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

[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.

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

You are the one who said:

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.

Besides I was not name calling. I am a Leprechaun.

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:

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.

That is not ad hominem, that is disclosure.

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?

The observed temperature record is what is used to calibrate proxy evidence.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/strawmen-on-greenland/#more-374

Proxy records (ice cores, ocean sediments etc.) that are related to climate (in some imperfectly known way, but with non-climatic 'noise') go back further. But they need to be calibrated to the instrumental record in order to be used quantitatively. Given that proxy records don't always extend to the present (due to collection dates, collection method, the physics or biology of the specific proxy) and that it is important to retain some instrumental data for validation of any calibration, there are only ~60-100 years of record left for the calibration - making it very difficult to assess how well the low frequency component (a few decades or longer) is represented (and much of the recent attention to recent proxy reconstructions really relates to exactly this point, rather than technical arguments about data processing). Of course, proxy records can also be usefully combined in a qualitative ways that don't require calibration (such as Osborn and Briffa, 2006).

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.

It has not been to my knowledge. If you remove the bristlecones, you have a warmer MWP.

Again I ask, why remove the proxy evidence that most closely matches the instrumental record?

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.

That should be the job of independant scientists, not industry representatives.

Finally about


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

So you are now attacking the source that you were just using to attack the hockey stick?

Talk about a red herring.

[Edit]
Actually this entire thread is a red herring. Even if MM05 is the gospel on the MWP, it has little bearing on what is happening today.
[/edit]

 

[Andre]

The observed temperature record is what is used to calibrate proxy evidence.

And any icea what it means when the r2=0.0 in that process?

That should be the job of independant scientists, not industry representatives.

What difference does it make if the math is debunked by ***fill in the same vicious villain here***. If you don't trust it, check the checker. And that is what both NAS North and Wegman did independently and both reported that those alleged industry representatives were right that the hockeystick was based on nothing.

Meanwhile, perhaps it's an idea to reflect a bit about what is happerning here. your continuous ad homs and red herrings might give the readers here some idea about your priorities. Science truth, or winning a fight at all costs.

 

[selfAdjoint]

And any icea what it means when the r2=0.0 in that process?



What difference does it make if the math is debunked by ***fill in the same vicious villain here***. If you don't trust it, check the checker. And that is what both NAS North and Wegman did independently and both reported that those alleged industry representatives were right that the hockeystick was based on nothing.

Meanwhile, perhaps it's an idea to reflect a bit about what is happerning here. your continuous ad homs and red herrings might give the readers here some idea about your priorities. Science truth, or winning a fight at all costs.

Andre your accusations of ad hominem attacks are ironic since you are the one whose argumentative style is to attack the opposition at the personal level (e.g. "Al Gore's own Facts?"). AFAICS you are a conspiracy theorist who believe nobody can disagree with you unless they are paid off. Your determination to argue about the hockey stick two years after everybody else declared a wash and moved on shows where you are coming from.

 

[Andre]

Andre your accusations of ad hominem attacks are ironic since you are the one whose argumentative style is to attack the opposition at the personal level (e.g. "Al Gore's own Facts?").

Check again, the opening post was not an attack against the person. I was neither discussing his past behavior nor question his motives to do what he does. Again, I merely showed that within a few sentences from affirming the importance of facts, he offended against it already. That's not an ad hominem. Why is that so difficult?

Your determination to argue about the hockey stick two years after everybody else declared a wash and moved on shows where you are coming from.

It's not that easy. The hockey stick has been declared a fraud by insiders. I linked to that. Both the NAS report and the Wegman report were filed this year confirmed that the math was plain wrong. But the whole world fell for the no-brainer, when the hockeystick showed up prominently in the http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf . A fraud? So how about those who want to cover that up as soon as possible? We are not moving on, we will correct what went wrong, at least for historical purposes when in 2030 our children and grandchildren are analyzing what put them in the renewable energy misery and the economic energy bankrupcy while suffering from the next little ice age aka Landscheidt solar minimum.

 

[Andre]

Found all the appropriate elements here in this expose:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061201_02/20061201_03.html

Particulary interesting:

Richard Lindzen opines that three claims which have widespread scientific support - global mean temperature has increased by about one degree since the end of the 19 th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% during the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming - neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the warming that has already occurred.

This responsibility is also thrown back into question by some researchers in Canada, especially by Ian Clark, a Professor of Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology at the University of Ottawa. Indeed, these researchers believe that global warming is mainly the consequence of a more intense solar activity. They have shown, in particular, that global warming and cooling cycles match with the solar cycle with a small lag.(1)

According to Richard Lindzen, alarmists are trumpeting "model results that we know must be wrong." Still worse, they are trumpeting "catastrophes that could not happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming."

