Announcement

**we_are_toast** · October 01, 2009, 12:44 PM

Re: More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

Bored again c1ue?:p
Out surfing the wingnut blogs for the latest hysterical misinterpretation of data?
Same old pattern, take preliminary data, take it out of context, misinterpret it, than hit the denialists blogoshpere and scream HERES THE PROOF!
Of course; each and every claim, gets easily debunked, then it's off to try and find another little crack that you can claim is the Grand Canyon.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...09/hey-ya-mal/

...
More seriously, many of you will have noticed yet more blogarrhea about tree rings this week. The target de jour is a particular compilation of trees (called a chronology in dendro-climatology) that was first put together by two Russians, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late 1990s (and published in 2002). This multi-millennial chronology from Yamal (in northwestern Siberia) was painstakingly collected from hundreds of sub-fossil trees buried in sediment in the river deltas. They used a subset of the 224 trees they found to be long enough and sensitive enough (based on the interannual variability) supplemented by 17 living tree cores to create a �Yamal� climate record.

A preliminary set of this data had also been used by Keith Briffa in 2000 (pdf) (processed using a different algorithm than used by H&S for consistency with two other northern high latitude series), to create another �Yamal� record that was designed to improve the representation of long-term climate variability.

Since long climate records with annual resolution are few and far between, it is unsurprising that they get used in climate reconstructions. Different reconstructions have used different methods and have made different selections of source data depending on what was being attempted. The best studies tend to test the robustness of their conclusions by dropping various subsets of data or by excluding whole classes of data (such as tree-rings) in order to see what difference they make so you won�t generally find that too much rides on any one proxy record (despite what you might read elsewhere).

So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn�t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.
McIntyre has based his �critique� on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. People have written theses about how to construct tree ring chronologies in order to avoid end-member effects and preserve as much of the climate signal as possible. Curiously no-one has ever suggested simply grabbing one set of data, deleting the trees you have a political objection to and replacing them with another set that you found lying around on the web.
The statement from Keith Briffa clearly describes the background to these studies and categorically refutes McIntyre�s accusations. Does that mean that the existing Yamal chronology is sacrosanct? Not at all � all of the these proxy records are subject to revision with the addition of new (relevant) data and whether the records change significantly as a function of that isn�t going to be clear until it�s done.
What is clear however, is that there is a very predictable pattern to the reaction to these blog posts that has been discussed many times. As we said last time there was such a kerfuffle:

However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake. This led to some truly death-defying leaping to conclusions when this issue hit the blogosphere.

Plus �a change�
The timeline for these mini-blogstorms is always similar. An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly �telegraphed� across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything �hockey-stick� shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the �hoax� has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round. After a while it is clear that no scientific edifice has collapsed and the search goes on for the �real� problem which is no doubt just waiting to be found. Every so often the story pops up again because some columnist or blogger doesn�t want to, or care to, do their homework. Net effect on lay people? Confusion. Net effect on science? Zip.

Having said that, it does appear that McIntyre did not directly instigate any of the ludicrous extrapolations of his supposed findings highlighted above, though he clearly set the ball rolling. No doubt he has written to the National Review and the Telegraph and Anthony Watts to clarify their mistakes and we�re confident that the corrections will appear any day now�. Oh yes.

...

**vinoveri** · October 01, 2009, 12:56 PM

Re: More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

Originally posted by we_are_toast View Post

Bored again c1ue?:p
Out surfing the wingnut blogs for the latest hysterical misinterpretation of data?
Same old pattern, take preliminary data, take it out of context, misinterpret it, than hit the denialists blogoshpere and scream HERES THE PROOF!
Of course; each and every claim, gets easily debunked, then it's off to try and find another little crack that you can claim is the Grand Canyon.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...09/hey-ya-mal/

The more important point here IMO is the misrepresentation of the data (which contstitutes fraud if done with intent to mislead and thereby benefit the perpetrator of the fraud). When fraud enters the realm of science, we are all threatened regardless of political views.

"Who should we believe? Al Gore with his �facts� and �peer reviewed science� or the practioners of �Blog Science�? Surely, the choice is clear�."

ROFL - surely the choice is self-evident, trust a politician ...:p

**c1ue** · October 01, 2009, 04:00 PM

Re: More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

The amusing part is - not much effort is needed to see AGW emperor has no clothes.

