NAS Findings on Al Gore's Facts: Late 20th Century Warming

[Andre]

Although this thread seems to pertain to Earth/climate issues, it's actually about the idea of facts of a politician. Al Gore has a lot to say here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/19/nclim19.xml&site=5&page=0

A former colleague of mine in the US Senate, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once said: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts"...

and

...The NAS stated that the late 20th-century warming in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the past 1,000 years and probably for much longer than that.

We don't know for a fact if the late 20th-century warming in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the past 1,000 years, but we do know for a fact what the NAS has said about the past 1,000 years:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

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 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600,..

The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that.

Hmm, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but except for Al Gore, they are not entitled to their own facts?"

 

[ptabor]

Are you surprised a politician is taking liberty with facts to further a political agenda?

WMD's anyone?

 

[Skyhunter]

Are you surprised a politician is taking liberty with facts to further a political agenda?

WMD's anyone?

Al Gore is not intentionaly misrepresenting the NAS study. Although his statement is not precisely accurate, it is no where near the level of deception that was perpetrated by the Bush cabal in order to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

If you read the NAS press release in context:

The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that. Other factors that limit confidence include the short length of the instrumental record, which is used to calibrate and validate reconstructions, and the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time. It also is difficult to estimate a mean global temperature using data from a limited number of sites. On the other hand, confidence in large-scale reconstructions is boosted by the fact that the proxies on which they are based generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions. Confidence increases further when multiple independent lines of evidence point to the same general phenomenon, such as the Little Ice Age.

Collecting additional proxy data, especially for years before 1600 and for areas where the current data are relatively sparse, would increase our understanding of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years, the report says. In addition, improving access to data on which published temperature reconstructions are based would boost confidence in the results. The report also notes that new analytical methods, or more careful use of existing methods, might help circumvent some of the current limitations associated with large-scale reconstructions.

:you see that they are less confidant, not denying it.

Here is another viewpoint:

The long-awaited NAS synthesis report on surface temperature reconstructions over the last few millennia is being released today. It's a long (155 page) report and will take a while to digest, but we applaud the committee for having tried to master a dense thicket of publications and materials on the subject over a relatively short time.

It is probably expecting too much for one report might to put to rest all the outstanding issues in a still-developing field. And given the considerable length of the report, we have little doubt that keen contrarians will be able to mine the report for skeptical-sounding sentences and cherry-pick the findings. However, it is the big picture conclusions that have the most relevance for the lay public and policymakers, and it is re-assuring (and unsurprising) to see that the panel has found reason to support the key mainstream findings of past research, including points that we have highlighted previously:

One of our main criticisms though doesn't involve the report itself, but the press release that accompanied it. We've noted before the importance of making sure that the press will be able to correctly contextualise a release and the bad consequences of that not happening. Well, in this case the press release annoucing the publication of the report was often inconsistent with what was actually stated in the report. It was titled: 'High Confidence' That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years; Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600 which is not news at all and almost trivially true. However, it is likely to be mis-interpreted to imply that there is no confidence in reconstructions prior to 1600, which is the opposite of the conclusion of the report. Additionally, the text appears to have confused the key distinction between our knowledge of global mean temperature in past centuries (which is very limited owing to the sparseness of long available proxy data in the Southern Hemisphere, and for which a reconstruction was not attempted by Mann et al or most other researchers), with our knowledge of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature (which is considerably better; hence the emphasis of this quantity in past work).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=316

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

 

[Andre]

You guys are stealing the thread. It's neither about the 20th century warming nor the global warmers assassination attempt on the http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/medieval-warming.pdf for which evidence is accumulating on a daily base; nor is it about justifying an ..errm.. incorrectness by pointing fingers to other.

It's just about how demagoguery works. Pointing to rules of honesty first suggesting to be honest and breaking with that only a few sentences further on.

Also very revealing why and how dishonesty is defended so fiercely.

Anyway, if youwant to discuss the accuracy of the particular statement, why not open a thread in Earth science about why the Medieval Warming Period was not warmer than today?

 

[Andre]

Actually, Roger Pielke Jr just posted an interesting quote from Lippmann about the propaganda mechanism at work here:

. . . when the decision is(?) (seems to be - andre) critical and urgent, the public will not be told the whole truth. What can be told to the great public it will not hear in the complicated and qualified concreteness that is needed for a practical decision. When distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people, the truth suffers a considerable and often a radical distortion. The complex is made over into the simple, the hypothetical into the dogmatic, and the relative into the absolute. Even when there is no deliberate distortion by censorship and propaganda, which is unlikely in time of war, the public opinion of masses cannot be counted upon to apprehend regularly and promptly the reality of things. There is an inherent tendency in opinion to feed upon rumors excited by our own wishes and fears. [p. 27]

. . . when the chaff of silliness, baseness, and deception is so voluminous that it submerges the kernels of truth, freedom of speech may produce such frivolity, or such mischief, that it cannot be preserved against the demand for a restoration of order or of decency. If there is a dividing line between liberty and license, it is where freedom of speech is no longer respected as a procedure of the truth and becomes the unrestricted right to exploit the ignorance, and incite the passions, of the people. The freedom is such a hullabaloo of sophistry, propaganda, special pleading, lobbying, and salesmanship that it is difficult to remember why freedom of speech is worth the pain and trouble of defending it.