As Claude Allègre who observes that "the ecology of helpless protest has become a very profitable business for some people", Lindzen specifies that the success of climate alarmism can be gauged in terms of the increased federal spending in the US on climate research: this spending rocketed from a few hundred million of dollars before 1990 to 1.7 billion dollars today.

It is not easy to stand up against that which locks contemporary climate science in alarmism. One must be a former minister and one of the most honoured French scientists - Mr. Allègre is a Crafoord laureate, was awarded the Wollaston Medal, and is also recipient of the Gold Medal of the CNRS - in order to dare fly in the face of taboos and not give into fear and intimidation.

Other persons have also had this courage. Thus, in the early 90's, the American journalist Ted Koppel (a 42-year veteran of ABC News)(2) deemed publicly inappropriate a request made by Al Gore, then Vice President of the US, to get involved in a witch-hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists.

We live in very interesting times.

 

[Office_Shredder]

We live in very interesting times.

Or did 12 years ago

 

[Andre]

Just to make sure about the science of climate:


Khilyuk, L.F., and G. V. Chilingar. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology, 50, 899–910.

Abstract
The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.

Some comments here.

 

[ND3G]

Andre, while I applaud your quest for hard proof one way or the other I for one do not need to have every single detail hammered out before I find myself compelled to act.

You can happily argue the merits of one theory over that theory till the cows come home but those of us willing to act will simply work around you.

Is pollution causing global warming? Probably

Would it matter even if it wasn't? Not in the slightest

No matter how you slice it, pollution is bad for the environment. So any attempt to reduce pollution can only be seen as a positive.

Do we really need a domesday scenario before people are willing to act?

Quote: Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century)”.

Ok, so let's do everything in our power to stop that 0.01°C increase we are causing. Even if things are not as bad as some people may say, they are still anything but good...

 

[Andre]

I for one do not need to have every single detail hammered out before I find myself compelled to act.

From your reaction ND3G, I'm afraid that I failed to make my point. I'll give it another try.

What is "Action"? As long as an observed situation is in concurrence with the desired state, nothing needs to happen. However when things go wrong and need to be corrected, a natural cognitive feedback loop can be distinghued, which can be described in four steps: Observation, Orientation, Decision and Action. This "OODA loop" has been described by late John Boyd, also a colleague fighter pilot. Nowadays, people devote PhD theses to these ideas, like http://www.d-n-i.net/osinga/science_and_strategy.htm . Now the point is: for winning a conflict from an enemy one should optimize ones own OODA loop while attempting to disrupt the OODA loop of the adversary. History has proven over and over that this far outweights numbers and force potential.

But this is not exclusively fighter pilot business in conflict situations, this feedback loop applies to virtually everything what we do: We don't like it, so we do something. We react with an OODA loop (even this post is the result of such a loop). And the point is we need to do that loop as quickly and as accurately as possible. When you think it all over, it's like alsmost resembling science.

Now here the climate kicks in. We observe changing climates and a lot of proxy readings, we analyse that CO2 has something to do with it. We decide that we should curb emissions and we act by going to Kyoto. But where is the accuracy? The culprit is the analysis part.

The first analysis pertained to Arrhenius and the greenhouse gas effect theory but quantitatively he made an error of a factor 4. This was recognised later but anyway. We had also observed modern temperatures going up momentarily in the 1980-1990 time frame and CO2 going up. Then the ice cores came with the CO2 and isotope spikes (alleged temperature spikes) of the Pleistocene, which was analysed as flickering climates CO2 causing temperature changes. "Ten degrees within a decade!" . So we analyse that we are in big trouble and we need to decide to do something quickly or else fry. But how to get this decision endorsed in the international policy arena with agenda's and conflicts of interest? One really needs to carry a very big stick to get the action going? Would that be the reason why people started to spindoctor observations like the hockeystick or work out demagoguery tactics like "the debate is over"? Apparantly all to enforce the decision and projected action?

However, then gradually more and more observations of the ice age came in, especially CO2 lagging the isotopes. Also many reports of greater climate variability in other era that were not in correlation with CO2 and it was analysed that climate was much more complicated than that. Things like nett positive water vapour feedback were invented but could never be shown to exist so, despite heroinic attemps of Brian Soden et al. From a pure scientific point of view, there is very little left of the original analysis of a strong relationship between CO2 and temperature (that is if you want to look and not to ignore). Only the models still seem to believe in it.

And here is where things are screwed up, the rigidized OODA loop, not reacting anymore on changes in the observations and analysis and that's where I am fighting against, for the record of course, since it's chanceless anyway.

But if your OODA loop is wrong you're bound to screw up the reality which you wanted to correct to the desired situation and my personal OODA loop says that we should try and prevent that.