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

The hockey slapstick

  1. May 14, 2005 #1
    :rolleyes: I hope that title is not too adacious. We have been discussing hockeysticks every once and a while here, you know, this one, fig 1b about the alleged global temperatures of the last millenium.

    After the repeated debunking of Soon and Baliunas, Hans van Storch, and compared to multiple other reconstructions like Moberg that differ markedly enough from the hockeystick to consider it flawed, we thought we had buried it especially with the serious M&M05 critique.

    So whaddyaknow. a rigorous revival coming up? The replication of the hockeystick is here. Were all the others wrong after all?

    thriller or slapstick?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 16, 2005 #2
    Anyway Steve McIntyre is trying his very best to find out what is new. It may even seem that A&W have succeeded in emulating the M&M05 hockeystick much more than replicating MBH98. He sees the same problems:

    In psychogical terms this is called demagogy.
  4. May 18, 2005 #3
  5. Jun 12, 2005 #4
    That rule only applies to fiberglass sticks, which I may add are priced around a ridiculous $200 CDN price tag.
  6. Jun 26, 2005 #5
  7. Jul 2, 2005 #6
    But it's not how politics works because this is way past science. Please count the fallacies in this letter:


    You can take it the other way around. If the work on the hockeystick was 100% correct, wouldn't these climate scientist with "impeccable records, widely regarded as among the leading researchers", have welcomed the opportunity to give full, true and plain disclosure and proof beyond any doubt how malicious the relentless attacks of those devious climate sceptics were?
  8. Jul 2, 2005 #7
    I wonder were the answers to these questions made public?
  9. Jul 2, 2005 #8
  10. Jul 2, 2005 #9
    I don't follow you. Are you mocking scientists for trying to understand whether warming is best described by a sharp increase in recent years?

    The way science "works" is to gather evidence to identify whether a hypothesis can be disproven, or alternatively supported. The goal is to have a better idea of physical processes in our world. The goal *isn't* to say "we're right and everyone else is wrong."

    Thank you for the report. I am impressed that the authors invite everyone to look at their code in order to evaluate their methodology.
  11. Jul 2, 2005 #10
    uhhh.... no? Their purpose in life isn't to do battle with Exxon. They are working scientists who presented evidence that warming has accelerated in recent years. I am sure that they were happy to publish as soon as they had a publishable amount of work. I likewise believe that they are happy to have their understanding modified as work continues by their lab and others. Science isn't static.

    And I'm sure that they don't describe themselves as "impeccable, leading scientists in the field." That was politics. You're letting your arguments overlap. I think you might even be guilty of demagogey (sp?).
  12. Jul 2, 2005 #11
    I don't see a problem with the government asking about the amount funding, asking about methods used..or where the archives are. It seems to me if you made millions of dollars via funding you would of hired a person to organize it all so that this information would be available at the click of a button. It sort of keeps everything on the up and up.
    It makes me wonder what/why there hiding.

    Its not one or two people challenging the results of Manns means to a end, there is now a whole lot of other science groups looking into it, and asking for more information on his data.
  13. Jul 3, 2005 #12
    I know, when you agree with somebody then the fallacies don't show. However I just lost an hours work of listing and explaining bandwagons, strawmans, tu quoiques, Argumentum ad Superbiums, etc.

    Perhaps I may refer to the discussion about this in another distinguished forum here. It may surprise you how many people have their thoughts about the hockeystick there.

    I don't understand, I though we would limit ourselves to science. Did anybody mention oil companies? And they don't have to battle, merely share how it was done, getting a paradigm shift through unquestioned (even with flying colors), against the mainstream of multiple detailed research of the past that clearly suggested the existence of a global Medieval Warming Period and a little ice age. this has intrigued a lot of people independent of Exxon.

    Perhaps take note of the discussion in Wikipedia

    And the simple question now is if the hockeystick was a mandatory conclusion that was inevitable when considering the data but even then the question remains how it has been possible to slam away (that’s what you do with sticks I guess) the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age unquestioned.

    That can only be the ice age idea that we discuss elsewhere. He will be utterly surprised.
  14. Jul 3, 2005 #13
    Maybe part of the problem here, is that until about a month ago I was unaware of the hockeystick.

    Are you saying that Mann fudged data?

    If so, then that was very, very wrong.