 

[phoenixy]

You guys are stealing the thread. It's neither about the 20th century warming nor the global warmers assassination attempt on the http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/medieval-warming.pdf for which evidence is accumulating on a daily base; nor is it about justifying an ..errm.. incorrectness by pointing fingers to other.

Huh? Did you even watch that movie? Medieval warming is confirmed and discussed in An Inconvenient Truth (happened three times). However, it does not come anywhere close to industrial warming we are experiencing. Your attempt to raise a controversy does not change the fact that data exists to back Gore's assertion. "Less confident" does not imply that Gore made up this fact.

It's just about how demagoguery works. Pointing to rules of honesty first suggesting to be honest and breaking with that only a few sentences further on.

PS2: nice article on propaganda mechanism, consider the irony that your original post is about blowing things out of proportion.

Also very revealing why and how dishonesty is defended so fiercely.

Anyway, if youwant to discuss the accuracy of the particular statement, why not open a thread in Earth science about why the Medieval Warming Period was not warmer than today?

You could discuss whatever you want. But if your discussion is based on a wrong premise, then it is just a rant that does not have a point.

PS: there is a difference between mild exaggeration and outright fabrication of "fact". And you have yet to establish that Gore's minor errors in his presentation is an intentional act to deceive.

 

[Andre]

Ah finally, what took you so long?

Huh? Did you even watch that movie? Medieval warming is confirmed and discussed in An Inconvenient Truth (happened three times). However, it does not come anywhere close to industrial warming we are experiencing. Your attempt to raise a controversy does not change the fact that data exists to back Gore's assertion. "Less confident" does not imply that Gore made up this fact.

Stealing the thread once more this is about honesty and correctness. Not about the factuality of the Medieval Warm Period. Indeed Gore did not make it up, it was a warmers conspiracy.

You could discuss whatever you want. But if your discussion is based on a wrong premise, then it is just a rant that does not have a point.

PS: there is a difference between mild exaggeration and outright fabrication of "fact". And you have yet to establish that Gore's minor errors in his presentation is an intentional act to deceive.

Nevertheless there is a huge difference here, the unprecented 1000-years text is of the http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf , based solely on the hockeystick, fig 1b. The hockeystick has been debunked very reluctantly by both the NAS-gang of North and more convincingly by the Wegman comittee. So using the same text again as if nothing has happened, does seem to show a considerable contempt for the truth.

I think http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf of the viscount is worthwhile too.

After all an http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp .

 

[phoenixy]

Ah finally, what took you so long?

Huh? You are expecting me? I don't get it.

Stealing the thread once more this is about honesty and correctness. Not about the factuality of the Medieval Warm Period. Indeed Gore did not make it up, it was a warmers conspiracy.

Warmer consiracy? Huh?

blah
After all an http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp
blah

From that website's about section

In this section of our web site, we invite you to analyze temperature and precipitation trends across the conterminous United States, to see for yourself whether or not our claim that "There Has Been No Global Warming for the Past 70 Years" is indeed correct, at least as far as the United States is concerned.

OK...

I don't have anything to say on this thread anymore.

PS: here is the Europe "data" presented on the website(Norway, the "data" is all regional). It's good for a laugh

Svalbard, Norway Reference
Berge, J., Johnsen, G., Nilsen, F., Gulliksen, B. and Slagstad, D. 2005. Ocean temperature oscillations enable reappearance of blue mussels Mytilus edulis in Svalbard after a 1000 year absence. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303: 167-175.

Description
A thermophilous mollusk community was detected in 2004 along the west coast of Svalbard (78°13'N, 14°E) that is believed to have been initiated by larvae transported "in unusually warm water" from the mainland of Norway during the summer of 2002, after a 1000-year absence from where the mussels were "abundant" during "warm intervals in the Holocene." The authors say the reappearance "suggests that recent water temperatures approach [our italics] those of the mediaeval warm period," which implies that it is not yet as warm at that high northern latitude as it was during the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 800-1200).

 

[Andre]

Huh? You are expecting me? I don't get it.

Most certainly there must be a few dozen honestly indignant members here, ready to fight and save the world. it took quite a while.

Warmer consiracy? Huh?

By the authority of the Wegman report, revealing the network and the experiences of Prof David Deeming, Dr Chris Landsea and Dr Hans von Storch. I'll elaborate if so desired.

From that website's about section

OK...

I don't have anything to say on this thread anymore.

PS: here is the Europe "data" presented on the website(Norway, the "data" is all regional). It's good for a laugh

How about the current warming? what would the researchers of the year 3006 find for our period? Strong warming signals in Siberia, Europe and parts of North America, virtually none with several cooling signals in N and S America and Australia. the "data" is all regional. That would certainly be for a good laugh thinking that there was global warming around the onset of the 21th century.

Problem with the medieval warm period is that all regions show the warming.

 

[Skyhunter]

So this thread is about dishonesty.

Where to begin?

Let us start http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/3860_GlobalClimateSciencePlanMemo.pdf with an Exxon Mobile internal memo that outlines the denialist strategy and authorizes the funding. I hear about the "warmer conspiracy" all the time, yet I see no evidence of it. If there is an equivalent to this memo among the scientists at NASA, NOAA, or the IPCC I have yet to see it.

