a thing should happen? I cannot agree that it is not significant. Michael Mann is one of the giants making the case for anthropogenic global warming, and so he must be shown to be honest, or he risks tarnishing the entire case in the public mind. The model (if the allegation is true) is worthless, because it will always produce the same result. Yet this was the centre piece of the IPCC report - something that claimed to show a conclusion when it could reach no other!

In what other field would people allow this? They would claim that the people responsible were either grossly incompetent or far more likely frauds and liars surely?

And even the most lenient would lose patience if, once the error was uncovered, the scientists responsible were not immediately contrite and apologetic, not to mention grateful to those that uncovered their error. Failure to do so makes them look extremely guilty.

It sounds as though you accept that the allegation is true (apologies if this is not the case). In that case should Mann et al not be mocked as incompetent or derided as liars (again assuming the allecation is true)? Furthermore, should not their worthless model be consigned to the dustbin?

All I am arguing for is transparency. If the public is to be convinced of the need to change our ways, they must be confident that they have not been lied to.

I don't mean any offence to you or the other poster, especially as it seems like we agree, but to an undecided observer could your replies not look very much like evasiveness? I have put a simple and direct question several times but none of the replies have answered it. I understand, but I suspect many people, especially those inclined to side with anti-AGW case, wouldn't.

 

[episteme]

You haven't proved that the model is flawed (you just assume it is). You certainly have no evidence that the results are innacurate.

I'm bailing on this - with all the ad hom I can no longer take your points seriously.

 

[William Waller]

You haven't proved that the model is flawed (you just assume it is). You certainly have no evidence that the results are innacurate.

I'm bailing on this - with all the ad hom I can no longer take your points seriously.

I'm sorry you feel that way, although I haven't made any ad hominem attacks at all. Please point them out, or recognise that it is fact you who has made the only such attack. I have pointed out that sceptics will be able to use poor or dishonest practices to discredit the whole argument, but that is not the same thing at all.

Contrary to your statement, I do not assume the model is flawed. I have simply stated that there is a compelling accusation to that effect and requested a rebuttal, which has not been forthcoming despite many replies around the topic. I have not claimed that the results were inaccurate - far from it. I have claimed that there is a serious and damning accusation against methodology employed in creating the hockeystick. The evidence was quoted in an earlier post, but I will gladly repeat it for your benefit. One of the foremost statitisticians in the world gave evidence to the US Congress as follows (I quote from the page you recommended to me earlier):

The report claimed that the MBH method creates a hockey-stick shape even when supplied with random input data (Figure 4.4), and argues that the MBH method uses weather station data from 1902 to 1995 as a basis for calibrating other input data. "It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the MBH paper. The net effect of the decentering is to preferentially choose the so-called hockey stick shapes.

I'm afraid that you seem to be like too many people on both sides of this debate - wedded to an ideology and blind to inconvenient facts. When confronted with something that you don't like you throw your toys out of the pram and storm off in a huff. So be it, but you do the cause of responsible environmentalism no favours and make yourself look foolish.

Hopefully the other poster (who I must say seemed considerably better informed than you) will be able to continue the discussion in a more civilised and rational fashion.

I think that your true reason for your "bailing" is that you are unable to respond to a simple question. This has obviously upset or angered you.

 

[William Waller]

Sorry for any ill-tempered remarks in the previous post.

All I'm looking for is a straight answer to a simple question. Why is that so hard?

 

[dcraig1]

The report claimed that the MBH method creates a hockey-stick shape even when supplied with random input data (Figure 4.4), and argues that the MBH method uses weather station data from 1902 to 1995 as a basis for calibrating other input data. "It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the MBH paper. The net effect of the decentering is to preferentially choose the so-called hockey stick shapes.

Unless you provide a proper reference, it's hard to pin this stuff down.

If the assertion is that "red noise" data can produce a "hockey stick" when Mann's or others PCA analysis is applied, then it is at best irrelevant. Most importantly it begs the question of whether the proxy data is "red noise" and if so is it sufficiently "red" to invalidate Mann's and others analysis.

The redness can be approximated by the autocorrelation in the actual proxy time series. The following guest post on RealClimate shows that in fact the autocorrelation in the actual proxies is by a long way insufficient to invalidate Mann's finding.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/how-red-are-my-proxies/

In effect the "red noise" argument starts with the presupposition of the wholly stochastic nature of proxy time series and demolishes a straw man. Rather than just playing with mathematics scientists also think about the real underlying physical basis behind the data. That is what makes them scientists and it is something that statisticians are not necessarily very good at.

 

[dcraig1]

A new study published in Nature estimates that phytoplankton in the world's oceans have declined 40% in the last 100 years and continue to decline at 1% per year.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/29/nature-decline-ocean-phytoplankton-global-warming-boris-worm/

Phytoplankton are the basis of the ocean food web, provide over 50% of the world's oxygen and drawn down large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. They are pretty much the basis of life on earth.

The principle cause is thought to be the warming of the ocean surface, leading to slower overturning of the ocean surface layer which in turn causes fewer nutrients necessary for the phytoplankton growth to be brought to the surface.

If this study is confirmed by further research, this is bordering on the catastrophic in terms of both major damage to ocean ecosystems and to accelerated warming due to the lowered capacity of the oceans to take up CO2.

This is a major wakeup call. We may be closer to the edge than anybody knew.

 

[MrGecko]

So what?