    Are you also saying that therefore the entire warming argument fails?
  15. Jul 4, 2005 #14
    McIntyre and McIttrick M&M's have analysed this and do say so. I tend to see more reasons for them to be right, than for Mann et al. But I realize that this is the standard problem. Who do you want to believe and why? Perhaps read this excellent essay of Richard Muller on the correlation between scientific standards and attractiveness of conclusions.

    Obviously, reading the papers is not enough, I should scrutinize M&M’s work to be sure. But there are obvious limitations. That's why a completely independent, fallacy free inquiry is so extremely important. That should have the final word.

    Hence the disgrace of the letter of that congressman.

    No that would be another fallacy. Every argument its own problems; there used to be three elements that fuel global warming. The interpretation of the ice ages, that went nowhere however, because of the essential errors. Hence(?), the Hockeystick came to replace it and show “proof” beyond any doubt that the main driver of climate change is CO2 concentration. The third one, obviously, is the general surface warming as experienced in the last decades. This has it’s own fields of problems like accuracy, (under) estimation of urban heat island effect, conflicting satellite- and balloon radio-sonde temperature records and a clear cause – effect reasoning.
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2005
  16. Jul 4, 2005 #15
    And changes in bloom time and migration routes through North America (and presumably elsewhere) in recent decades.

    Thermometers may have problems, but biological systems are pretty reliable.
  17. Jul 11, 2005 #16
    Posting Hans Von Storchs vision on the hockeystick debate, as he presented on a conference in Boulder.

    big file: http://w3g.gkss.de/staff/storch/PPT/paleo/050708.ncar.ppt

  18. Jul 13, 2005 #17
    Hi again Andre,

    The recent warming is unusual for the past 1 or 2 millenia. From the depths of the last Ice Age 20k years ago 1/5 of the warming to current temperatures has occurred in the last 100 years. i.e. 20% of the warming in 0.5% of the time. That is a remarkable and troubling fact. And there are no factors to account for this anomaly.

    http://www.realclimate.org/dummies.pdf is an interesting and fair attempt to explain the issues between MBH and MM. To quote from point 8 in this doc. “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.”. And their final point “As of now, all of the ’Hockey Team’ reconstructions (shown left) agree that the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of last millennium, and possibly the last two millennia.”

    The authors Scmidt and Amman are saying that this is the case inclusive of MM05. Thus MM's data does not show that the current warming is typical of the last 1 to 2 millenia.
  19. Jul 13, 2005 #18
    One set of goal poles please. One factor is the last 2 millenia, the other factor is pertaining the last 20 millenia. So what are we talking about? How about the last 1000 millenia, with apparantly the same general type of (glacial) cycles. Have we solved that yet? And what do we think about the apparant warming 14,800 cal years BP and 11,670 years BP. 10 degrees within a decade?

    If I use Von Storch 2004 or Moberg 2005 I get a completely different answer.

    hmm ...

    seeing that Rutherford et al 2005 is Rutherford, Mann, Hughes, Bradley et al, I think I'm not surprised that the results are basically the same. Furthermore I wonder why RealClimate only talks MBH98 avoiding to address the pre 1400AD era (MBH99), which is where M&M found the most problems. Finally "Dummies guide ..." may be a too accurate description :biggrin:
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2005
  20. Jul 13, 2005 #19
    I'll leave the points regarding MBH and MM for you to take up with the authors of that paper, I think that aside from the pdf version there is also a blog type entry with the facility to post responses, in any case they have had recent discussions on the 'hockey stick'.

    One set of goals? What I am saying is that the current warming has not been accounted for by anyone, except those behind the theory of warming due to CO2. Thus the factors behind glaciation(M cycles) and the LIA(Solar radiation reduction) are not present now. Yet we have had a warming in excess of 0.6 deg C, this being in line with what I state.

    Climate is variable, no-one with any relevant knowledge finds that a surprise. And I am not here to discuss the vaguaries of paleo-climate I'd rather leave that to those with expertise in that field.

    What is this "10 degrees within a decade?" that you allude to? And is it regional or global. If global it seems highly doubtful (unless some aeons ago) if regional - no surprise.
  21. Jul 13, 2005 #20
    How about this warming:

    MacDonald GM et al (2000) Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia Quaternary Research 53, 302–311 (2000)

    Somewhat different than the possible 0,6 degrees, no? And without any significant carbon dioxide level changes.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: The hockey slapstick