So the entire basis of the denialist strategy was not to promote science, but to cast doubts and aspersions.

Then there is the http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf there are questions that professor Wegman has to date refused to answer or provide key inputs so that others can validate his results.

As for the hockey stick being debunked, that just is not the case. For a detailed explanation of the hockey stick controversy look here. There are some legitimate questions but there is nothing that significantly changes the conclusions. The NAS study confirms in general the conclusions of Mann et al. MM05 is part of the strategy of "sowing doubt", as outlined in the Exxon Mobile internal memo. If you look http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=21084385&CFTOKEN=29888831 you will see that both Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are associated with institutes that received funding, as part of the Exxon strategy.

So on the one hand we have the NAS, NASA, NOAA, Royal Society, and probably every other objective science institute, supporting the IPCC conclusions that AGW is real. On the other hand you have a handful of think tanks that are directly connected to the strategy of "sowing doubt" as outlined by the ESSO memo that are deliberately distorting the science.

Hmmmmm, who should I believe.

 

[Andre]

You refuse to learn about fallacies, don't you? Another deluge of ad hominem attacks.

Just read this in http://www.desmogblog.com/national-posts-corcoran-pops-his-cork that I linked to in am another thread:

I can tell you: in Court, Deniers would win clearly. Ad-hominem attacks are not only childish and useless, are stupid. Warmers: should you want to win the debate, better to improve, guys. Anyhow, time will tell. But if in 5 years the debate is over, and you loose, how will you survive with the shame of these personal and vicious attacks? how will you bear the dishonor? If the AGW is an hoax, how will we substitute the credit of so many discredited magazines and "official" scientists?

So who do you want to believe? Why not try http://w3g.gkss.de/staff/storch/ , basically a (mild) warmer and certainly not a friend of the sceptics, and one of the top notch climatologists. However, hear what he (left, pink shirt) has to say about the hockey stick here:

http://track.websiteceo.com/r/176785/gamma.physchem.kth.se/~climate/part1.avi

you can skip the intro and go to time 08:11, the word hockeystick can be heard at 08:27. Keep listening to 09:27. However it's very questionable if the sin of Michael Mann was that marginal, seeing its tremendous impact on society.

Source: Climate change conference in Stockholm
http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/~climate/

 

[Skyhunter]

I fail to see how exposing the Exxon conspiracy is "ad hominem."

You made the "warmer conspiracy" assertion without any evidence.

I provided the memo that outlines the denialist strategy.

The dishonesty is coming from the climate deniers. In the long run, what they have done is harm the credibility of scientists on both sides of the debate.

You began this thread with an ad hominem attack on Al Gore, accusing him of demagoguery. Now when I provide a much better example, of dishonesty, you accuse me of ad hominem.

I think I am done with this thread.

 

[Andre]

I fail to see how exposing the Exxon conspiracy is "ad hominem."

You made the "warmer conspiracy" assertion without any evidence.

Most certainly you have not listened to Hans Von Storch who compares the hockeystick with the scientific fraud of Hwang Woo-Suk and, debatable, Schoen.

I provided the memo that outlines the denialist strategy.

And that is an unproven ad hominem to fuel the hate campaign, the witch hunt. How can you prove that a possible memo of somebody with a certain opinion is the central strategy of ordinary people with exactly the same wishes for a better world?

However, talking about stategies, why not have a look at warmers strategies to persuade the world? A little bit more than an obscure memo with a doubtful status:

http://www.ippr.org/members/download.asp?f=/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf

Hit "download without registration" for a demagoguery manual. Note:

Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won.

Indeed you can read everywhere that the debate is over. Global warming is certain, etc, etc. So you can see for yourself, truth and demagoguery are not compatible.

Edit; I advise http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52381 from the google search:

The declaration that the debate on global warming is over by activists, politicians and liberal scientists is indicative more of their contempt of the public than it is a result of vigorous scientific examination. Global warming proponents rely upon the publics' lack of scientific training and experience to force their agendas into the political arena and then establish their acceptance. When confronted with the reality that there are scientists still in the scientific community who 1) are not convinced that global warming is occurring for a variety of valid reasons and 2) are not convinced that humans have anything to do with global warming if it is occurring, the agenda-driven dismiss these dissenters by asserting that they are so few in number their objections are meaningless.

But I agree, whenever there is the word "agenda" it's an ad hominem.

The dishonesty is coming from the climate deniers. In the long run, what they have done is harm the credibility of scientists on both sides of the debate.

Evidence please?

You began this thread with an ad hominem attack on Al Gore, accusing him of demagoguery.

Which clearly shows that you still have no idea what an ad hominem is. I showed that Gore first states to believe in facts and a few sentences later breaks his believe with an ...erm... unfact. So I'm just exposing him, I'm not talking about his motives to do that. I merely show what he does. See the difference?

I think I am done with this thread.

Perhaps because for some reason, massive support is failing in this thread, hunting me down with tar and feathers?

 

[Andre]

Oh and about the details of the movie, an inconvenient truth, you may want to read http://brunnur.rt.is/ahb/pdf/Gore-Lewis.pdf .