Originally posted by we_are_toast debunk of debunk attempt

A preliminary set of this data had also been used by Keith Briffa in 2000 (pdf) (processed using a different algorithm than used by H&S for consistency with two other northern high latitude series), to create another �Yamal� record that was designed to improve the representation of long-term climate variability.

Looking at Mr. Briffa's statement, he is saying that the additional 34 tree ring data sets aren't his. This is true but irrelevant.

He is also saying that the additional 34 tree ring data sets are from the same region and from the same original data set in which Mr. Briffa drew his original data - so the data IS valid.

So I'm unclear what AGW debunking is debunked: McIntyre's assertions are as follows:

1) Briffa would not make his data available until recently
2) The recent opening of the base data set included many more data points not used in the 'hockey stick' temperature graph
3) The graph - if all the data is used - shows different behavior

Briffa refutes none of these points, merely notes that:

a) yes, there are more data sets as asserted by 2). No explanation for why these were excluded although a nice talk about his methodology is put out as a distraction

b)

In his piece, McIntyre replaces a number (12) of these original measurement series with more data (34 series) from a single location (not one of the above) within the Yamal region, at which the trees apparently do not show the same overall growth increase registered in our data.

The basis for McIntyre's selection of which of our (i.e. Hantemirov and Shiyatov's) data to exclude and which to use in replacement is not clear but his version of the chronology shows lower relative growth in recent decades than is displayed in my original chronology.

This appears to be incorrect. What McIntyre is saying is that the results are different if the entire data set is used as opposed to a subset. Briffa implies McIntyre is using a different subset when McIntyre's statement is completely different.

c) yes, item 3) is possible. Temperature graph could vary with the additional data and should be investigated. Of course, why was it not investigated before?

**GRG55** · October 03, 2009, 04:37 PM

Re: More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

Originally posted by we_are_toast View Post

Bored again c1ue?:p
Out surfing the wingnut blogs for the latest hysterical misinterpretation of data?...

This has now reached blogoshere escape velocity.

Here's some more lighter fluid for the fire...

Ross McKitrick, the author of the following article, is professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.

Flawed climate data

Only by playing with data can scientists come up with the infamous 'hockey stick' graph of global warming

Ross McKitrick, Financial Post
Published: Friday, October 02, 2009

Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a famous result in paleoclimatology known as the Hockey Stick graph. Developed by a U.S. climatologist named Michael Mann, it was a statistical compilation of tree ring data supposedly proving that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century. Prior to the publication of the Hockey Stick, scientists had held that the medieval-era was warmer than the present, making the scale of 20th century global warming seem relatively unimportant. The dramatic revision to this view occasioned by the Hockey Stick's publication made it the poster child of the global warming movement. It was featured prominently in a 2001 report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as government websites and countless review reports.

Steve and I showed that the mathematics behind the Mann Hockey Stick were badly flawed, such that its shape was determined by suspect bristlecone tree ring data. Controversies quickly piled up: Two expert panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media followed the story around the world.

The expert reports upheld all of our criticisms of the Mann Hockey Stick, both of the mathematics and of its reliance on flawed bristlecone pine data. One of the panels, however, argued that while the Mann Hockey Stick itself was flawed, a series of other studies published since 1998 had similar shapes, thus providing support for the view that the late 20th century is unusually warm. The IPCC also made this argument in its 2007 report. But the second expert panel, led by statistician Edward Wegman, pointed out that the other studies are not independent. They are written by the same small circle of authors, only the names are in different orders, and they reuse the same few data climate proxy series over and over...

...I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.

I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again. In the meantime I am grateful for those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who continue to ask the right questions and insist on scientific standards of openness and transparency.

And some added commentary from Terence Corcoran, a columnist with the same publication:

...The official United Nation's global warming agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged stool that is fast losing its legs. To carry the message of man-made global warming theory to the world, the IPCC has depended on 1) computer models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground.

Over the past month, one of the IPCC's top climate scientists, Mojib Latif, attempted to explain that even if global temperatures were to cool over the next 10 to 20 years, that would not mean that man-made global warming is no longer catastrophic. It was a tough case to make, and it is not clear Mr. Latif succeeded. In a presentation to a world climate conference in early September, Mr. Latif rambled somewhat and veered off into inscrutable language that is now embedded in a million blog posts attempting to prove one thing or another.

