What's going on with this? What's it mean? Who did it? How many other hockey stick graphs are there?
You may want to have a peek at this thread.
The hockeystick should be left to pass away from us peacefully after a controversial life. But it will never be forgotten because it was the singlemost biggest sign of how subjective scientific standards costs society a googillion for nothing.
Here are the creators of the hockeystick.
And this is the hockeystick breaker..
Talking about hockeysticks, this noble man has also some ideas:
Well the hockeystick saga seems to be lingering on and on. Perhaps it’s time for an update.
Just a small refresher, there are two basic points with the hockeystick, figure one and poster child of the International Panel on Climate Change, firstly, is the hockeystick correctly representing recent climate developments? Secondly, if not, was the construction of the hockeystick based on sound scientific methods?
The number of global warmers that believe in the hockeystick is waning quickly, major representatives in that field have acknowledged that the hockeystick is superseded. After all, there is a body of evidence now that climate has been a lot more variable in the past 1000 years. It’s only the active hard core warmers and the constructors of the stick, who stay put. But maintaining that position however obviously would also require the falsification of several newer reconstructions, the other evidence now. So that could be called against the odds.
Remains the question if the hockeystick was the result of honest, ethical science, with the spurious result being caused by factors beyond control of the researchers, or was the methodology flawed albeit scrupulous, or was the methodology aimed at getting a preset result that had to be obtained in order to sell the global warming notion. In the first case, we continue business as usual, learning from mistakes. In the latter case, non scientific, pure political objectives of the IPCC can be considered proven. Consequently, the exposure of the IPCC is at stake. Therefore it is of imminent importance to determine if the methodology was sound, if it was in error or if it was about a predetermined outcome.
The refuting paper of McIntyre and McIttrick, very well explained by this prize winning article of Marcel Crok clearly suggests a rather active way to the desired result, which of course would be most disgraceful for the IPCC.
So, this is what the discussion is currently about. The global warming cohorts are closed and fully prepared for the siege. Whether or not the hockeystick is wrong, it must be proven that the used methods were sound enough to deserve the label “science” more than “scam”.
So, for that damage control, http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/2005_von_Storch_etal__Comment_on_hockey_stick_GRL.pdf [Broken].
If you’d like to see how the two articles are judged it’s all here in the daily blog of Steve McIntyre. Both article's seem based on a bit too hasty analysis. Some comments:
From what I have read the Hockeystick is not flawed. The skeptics arguments have been answered: For more information see: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121
Which would imply that Von Storch is wrong as well as Moberg etc. Like I said:
You have found them, the hard core warmers.
Notice that none of the defenders of the Hockeystick ever mention R2 values or why the Lodgepole pines needed to go in PC1
Where is McIntyre and McKitrick's response to this:
And looking at this:
Looks like various studies show a strong temperature rise in the last 100 years regardless of the one Mann did. Is it McIntyre and McKitrick's opinion that this significant rise doesn't exist?
Now take that last wikipedia link and remove all the spaghetti except for the blue (MBH1999) and the red one (Moberg 2005). Would you say that those are even remotely the same?
What MBH did was killing the Medieval Warming period and the little ice age and create a more or less flat line from 1000-1850, while Moberg with many more proxies and better methodologies showed much more variability proving that those warm and cold periods did exist indeed. Something that had been proved by Hans van Storch earlier (AFAIK Science sept 2004) showing that long term oscillations are badly preserved in tree rings. We don't even need MM to show the problems.
So again and again and again and once more, claiming that MBH was right is identical to refuting the lastest, much more sophisticated work and keeping the myth alive gives us the opportunity to point out the "errors" again and again. it doesn't help attempting to make M&M look bad with that kind of language. They would also need to aim their vitriol to Moberg and Von Storch.
Notably that same Hans Von Storch (one of the most reasonable Global Warmers) who tried to save MBH from eternal shame by writing that response to MM, attempting to show that the MBH math was right despite the fact that they were wrong for the result.
The reason why the MWP and the LIA had to dissapear is that they did not match the CO2 record and the objective of the hockeystick was to prove that CO2 is the main, sole and only primary driver for climate. So with a flat CO2 line in the last milinnium there was also the desire to have a flat global temperature line.