 

[turbo]

Andre, when I was a child in the 1950's, we used to ice-skate on Thanksgiving weekend and there was snow for easy deer-tracking most of November. 50 years later, I can deer-hunt in November in a T-shirt or light sweatshirt. Children can't ice-skate usually until January, and it is so warm and rainy in the winter that ski areas are shutting down, and snowmobilers have to go practically to the northern tip of Maine to find any trails to ride. I host an ITS trail on the eastern edge of my property that was heavily traveled 10-15 years ago, and last year I saw perhaps 10 snowmobiles (all local club members desperately trying to pack down recent snow and beating their own snowmobiles to pieces to do it because there was not enough snow on which to operate the groomers). In the 50's and 60's it was not uncommon to get several feet of snow in a single storm. Now it is uncommon to get more than a few inches.

Granted, this is a view of one area over a course of over 50 years, so you can dismiss it easily as "regional variation", but I guarantee that it is getting warmer here every year. Since much of Maine's tourism is centered around winter sports, the weathermen are very much attuned to it. Whether this warming is directly attributable to human causes may be in doubt - the warming is not.

 

[phoenixy]

Oh and about the details of the movie, an inconvenient truth, you may want to read http://brunnur.rt.is/ahb/pdf/Gore-Lewis.pdf .

Sorry, I just can't resist.

I read about 20 pages, 20 pages of complete BS. Then it hits me: who would use politics to debunk science?

What do I know, it is CEI, the think tank policy group (not scientific) that is funded by tobacco, auto and oil companies. Here is one of their masterpiece



So there you have it. This falls right in line with all the other "evidences" the thread starter had presented so far. IMO, the only useful information is the piece on propaganda, which certainly can be applied to this thread.


PS: the thread starter's preemptive ad hominem defense is also quite funny. Maybe it is just me, but he seems to be the only one consistently dishing out labels. But for some reason, I received

Most certainly there must be a few dozen honestly indignant members here, ready to fight and save the world.

Thanks for the compliment

 

[phoenixy]

Here is some resource.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

 

[Skyhunter]

I read about 20 pages, 20 pages of complete BS. Then it hits me: who would use politics to debunk science?

What do I know, it is CEI, the think tank policy group (not scientific) that is funded by tobacco, auto and oil companies. Here is one of their masterpiece

Here is another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPDWDl6_KbY&mode=related&search=

Of course they neglect to mention that Al Gore bought offsetting carbon credits.

HOLLYWOOD, Calif., June 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Paramount Classics, Participant Productions, and NativeEnergy have joined forces to offset 100% of the carbon dioxide emissions from air and ground transportation and hotels for production and promotional activities associated with the documentary "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH" making the film the first carbon-neutral documentary ever. The announcement was made today by John Lesher, President of Paramount Vantage and Paramount Classics.

http://www.nativeenergy.com/news.AN_INCONVENIENTTRUTH.html

Andre is actually a very nice guy, not one to throw around ad hominem. He is usually up on the latest developments in climate science and discoveries as they pertain to global warming. I have found following his links to be most educational. Some of them are a little questionable, like CEI, CO₂ Science, and Junk Science, but even those sites sometimes have good information.

The problem with the denialists is that they have created an environment where anyone legitimately raising doubts is automatically looked upon as biased.

The whole issue reminds me of how the neo-cons changed the tone of politics.

Climate science is still in it's infancy. There is so much that we do not know, so much research to be done etc. Instead of accusing the scientific community of "warmer conspiracies" , we would be much better off if the warmers and skeptics could get together and work toward better understanding the science.

I suppose though that as long as there are powerful vested interests in the status quo the false debate will continue.

 

[Andre]

Andre, when I was a child in the 1950's, we used to ice-skate on Thanksgiving weekend and there was snow for easy deer-tracking most of November. 50 years later, I can deer-hunt in November in a T-shirt or light sweatshirt. ...

Granted, this is a view of one area over a course of over 50 years, so you can dismiss it easily as "regional variation", but I guarantee that it is getting warmer here every year. Since much of Maine's tourism is centered around winter sports, the weathermen are very much attuned to it. Whether this warming is directly attributable to human causes may be in doubt - the warming is not.

I remember the same fifties and have simular "memories" of endless hot summers and extremely cold winters where it got so cold:

Cold! If the thermometer had been an inch longer we'd all have frozen to death. (Mark Twain)

Anyway to avoid the trap of the fallacy of selective memory, let's have a look at some Maine station data. You can find them here. Scroll down and click on the appropriate part of the world to get a list of weather stations. Click on one to get a temperature graph on the bottom of that second page you can download station data as text files. With a little bit of playing in Excel you could get this:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/maine.GIF

hey why is the image feature not working here? I'll upload it

Showing the summer (red), yearly average (green) and winter temperature trends (blue). From here it's easy to draw some conclusions. Yes the winters are getting warmer and more so in the center (Millinocket) than to the East (Houlton). But hardly so the summers. Why not? Is there no more increasing greenhouse gas in the summer? You see this more often BTW. Could it have to do with the reversal of the Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation? Good discussions for meteorlogists there.