A sample: "It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two, you know, when the temperature cools, all right, relative to the present level...And then, you know, I know what's going to happen. You know, I will get, you know, millions of phone calls, you know -- 'What's going on?' 'So is global warming disappearing, you know?' 'Have you lied on us, you know?' So, and, therefore, this is the reason why we need to address this decadal prediction issue."

The decadal prediction issue appears to be a combination of computer model problems, the unpredictability of natural climate variation, and assorted uncertainties. Making all this clear to the average global citizen will not be easy and climate scientists need to be able to make it clear, said Mr. Latif. "We have to ask the nasty questions ourselves, all right, or some other people will do it."...

...The IPCC is now on wobbly legs at all four corners. It's models are inadequate and need overhaul, data integrity is at issue, the climate is not quite following the script, and the communication program for the whole campaign is a growing struggle.

**GRG55** · October 03, 2009, 05:04 PM

Re: More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

Originally posted by GRG55 View Post

This has now reached blogoshere escape velocity.

Here's some more lighter fluid for the fire...

Ross McKitrick, the author of the following article, is professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.

Flawed climate data

No problem though. There's plenty of things to be concerned about beyond Climate Change. Hydrocarbons [and their petrochemical derivatives] might kill all of us yet...just not in the way the IPCC is expecting.

If the statistics in this documentary are anywhere near correct we might really have something to work on...

CBC: Where have all the Boys gone?
The Male birthrate is on the decline
Globally

**c1ue** · October 04, 2009, 11:01 AM

Re: More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

GRG,

If there's anything that can be learned from the blogosphere, it is that many issues are exactly as Jesse pointed out in his "a priori vs. empirical reasoning post":

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot...reasoning.html

A Priori reasoning is often associated with religion and other belief systems, because it is 'top down' reasoning from a given, accepted fact that is judged to be self-evident and sufficient in itself. So for example, if one believes in an all-powerful and loving God, one can start making logical deductions from that first principle.

AGW unfortunately exhibits all of the tendencies noted. Given that AGW is real, therefore all reasoning and data gathering must conform to this central belief.

Every attempt to build the "consensus" is yielding backlash:

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Clim...hange-Examiner

Scientific organizations that usually advocate for swift and immediate action to battle climate change have also upset their members but for the opposite reason � some members are not convinced that manmade climate change is a real threat.

I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.
~ Dr. Bill Gray on the manmade climate change theory

Earlier this year William (Bill) Gray, Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University who is best known for his hurricane forecasts,fired one of the first shots by asserting the American Meteorological Society was being usurped by global warming alarmists.

The American Physical Society, a professional association for physicists, received a letter from 54 of its members in May objecting to the group�s climate change advocacy. The letter said in part, �Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th � 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.�

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC...
~ American Physical Society editors

APS editors had acknowledged in 2008 that the scientific �consensus� may not be as strong as some alarmists believe. They wrote, �There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.�
The APS has agreed to review its current climate statement to ensure it met the beliefs of its membership and of the best science available.

In July, editors of Chemical & Engineering News, a magazine published by the American Chemical Society (ACS), found themselves amid an uprising by its members after publishing an editorial attacking those who dare to question man�s effect on the climate. The editorial in the June 22nd issue of the magazine said those that deny anthropogenic [manmade] global warming use �the same tactics used by other purveyors of nonsense rejected by the mainstream scientific community� including the belief in creationism.
One week later, the professional members of ACS let their opinion be known and it most likely is not the response some might expect. The July 27th issue of the magazine was filled with dozens of letters rebuking the magazine and its parent society for being so dismissive of dissenting opinions on climate change. The letters bordered on a rebellion within the society as it draws harsh criticism and calls for Mr. Baum to resign.

But perhaps all these members of the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, and the American Chemical Society are all 'deniers' as opposed to their enlightened leadership/editors.

As someone who has intimate experience with use of 'neutral' institutions to build a completely incorrect image, the pattern I have seen for years is very consistent with a well thought out marketing campaign.

This is one reason why I have always viewed AGW claims closely to see if there is any fact as opposed to flummery. Sadly the latter appears to be the case.