So nobody is denying the blade of the hockeystick. It's the stick itself that is in error. It's a wave and this wave proves that climate and temperatures can change without CO2 changes. And that's the main issue.
The question remains if the hockeystick was fair science with limited resources or a con aimed to convince the public.
Thank you for correcting me, I was wrong about this.
Anyway, to continue the "demolition", have a look here:
Quaternary Science Reviews Volume 24, Issues 12-13 , July 2005, Pages 1345-1360
So another confirmation that there were are Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age which is in concfict with the hockeystick.
some comments http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N45/C2.jsp [Broken]
A delicate detail: check the name of the last author against the B of MBH.
More news. Roger Pielke Jr has observed that the battle between realclimate.org (MBH) and climateaudit.org (MM) lingers on ad absurdum. Therefore he challenged the combattants to motivate on his blog why it matters to be still fighting about the hockeystick. Mann refused but not M&M:
A few quotes from McIttrick:
I think M&M are performing a valuable service for the climate study community. Maybe people in the community will be a little more critical of colleague's claims.
It's disappointing the community couldn't police itself. I hope they get on the ball and make sure all raw data, methods and code gets properly archived. All it takes is sending one package to a couple open access sites. I don't think that's much to ask for receiving financial support.
I posted this somewhere but I may as well repeat it here as an illustration how the hockey stick could have been build:
See also Marcel Leroux (2005) Global Warming – Myth or Reality. The erring ways of Climatology”
For those who are interested in the cutting edge discussion of the real savvies and who think that the correctness of the hockeystick would be restored by some rebutal attempts of M&M go here:
See how the burial of the hockeystick is in full progress.
A few quotes:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin/ [Broken] (NASA en realclimate):
Yes Gavin, but it was also the magic wand for politicians and the people, paralyzing brains to never think something else again. How would they react if they realized that they were conned.
To be absolutely sure another nail driven in today:
Burger, G., and U. Cubasch (2005), Are multiproxy climate reconstructions
robust?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L23711, doi:10.1029/2005GL024155.
What the did was using the data of MBH98, the first hockeystick from 1400AD-2000AD (MBH99 is the extended version 1000AD - 2000AD) and computed the six possible decision combinations. The result was a wide range of possibilities with several tenths of degrees differences.
It may be clear that any other similar reconstruction (Esper, Briffa, Jones, Moberg) will have similar problems, which means that the parametrisation of EdGCM will also be influenced by increased uncertainty.
Time for another update of the hockeystick, the funeral, likely. There has been a NAS session this week, investigating the climate of the last 1000 years. Steve McIntyre tells all about in on hiw webblog:
More to come.
Hans Von Storch was seemed to have been mercyless and Michel Mann appeared to be far too busy with other things than conduct a passionate partisan defence for his brain child.
So the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are back and again we are left with the question if the hockeystick was just a mere piece of fair science superseded by new and contradictory data and facts, or was it indeed a conspirary to assassinate the medieval warming period (Overpeck AGU Fall meeting 1997)?
Was it a honest hypothesis, the result of objective algebra or was it just faked, this visual extremely strong correlation between CO2 and http://moonagewebdream.blogs.com/hockeystick.jpg [Broken]? After all, the hockey stick can be found back in dozens of official publications as (single) evidence of impending global warming disaster and with the objective to deal with it, and compelling the population to pay for it.
All those decisions based on flawed science or spin? What would be the juridical - legal implications if the latter was to be true?
Yikes! An expensive booK! Its not a textbook is it?!
There are new developments, the North report is out, which appears to be a very peculiar document with a delicate view of wrong and right.
Stephen McIntyre calls it schrizophrenic since his critique has been validated, however it's also irrevelant because it cannot stop global warming.
The double headed label appears to be correct as the reactions range from:
to the other end of the spectrum:
Incredible document. A masterpiece of diplomacy. Hours of study ahead.
The report by the way is here:
I think that http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/sf/frames.html [Broken] gives an accurate assessment on his blog:
(the hot links do not paste, see the original source)
Separate names with a comma.