Other explanations for the warming have been:
1. Variation in the oceanic Thermohaline Current (THC) and the transport of heat from the tropix to moderate lattitudes
2. Variation in cloud cover and density, due to
(a) variation in condensation nuclei due to
(a1) variation in algae/planckton, causing spores in the air
(a2) solar cosmic ray variations concurrent with sun spot activity
(b) large scale variation in sea surface temperatures.
3. enhanced greenhouse effects of increased Tropopause water vapor and upper cirrus clouds due to the strongly increased aviation.
4. Direct industrial heat due to the combustion of ~5 GtC per year.

But this is OT, sorry. I'll be back later for some more observations about political truths, fallacies and demagoguery.

 

[Andre]

the graphs

 

[Andre]

Now concerning the discussion with our two brave warriors, perhaps it’s time to do a small wrap up. Let’s see.

1. We live in beautiful world that we need to preserve, or at least we don’t have the right to destroy it, right? I agree.
2. As population advances and industrialization increases, the biosphere suffers heavily, endangering the world, right? I agree.
3. From the many threats, climate change is the single most major menace, right?

Not right. Considering a geologic past of billions of years, there have been smaller and larger climate changes. Natural Earth survived with flying colors, many times with strengthening the species and increasing its biodiversity.

4. Civilisation is causing climate change, right?

Not sure, I listed a few possibilities in the former post; some (aviation, direct heat) are definitely anthropogenic but also very minor, certainly not to be promoted to be culprit #1.

5. Carbon dioxide is the strongest greenhouse gas and is the primary driver for climate changes.

That’s most definitely false. It is not, and I have showed that many times in the Earth science threads. The effect is minor, not something to worry about.

6. We need to cut back on fossil fuel use, primary for reasons of climate but also for pollution, Others think about exhaustion and peak oil. All very good reasons, however since 5 is false, climate is not one of them. The essential point here is the wrong perception lead to wrong and expensive ideas like carbon dioxide sequestration, changing things in the atmosphere, make sunshine deflectors in space, etc; all BS and very costly.

7. Now the political / demagoguery part Anybody who is denying that CO2 is a problem for climate is obviously a hoodlum who no doubt has ties with tobacco industries and oil companies. So he is a crook by definition and therefore he is wrong. Where are the tar and feathers?

Now suppose that ….(fill in your most favourite devilist villain here) …says that water freezes at 32°F, which is 272.8°K or 0°C, why is he wrong?

See the problem, personality, motives and truth have nothing in common. No matter how noble your targets are, if you’re wrong you’re wrong and the sooner this is recognised, the better. Perhaps we can focus on the real problems then.
.

 

[Skyhunter]

I thought I might point out that the premise of this thread, Al gore making up his own facts is a falacy. Probably just a misunderstanding by Andre.

Al Gore said:

...The NAS stated that the late 20th-century warming in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the past 1,000 years and probably for much longer than that.

The NAS press release said:

The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that.

So the comparison is apples to oranges. Al Gore was talking about the Northern Hemisphere, where there is sufficient proxy evidence for confidence.

 

[Andre]

I thought I might point out that the premise of this thread, Al gore making up his own facts is a falacy. Probably just a misunderstanding by Andre.

No, I repeat it's the using the exact phrasing of the TAR summary for policymakers. This was solely based on the hockeystick, which is proven to be wrong as both Wegman and North (NAS) found. There are a dozens of threads about that in the Earth section.

https://www.physicsforums.com/search.php?searchid=516584

If you accept those words you'd accept that the hockeystick was right.

 

[Skyhunter]

If you accept those words you'd accept that the hockeystick was right.

No I accept that the hockey stick is the underlying pattern when you analyze the proxy data.

It is only by removing the North American tree ring data (which is what MM05 has done) that you lose the hockey stick.

And since the NA tree ring data most closely matches the 19th century record, why would you exclude it?

Here is the controversy summed up quite nicely. There is the dummies guide for layman, links to all the MBH98 data, as well as more technical links.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

 

[Andre]

But you forget to tell that this single North American tree line took most of the weight of the entire data range as PC1, causing almost any red noise Monte Carlo simulation to end as a hockey stick, whilst the removal of this series would bring the medieval warming period back. One single tree ring series against hundreds of others to kill the medieval warm period.

Ongoing exposure here: http://www.climateaudit.org/ Every day there is more.

And a good summary of the debate here:

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Which suggest that MBH doctored data to kill the Medieval Warm Period but get away with it with flying colors, even after the debunk of NAS and Wegmand since everybody want it to be right.

 

[Skyhunter]

But you forget to tell that this single North American tree line took most of the weight of the entire data range as PC1, causing almost any red noise Monte Carlo simulation to end as a hockey stick, whilst the removal of this series would bring the medieval warming period back. One single tree ring series against hundreds of others to kill the medieval warm period.

The major problem that Wegman has with MBH98-99 is the 19th century calibration period. If you include the entire dataset to calibrate to zero you still get the same pattern with less resolution. The reason MBH98 used the 19th century for calibration is because it so closely matches the record.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

As you might expect, throwing out data also worsens the validation statistics, as can be seen by eye when comparing the reconstructions over the 19th century validation interval. Compare the green line in the http://www.realclimate.org/FalseClaimsMcIntyreMcKitrick_html_m3db92977.png below to the instrumental data in red. To their credit, MM05 acknowledge that their alternate 15th century reconstruction has no skill.

8) So does this all matter?

No. If you use the MM05 convention and include all the significant PCs, you get the same answer. If you don't use any PCA at all, you get the same answer. If you use a completely different methodology (i.e. Rutherford et al, 2005), you get basically the same answer. Only if you remove significant portions of the data do you get a different (and worse) answer.

Again I ask, why exclude data, especially data that most closely matches the observed record?

The hockey stick is not only a product of Mann, Bradley and Hughes.

Here is a comparison of 10 different reconstructions.

 

[Skyhunter]

In keeping with the spirit of the thread as to politics and science, I came across this post http://www.realclimate.org/wp-comments-popup.php?p=373&c=1

Re: David's comment to #19 "not the best debater".

This is the problem in a nutshell. People who examine and try to understand the whole of the evidence are finding themselves in opposition to people whose expertise is advancing a point of view based on a selection of the evidence. We are playing different games here.

Scientists want to know how things stand. Debate club alumni want to advance a point of view.

The high school debate team ethos, which I believe is not dramatically different from the ethics of attorneys and many politicians, holds that it is morally not just tolerable but commendable to construct the most convincing possible argument for an arbitrarily chosen conclusion from the available evidence. In this view, one should be essentially indifferent to which side of the case one is arguing, and strive simply for argumentative competence.

Journalists (and juries), influenced by this, seem to see themselves as referees in a debating contest rather than as participants in winnowing the evidence to extract a course of action. The general public sees a clash of skills, not of ideas; of presentation rather than of content.

In an essay on an entirely different topic ("Bambi vs Godzilla: Why Art Loses in Hollywood", Harper's 6/05) the writer David Mamet offers the following:

"Law, politics and commerce are based on lies. That is, the premises giving rise to opposition are real, but the debate occurs not between these premises but between their proxy, substitute positions. The two parties to a legal dispute (as the opponents in an election) each select an essentially absurd position. "I did not kill my wife and Ron Goldman," "A rising tide raises all boats," "Tobacco does not cause cancer." Should one be able to support this position, such that it prevails over the nonsense of his opponent, he is awarded the decision. ...

"In these fibbing competitions, the party actually wronged, the party with an actual practicable program, or possessing an actually beneficial product, is at a severe disadvantage; he is stuck with a position he cannot abandon, and, thus, cannot engage his talents for elaboration, distraction, drama and subterfuge."

Comment by Michael Tobis — 21 Nov 2006 @ 12:04 pm

[Edit]

PS: I would like to say that what I believe is the most important contribution from Wegman is the greater inclusion of statisticians in the process. Since the methods involved in data analysis are statistics, closer cooperation between the separate disiplines will by most helpful. MBH98-99 is not the last word. Questions raised by MM05 are valid points and a solid contribution, but they are not, as the authors claim, a refutation of the hockey stick.

 

[Skyhunter]

Now concerning the discussion with our two brave warriors, perhaps it’s time to do a small wrap up. Let’s see.

Condescending and uncalled for.

1. We live in beautiful world that we need to preserve, or at least we don’t have the right to destroy it, right? I agree.

Agreed.

2. As population advances and industrialization increases, the biosphere suffers heavily, endangering the world, right? I agree.

Agreed.

3. From the many threats, climate change is the single most major menace, right?

Not that I would characterize it that way but I agree that it is only one of many interconnected environmental threats.

4. Civilisation is causing climate change, right?

Not sure, I listed a few possibilities in the former post; some (aviation, direct heat) are definitely anthropogenic but also very minor, certainly not to be promoted to be culprit #1.

Yes, civilization is definitely affecting the climate. Long before the massive burning of fossil fuels, civilization has affected the climate, at least locally through land use alterations.

None of the possibilities you listed explain the warming of the 20th century.

5. Carbon dioxide is the strongest greenhouse gas and is the primary driver for climate changes.

That’s most definitely false. It is not, and I have showed that many times in the Earth science threads. The effect is minor, not something to worry about.

This is a strawman, no one made this claim. The claim made was that the warming in the 20th century cannot be explained without anthropogenic GHG's.

See RADIATIVE CLIMATE FORCING BY LONG-LIVED GREENHOUSE GASES:
THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)[/url]

6. We need to cut back on fossil fuel use, primary for reasons of climate but also for pollution, Others think about exhaustion and peak oil. All very good reasons, however since 5 is false, climate is not one of them. The essential point here is the wrong perception lead to wrong and expensive ideas like carbon dioxide sequestration, changing things in the atmosphere, make sunshine deflectors in space, etc; all BS and very costly.

Since number 5 is a fallacious argument, climate is a primary reason to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.

I do agree that carbon sequestration, (other than reforestation) sunshine deflectors in space, etc. are not solutions that properly address all issues.

7. Now the political / demagoguery part Anybody who is denying that CO2 is a problem for climate is obviously a hoodlum who no doubt has ties with tobacco industries and oil companies. So he is a crook by definition and therefore he is wrong. Where are the tar and feathers?

And this is the fault of the political think tanks and their discredited propoganda.