**GRG55** · October 04, 2009, 12:48 PM

Re: More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

I note that quite a few of the most prominent advocates state that the debate is closed...man-made climate change is a fact and no further science is needed. In a way they are correct, because the issue of climate change exited the scientific sphere and firmly entered the realm of politics some years ago. There are now far too many vested and entrenched interests to reverse the outcome, no matter what the evidence. I laughed out loud at the summary dismissal that if we experience two decades of cooling it was not relevant to the debate or the current conclusions.

So the die is cast, governments see an opportunity to secure needed tax revenues in a way that might be accepted by the majority of their public, business is tired of the uncertainty caused by the debate and is now increasingly advocating for clear [and hopefully stable] policy implementation that it can incorporate in its planning, the Obama Administration [like Australia's Rudd Administration earlier] sees an opportunity to differentiate itself from the previous government and score some multi-lateralism points with the rest of the world by embracing climate change, some of the petroleum and energy services companies are hedging their bets by diversifying into alternative/renewable energy businesses, the venture capitalists are placing their bets, and so forth. How can any of these interests now reverse themselves from these increasingly entrenched, and often expensively acquired, positions...all supported by the apparently irrefutable conclusions of the global climate change cohort?

I try to be as agnostic as I can about these things. But I must confess that I find it quite incredible that anyone can actually build an accurate and reliable computer model of the Earth's climate. It reminds me of the massive models with thousands of variables that the likes of Mary Meeker used to construct to justify their forecasts of future tech stock earnings...which in the end proved to be nothing more than a false analytical veneer motivated by the need to sell something - in that case worthless stock. The sheer number of variables, and the relationships between them, required to model the climate seems daunting to me. The evangelical fervour with which these models, and their conclusions, are accepted causes me to be sceptical...since we've seen this videotape so many times before through human history.

Having said that, however, the lessons from the financial system mess are applicable to most other areas of human endeavor. We regularly, and knowingly, behave in ways that provide the expected immediate gain when the invariably negative consequences can be deferred. We humans especially enjoy this when the consequences can be deferred and accumulated over long periods of time, and reach such gargantuan levels that ultimately only society as a whole can bear the cost of rectifying the circumstances. EJ used the analogy of toxic chemical waste [Love Canal, EPA Superfunds, etc.] to describe what was building in the financial system, and to accurately predict how it would unfold. I put climate change in the same catagory. I don't know enough to either accept of debunk it...and I don't think anybody else on this planet can either. However, I am confident that initial result of the response will be to the [potentially significant] benefit of a very few on the planet, the actual results of policies and actions will fall well short of expected, promoted and advertised outcomes, and if climate change ultimately proves [or is believed by a large majority] to be a genuine issue the costs to deal with it will have to be socialized.

**c1ue** · October 04, 2009, 01:58 PM

Re: More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

Originally posted by GRG55

I don't know enough to either accept of debunk it...and I don't think anybody else on this planet can either. However, I am confident that initial result of the response will be to the [potentially significant] benefit of a very few on the planet, the actual results of policies and actions will fall well short of expected, promoted and advertised outcomes, and if climate change ultimately proves [or is believed by a large majority] to be a genuine issue the costs to deal with it will have to be socialized.

A fair statement and one I completely agree with.

My ongoing efforts to post 'against the grain' tidbits is simply to illustrate that the AGW conclusion is far from that.

It does annoy me immensely though when I see so much opinion masquerading as science.

I am gratified to see that Latif's convoluted stance is apparently reaching a larger audience. I didn't bother posting that since I guarantee the resulting AGW believer response would have been: but on the longer time scales, AGW still exists - even though Al Gore's/Hansen's famous graph only consisted of a decade or two of warming. More excellent 'a priori' belief exactly on par with not being able to prove Heaven or Hell until you get there.

**we_are_toast** · October 04, 2009, 02:11 PM

Re: More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

Originally posted by c1ue View Post

It does annoy me immensely though when I see so much opinion masquerading as science.

Yep! me too!

Thousands of peer reviewed journal articles on one side, possibly one heavily rejected on the other. I sure wish people understood what science is and how it is conducted.

**GRG55** · October 04, 2009, 04:27 PM

Re: More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

Originally posted by we_are_toast View Post

Yep! me too!

Thousands of peer reviewed journal articles on one side, possibly one heavily rejected on the other. I sure wish people understood what science is and how it is conducted.

