Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Requiem for a Hockeystick

  1. Jul 29, 2006 #1
    The epilogue.

    We have been discussing the hockeystick here over the years now, a few threads:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=49049
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=61419
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=75609
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=94621

    The wrap up of the story very shortly,

    In the 1990ies the IPCC wanted to determine the forcing function of greenhouse gasses. But this is hard as the signal is contaminated with natural climate variation. So one of the areas of research was the last millennium, which appeared to be characterized by an early Medieval Warm Period to be followed by a Little Ice Age. Both were obviously not related to greenhouse gas variation and would blur the investigation about empiric greenhouse forcing significantly

    However as soon as the IPCC started to work, both those periods started to become doubtful and in the fall meeting of the American Geologic Union in 1998, Overpeck had got rid of the Medieval Warm Period. (Surprisingly it’s no longer on the net, but googling you may find some references to it). To prove that those periods have not existed, Mann Bradley and Hughes (MBH) carried out ‘multiproxy’ studies, reconstruction the climate of the past. The graph of the global temperature of the last millennium, the hockeystick promoted to Fig 1B of the summary of policy makers, page 3 which correlated incredibly accurate with the CO2 hockeystick (fig 2a) on page 6.

    So, apparently no more doubt, and from the spikes in the last century it seemed obvious that greenhouse gasses have a very dominant role in global temperatures and that natural variability had been very small in the last millennium.

    But somehow some people were not convinced of such a construction and these people became known as skeptics. Curiously enough skepticism is an intrinsic part of science, and the core of the scientific method but somehow in climate science it became equivalent to immoral greedy hoodlums. But anyway,

    Several attacks were made on the poster child graph, the most persistent being from Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (M&M), who audited the methods, showing that a lot was wrong.
    More details here.

    Incidentally, the geologic fieldwork continued and evidence of a worldwide Medieval Warm Period accumulated as can be seen here and here. The same is true for the Little Ice Age.

    So,two committees looked at the work. The NAS committee agreed with the critique of M&M but confirmed also the dire climate changes brought about by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. Then the Wegman report for the Barton hearing also confirmed the “errors” in the MBH methodology, as Mann could not defend these “errors” adequately yesterday the hockeystick can be considered death. I wonder how long the burial will take.

    It may also be clear that normally the damage for climate science would be considerable, the Third Assessment Report and it Executive Summary hinged completely on the hockeystick and so do numerous other publications. So the natural variation is indeed much larger than the hockeystick intended to suppress. A genuine mistake or a hoax?

    It may also be clear that further reference to the Hockeystick as official information regarding climate issues could be subject to nationals laws pertaining integrity and honesty for disclosure of information.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 29, 2006 #2
    When your source makes statements such as these I find them to be suspect.

    They cherry pick and distort the evidence.

    Obviously this site is biased.
     
  4. Jul 29, 2006 #3
    What seems to be the problem? Isn't this true?

    But you're stealing the thread. This is not about warming or not, this about whether we looking at a honest scientific glitch or a big scam that bullied many contries into a useless treaty that will only costs dearly.
     
  5. Jul 30, 2006 #4
    I was simply pointing out that a source that claims that the earth has been cooling for the last 70 years, and uses cherry picked data is not going to bolster your argument.

    Worldwide, of the 20 hottest years on record, 19 have occured in the last 2 decades.

    [edit]I don't wish to steal your thread, so I will just observe from here on out.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2006
  6. Jul 30, 2006 #5

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    We've been breaking a lot of records in Alaska this summer, too. But I don't know if it's mentionable (since I don't know our recorded history of temperatures, or how accurate they are.)

    In the spirit of keeping with the thread, however, I'd like to opine. I'm (for the most part) completely neutral on the subject of global warming, but I tend to lean towards being suspicious of huge billowing stacks of smoke planted in series, just because, you know, they look ugly...

    On the other hand, I'd like to porpose a motive, and see if it relates in any way to reality. How much money would be gained by the U.S. if they enforced this Kyoto Protocol, and then refused to adhere, themselves (which is what I hear is pretty much the situation).

    Could this have anything to do with Rumsfeld's and the militairy-industrial complex taking advantage over other countries?
     
  7. Jul 30, 2006 #6
    How about just simply sticking to science, no motives, no anecdotal evidence (BTW there was a all time record cold period in Australia this month..irrelevant) and no ad hominems, (these guys present something I don't believe so they are biased and consequently all the peer reviewed arcticles that they accumated are obviously wrong)
     
  8. Jul 30, 2006 #7

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    by 'these guys' are you reffering the Mann party?

    and by you're wording you've stated that they're biased because they presented something you don't believe.

    I can't participate in this scientifically. There are way too many variables in climatology and jargon that I don't understand in the atmospheric journals I read.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2006
  9. Jul 30, 2006 #8

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's good to know that at least some people have remained on my side of the skepticism fence, despite the "global warming" media blitz we've been experiencing in the last few years. Thanks for doing the research, Andre.

    Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it. -- Andre Gide

    - Warren
     
  10. Aug 1, 2006 #9
    You're welcome.

    Isn't it strange that the passing away of the hockeystick went totally unnoticed in the press? Why would that be?

    Anyway another confirmation here:

     
  11. Aug 1, 2006 #10

    Mk

    User Avatar

    Do you mean the mass media? The general public could never comprehend what is going on. Or if you tried to explain it to them.
     
  12. Aug 3, 2006 #11

    Mk

    User Avatar

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5786/421
    Apparently somebody didn't hear the requiem.
     
  13. Aug 3, 2006 #12
    Which proofs the vicious circle. It was the hockeystick that tipped the balance between doubts and immenent disaster. Since then nothing has been added as evidence, actually the 1998 spike has never been approached again.

    But even with withdrawing the fake core evidence, the vicious circle doesn't need a cause anymore. It's self sustaining now.
     
  14. Aug 17, 2006 #13
    Another example of how to do damage control to save the myth.

    Mann et al don't understand the fuzz: that's what they had said all the time, wasn't it?

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=775

    (but please read the whole blog)

    However, not much of uncertainty about the hockeystick in the IPCC TAR Summary for policy makers, when Mann himself was one of the authors:

    Now a brilliant exposure of how the myth of consensus is sustained, simply refute anything that challenges it:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=782

    Which raises the issue if "Science" is truly a scientific magazine.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2006
  15. Aug 17, 2006 #14
    This article in Scientific American will make clear how important the dearly beloved hockeystick is. Please also do note the fallacies.

    Therefore it was extremely important that the hockeystick got the shape of the hockeystick, in this way the hockeystick was the only (but faked) "evidence" of the high correlation between CO2 and temperature

    You see? Global warming is the hockeystick. The hockeystick is (should be) dead. Global warming will never die, so the hockeystick can't be dead.

    However the NAS and Wegman reports vindicate the critics of McIntyre and McKitrick

    A gross misrepresentation discussed elsewhere. The hundreds of papers still produced every day, do show a different story.

    Now it's time for the fallacies. Mainly ad hominems:

    Recognized all of them? this paragraph only is a priceless example of very skilled demagogery.
     
  16. Nov 6, 2006 #15
  17. Nov 7, 2006 #16
    I'm a bit surprised with that post. Not sure what it's all about.

    About here, here, perhaps note that it is dated 2004, well before both the North commitee report and the Wegman report both admitting that M&M were right in their assertions about the 'technical' errors in the hockeystick construction.

    And exposing the bankrupcy of the global warming science, when the scientifical arguments have failed, then the last ressort is mud throwing, or ressorting to fallacies like the Argumentum ad Hominem. Ironically enough this shot was aimed badly as well, since McIntyre has refused any refunding of expenses up until this year, when his repeated show ups at those commitee hearings, etc, became too frequent to be financed privately.

    One should also observe how very few times this ad honimem is used to other way around by pointing to the securing of research money for the warming gang for more global warming scaremongering. Neither way it contributes to finding the truth. And for those who can see through the fallacy it may indicate, which site of the debate can rely on evidence and facts and which side needs to revert to appeals to subjective nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Requiem for a Hockeystick
Loading...