Now suppose that ….(fill in your most favourite devilist villain here) …says that water freezes at 32°F, which is 272.8°K or 0°C, why is he wrong?

He is not wrong. But if in the past he has made claims that were intentionally misleading, then his claims become suspect.

See the problem, personality, motives and truth have nothing in common. No matter how noble your targets are, if you’re wrong you’re wrong and the sooner this is recognised, the better. Perhaps we can focus on the real problems then.
.

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Andre]

None of the possibilities you listed explain the warming of the 20th century.

Have a look at this thread.

Andre et al, 2006, Earth Albedo variations dwarf greenhouse effect EOS, Vol. 87, No. 4, 24 January 2006

Abstract
We compute Earth albedo (reflectivity) in the period 1984-2004, using cloud data and coverage, confirmed by measuring reflectivity of the shadow side of the moon. We observe a remarkable decrease in reflectivity in the period 1984- 1997 followed by a gradual increase after that. Correlation of the data with global temperatures (GISStemp Hansen et al) reveals a statistical relevance of R2=0.575 apparently confirming the obvious relationship between reflectivity and temperatures.

The associated variation of energy flux in the Stefan Boltzman law with 10% albedo change, results in a black body temperature change of 2,7 K. However, since the actual temperature variation is a mere 0.6K we must conclude that Earth generates a robust negative feedback that effectively reduces the effects of large albedo changes. This result dwarfs the greenhouse gas forcing theory that considers only flux changes of an order of magnitude less.

Explanation in the linked thread.

 

[Andre]

Again I ask, why exclude data, especially data that most closely matches the observed record?

That's circular reasoning. For data to get "observed record" you have to process it first, so to have the stripbark bristlecone pines match the results of the calculations, you simply give it a weight of some 90%+ in PC1 as far as I recall then the output matches the input for sure, but that's true for everything

More about that proxy here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=158

A dead trunk above current treeline from a foxtail pine that lived about 1000 years ago near Bighorn Plateau in Sequoia National Park.

The ironical thing is that this shift of the treeline downwards actually supports the existence the medieval warm period for that area.

The hockey stick is not only a product of Mann, Bradley and Hughes.

No indeed, the conspiracy is a lot larger, at closer examiniation a lot of them recycle the forbidden proxy of the strip bark bristlecones.

but they are not, as the authors claim, a refutation of the hockey stick.

The Hockeystick does not show the medieval warm period somewhere between 900-1200AD, supporting the assassination of it by Overpeck
Before the Hockeystick, Huang and Pollack 1997 had shown with a massive borehole compilation that there was a worldwide Medieval Warm Period. Soon and Baliunas have shown that there is massive scientific support for a Medieval Warm Period. Hans von Storch had proven that treering reconstructions cannot record centennial to millenium scale oscillations. M&M have show the bunk statistics and data mining of the process, which was confirmed by the Wegman report.

Burger and Cubash have shown that from the 6 choices in the processsing, MBH always managed to choose the variation that resulted in the flattest shaft of the hockeystick and that the most logical choices would result in a firm wave with a clear medieval warm period.

I cannot but conclude that

1: The hockeystick is a spurious propaganda tool, a nobrainer to persuade people into believing in the correlation/causation between CO2 and temperatures and with tremendous success as can be seen at Real climate.

2: The hockeystick is not debunkable, you can always believe in it no matter how many times it is shown that it is bunk. That ends it from being science. Dragons, devils and leprechauns are also not debunkable.

 

[Skyhunter]

Have a look at this thread.



Explanation in the linked thread.

Then publish it in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[Skyhunter]

Andre, Andre, Andre. I am growing weary of this "circular reasoning".

The observed record is the observed temperature record, not the tree ring data.

That's circular reasoning. For data to get "observed record" you have to process it first, so to have the stripbark bristlecone pines match the results of the calculations, you simply give it a weight of some 90%+ in PC1 as far as I recall then the output matches the input for sure, but that's true for everything

False.

Even when the Bristlecone data is PC4, you get the same pattern.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

4) Does using a different convention change the answer?

As discussed above, a different convention (MM05 suggest one that has zero mean over the whole record) will change the ordering, significance and number of important PCs. In this case, the number of significant PCs increases to 5 (maybe 6) from 2 originally. This is the difference between the blue points (MBH98 convention) and the red crosses (MM05 convention) in the first figure. Also PC1 in the MBH98 convention moves down to PC4 in the MM05 convention. This is illustrated in the http://www.realclimate.org/FalseClaimsMcIntyreMcKitrick_html_m2a00a61d.png on the right, the red curve is the original PC1 and the blue curve is MM05 PC4 (adjusted to have same variance and mean). But as we stated above, the underlying data has a hockey stick structure, and so in either case the 'hockey stick'-like PC explains a significant part of the variance. Therefore, using the MM05 convention, more PCs need to be included to capture the significant information contained in the tree ring network.

More about that proxy here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=158

The ironical thing is that this shift of the treeline downwards actually supports the existence the medieval warm period for that area.

This is a perfect example of denialist tactics.

Take some else's research, misrepresent it, and then present it as evidence to tear apart the research of others. Steve McIntyre, Ross Mckitrick, and now you as well Andre, by helping disseminate from their blog are doing exactly that.

You should really check your sources more thoroughly. Especially if the whole thrust of their work is to tear down someone else's. When I said MM05 raised valid questions and was a solid contribution, perhaps I was being to generous. Since M&M seem to devote all their time and web resources, not for constructive research, but are entirely focused on attacking the hockey stick.

It is not science. It is disingenuous.

If you had bothered to read his source you would have come upon this paragraph:

http://www.yosemite.org/naturenotes/Treeline1.htm

The first avenue I'm pursuing for my research is examining the annual rings of growth patterns of trees using increment cores. By doing this, I'm building on the considerable amount of paleoclimatic data Graumlich and colleagues have assembled in the Sierra for the past decade. The data we are gathering confirms the current state of knowledge about global warming, namely that growth rate of trees in the High Sierra is different now than any time in the past thousand years. This research tells us when tree growth is changing but it is a little vague on exactly where this is happening and it does very little to answer how these growth patterns will impact the treeline ecosystem.

It is easier to criticize the labors of others than to labor yourself. If M&M want to contribute, they should do some original research of their own.

I was once hopeful that climateaudit would be a rational venue for a skeptic voice. Sadly the members on the blog offer little in the way of science, although they have amusing discussions about old British TV comedy shows.

What’s even more interesting is that some of these sites are the very ones that are ESSENTIAL to all hockey stick diagrams. I’ve been meaning to post up an elevation diagram on bristlecones and I’ll do it today when I find it. Actually, it’s interesting to carry the elevation idea along together with the data-mining/non-robustness idea.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=158

No indeed, the conspiracy is a lot larger, at closer examiniation a lot of them recycle the forbidden proxy of the strip bark bristlecones.

A huge conspiracy, If not for a miner and an economist, with financial support from big oil looking out for us little guys we would all be doomed! Doomed I say!

Anyway, in the words of Steve McIntyre:

In response to the criticisms of the hockey stick, the main defence or excuse has been that the hockey stick doesn’t "matter". The concern about 2xCO2 arises from basic physics and the HS could be wrong but still leave us with an important problem. In one sense, I agree. If the HS were wrong, 2xCO2 is still an issue. Then why did IPCC and governments feature the HS so much? I presume that it was for promotional purposes.

So even the vaunted source you quote so often Andre disagrees with your assessment of CO₂.

Dragons, devils and leprechauns are also not debunkable.

Are they part of the conspiracy too?

PS: I am a leprechaun.

 

[Andre]

Ah we're getting in the name calling stage and seeing the fallacy density increasing remarkedly with several other type of red herrings, like the doubling CO2 thinghy. I wonder when Godwins law kicks in.

How nice to quote Michael Mann on his blog in Dec 2004 and demonstrate that he taught you all, how to use the ad hominem:

A number of spurious criticisms regarding the Mann et al (1998) proxy-based temperature reconstruction have been made by two individuals McIntyre and McKitrick ( McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist)

linking to

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=21084385&CFTOKEN=29888831

But keep them coming please. Nice material for the courts of justice in due time. We will not forget it when it's time to clean out this mess.

Anyway, the accumulation of words of Mann in 2004 has been answered here and I wonder how after the Wegman committee verdict one should mislead the readers any further with that kind of nonsense.

Anyway:

The observed record is the observed temperature record, not the tree ring data.

So where did you get that record from, from 1000AD to 2000AD? Or are you meaning the record of the 19th century where the skill of the corrollation r2 is not exceeding 0,00?

Please be so kind and show where it is proven that the temperature reconstruction after removal of the Bristlecone pines still produces hockeysticks. After all if the reconstruction is robust, the removal of one proxy should not lead to strong abbarations.

If M&M want to contribute, they should do some original research of their own.

The reproduction of the work of others is one of the cornerstones of science. So what is the problem? Obviously, when there is no science then there is a problem.

Finally about

The data we are gathering confirms the current state of knowledge about global warming, namely that growth rate of trees in the High Sierra is different now than any time in the past thousand years.

Whilst it was observed by Graybill and Idso (Graybill, D.A., and S.B. Idso, (1993). Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 7, 81-95.) that the remarkable accelerated growth in the Sierra Nevada as of 1850 could not be attributed to local climate changes, hence it was attributed to anthropogenic CO2 fertilization. You will find the source quoted over and over again. Personally I'm thinking of increased air pollution due to the use of coal with SOx/NOx type of fertilizers. But that's all forgotten now. Everything is caused by global warming of course

 

[Skyhunter]

Hey Andre.

Did you receive one of these letters?

http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/aei-and-ar4.html

Interesting article here.

Santer says, however, that he expects attacks to continue on other fronts. "There is a strategy to single out individuals, tarnish them and try to bring the whole of the science into disrepute," he says. "And Kevin [Trenberth] is a likely target." Mann agrees that the scientists behind the upcoming IPCC report are in for a rough ride. "There is already an orchestrated campaign against the IPCC by climate change contrarians," he says.

We can play this back and forth circular reasoning game until the AR/₄ is released. Which is I assume what all the intensity from the denialists is all about right now. What they are doing is political and most readers here have a political mind and can tell the difference between a political argument and a scientific one.