If people actually understood the degree to which the conduct of objective science has been perverted during our long running "money is everything" FIRE economy era...and especially how the grant systems now work within the you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours politics of peer review...they might be even more sceptical.

This goes way beyond climate change. Much of what now passes for medical science, for example, is suspect, and it's difficult to ignore the recurring pattern that certain treatments suddenly become "fashionable" and then quietly fade as the "science" is found to be wanting.

This rant does a dis-service to the legions of scientists that work hard to conduct honest, objective research [and I think that is the majority] but the system they work in now runs on the ability to attract the money, and has become financialised and politicised to a degree that I suspect most citizens could not imagine.

**we_are_toast** · October 04, 2009, 06:39 PM

Re: More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

Originally posted by GRG55 View Post

If people actually understood the degree to which the conduct of objective science has been perverted during our long running "money is everything" FIRE economy era...and especially how the grant systems now work within the you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours politics of peer review...they might be even more sceptical.

This goes way beyond climate change. Much of what now passes for medical science, for example, is suspect, and it's difficult to ignore the recurring pattern that certain treatments suddenly become "fashionable" and then quietly fade as the "science" is found to be wanting.

This rant does a dis-service to the legions of scientists that work hard to conduct honest, objective research [and I think that is the majority] but the system they work in now runs on the ability to attract the money, and has become financialised and politicised to a degree that I suspect most citizens could not imagine.

There was a great deal of science conducted from 2001-2009 dealing with global warming. Most of it funded by NSF and NASA. Both heads of these organizations were political appointees from a denialist administration, that very much tried to politicize the science, even to the degree of trying to change scientific results. Instead of going along, getting funded, and presenting what the politicians wanted, the science community refused and rebelled to the point of resignations and open public criticism of the administration. Not one peer-review article presenting data disproving, or providing a data supported alternative to man made global warming made it into and accepted journal. This would have been exactly what the administration and denialist politicians who held the power wanted.

I'm afraid your concern that the science of global warming has been financialized and politicized, simply doesn't hold up to the historic facts.

**Jay** · October 04, 2009, 06:52 PM

Re: More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

Originally posted by GRG55 View Post

This goes way beyond climate change. Much of what now passes for medical science, for example, is suspect, and it's difficult to ignore the recurring pattern that certain treatments suddenly become "fashionable" and then quietly fade as the "science" is found to be wanting.

I agree, real medical research fights against a tsunami of monied interests and the junk studies they use to push a product. It can be very difficult to parse out what is actually useful and proven without a huge effort.

**c1ue** · October 04, 2009, 11:25 PM

Re: More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

Originally posted by we_are_toast

Thousands of peer reviewed journal articles on one side, possibly one heavily rejected on the other. I sure wish people understood what science is and how it is conducted.

Yes, peer review is what science is...NOT

There has been science done for decades, perhap even centuries before peer reviewed journals fell onto the scene.

Peer review has curiously failed to catch quite a number of obvious frauds - and those didn't even have billions at stake.

Originally posted by we_are_toast

There was a great deal of science conducted from 2001-2009 dealing with global warming. Most of it funded by NSF and NASA.

There has been a lot of work done on Hansen's 40 year plus global warming campaign, you should look into it.

But more importantly I think you've hit the operative word right here: funding

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249598,00.html

The Bush administration, after all, is by far the largest funder of global warming alarmism, pouring about $30 billion of federal dollars into climate- and alternative energy-related research over the last six years. Many of the beneficiaries of this taxpayer largesse, particularly NASA�s James Hansen, have become media darlings.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...re-coming-soon

Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Change is about to spend $100 million a year advertising global warming alarmism.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...-27197,00.html

In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.

So even if Al Gore is correct:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/gre...formation.html#

"There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10m a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community," Gore said at a forum in Singapore.

Then Al Gore's own organization is spending more than 10 times what "some of the largest carbon polluters' spend.

And the AGW (and alternative energy) funding of Hansen and so forth is multiples of what is spent on the other side: $30B/year divided by 6 = $5B/year

More importantly - who gets more funding? The scientist saying the catastrophe is coming or the scientist saying that what's happening is possibly natural but needs more study?

Announcement

More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

More climate change fun: another hockey stick debunked?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment