The merely interfere with the truly important

[pebrew]

And here is somebody else who also came to a similar conclusion:

http://www.lelarge.homepage.t-online.de/PhZT/Temperatur_Intcal.gif

Compare the blue nr 2, the hockeystick with the red nr3, random data into the model. A predestined hockeystick I'd say.

Actually, the red #3 data is not the result taking random data and putting them through Mann's methods/calculations. Rather it is the result of taking the black #1 data (a simulation of the global temperature the past 1000 years produced with the ECHO-G simulation), producing theoretical proxy data from that ECHO-G simulation, and then putting these simulated proxy data through Mann's methods/calculations. The original press release of the article can be found at http://www.mad.zmaw.de/Research/Presse/press040927-1Storch.pdf
This is a summary of the important piece by Storch published in Science at the end of September that Muller refers to in his article.
Storch et al’s work does not support the claim that any random data processed with Mann's methods would produce a hockeystick. In their own words:

The main conclusion of this study is that many statistical methods that are based on linear regression considerably underestimate the centennial and decadal past temperature variations. When applied to the model data these methods return an estimate of past model temperatures that hardly resemble the true model temperatures. Also, the associated error bars do not describe the real error adequately.

Their work covers “many statistical methods that are based on linear regression”, not just Mann et al’s methods. Though if it is verified, this work will cast a heavy light of uncertainty on the ‘hockeystick’. Making it important since “proxy-based temperature reconstructions have been used to assess climate change over the past millennium, in particular by the IPCC…” (Storch et al).
While casting question on a traditional pillar of AGW theory, this is not a refutation of the broader, developing AGW theory:

However, in spite of this reassessment of claims about past temperature variations, the study does not question claims about the detection of signals of anthropogenic climate change in the recent decades based on the speed of change nor perspectives of probable or possible future climate change.(Storch et al)

(And from that more recent Richard Muller article http://technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp)

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.
A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

 

[Andre]

You are right, Pebrew, thanks for the contribution. But the point is made, the hockeystick is broken. There should never have been a hockeystick. But it was so temping because of the relationship of standards and attractiveness of conclusions. But how badly does it expose the scaremongers?

The hockeystick is the mainstay of the IPCC and British Government and stands for the prediction of a couple of degrees warming -what is it now? 1,8-5 degrees or so in 2100? And it's the reason for immediate crash actions. The Dutch government already has bought CO2 emission rights from an East European country. The good point is that the money is used to make the energy production over there much more efficient. The bad point is that it is based on a lie.

Now is that that global warming exactly again. If the Earth was an ideal black body it's temperature would rise 0,69 degrees C for every doubling of the CO2. But the Earth is not a black body, so some say we need to increase that to about 1 degree C. I think that's an thinking error. Since the Earth reflexs quite a lot of sunlight directly some 30% I believe, compared to a black body, not all the light is absorbed and consequently less energy is reradiated as infrared and captured by greenhouse gas effect. So perhaps 0,5 degrees per doubling could be more correct

Assuming that the positive and negative feedback factors cancel each other (although Kärner shows that negative feedback seems to be stronger) we can simply estimate the effect of the increased CO2. In 1850 before the start of fossil fuel use, it was about 280ppm, now almost 380 ppm So about one third increase on a logaritmic scale would be about 0,3 degrees. But we need 560 ppm CO2 in total to get to that 0,5 degrees of warming since 1850 and with some 1ppm a year that would be somewhere around 2180. So my estimate for 2100 is over the thumb some 0,4 degrees of warming maximum, compared to 1850.

But we may be heading for http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/GW-trend.jpg

Don't let the mere urgent interfere with the real important.

 

[Locrian]

This thread is gold. Thanks to all the participants.

 

[Andre]

Thanks, Locrian

Although most things have been accounted for, perhaps a little analysis of a standard scaremonger message may be in order.

We all are confronted regulary with the average text going something like this:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system.

Additional data from new studies of current and palaeoclimates, improved analysis of data sets, more rigorous evaluation of their quality, and comparisons among data from different sources have led to greater understanding of climate change.

The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C. Global average sea level has risen and ocean heat content has increased.

Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere.

Snow cover and ice extent have decreased.

Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate.

Concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have
continued to increase as a result of human activities.

Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased.

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century.

Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios.

Further action is required to address remaining gaps in information and understanding.

This is what politicians have to tuck into their heads, it's the boldface text of the http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf .

Hence, you can't blame them for demanding Kyoto action now, whilst slamming the fist on the table, can you?

Perhaps we should try and find the fallacies, let alone the plain incorrectnesses.

 

[Andre]

I was planning to go over these step by step, however I just found another jewel hidden in the gigantic scientific data heap.

One continues to wonder why environmental good news is stashed away and any random claim - like alleged mass extinction or catastrophic melting of ice sheets conquers the world.

So let's look at models.

Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased.

Really? Well how about:

Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 31, No. 13, L13208 10.1029/2004GL020103
09 July 2004

Altitude Dependence of Atmospheric Temperature Trends: Climate Models vs Observation

David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson and S. Fred Singer

Abstract

As a consequence of greenhouse forcing, all state-of-the-art general circulation models predict a positive temperature trend that is greater for the troposphere than the surface. This predicted positive trend increases in value with altitude until it reaches a maximum ratio with respect to the surface of as much as 1.5 to 2.0 at about 200-400 hPa. However, the temperature trends from several independent observational data sets show decreasing as well as mostly negative values. This disparity indicates that the three models examined here fail to account for the effects of greenhouse forcings.

The whole publication is http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aphysics%2F0407074 too

 

[Locrian]

Yes, very interesting. I like the way they put the conclusion, noting that either many independant sets of data are wrong, or the model is innacurate.

In the abstract they state "all state-of-the-art general circulation models" (my emphasis)... are there really only three?

 

[Chronos]

IPCC has a rather checkered history. The media has been much quicker to jump on that bandwagon than the scientific community. An example
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA177.html

Another link to consider
http://www.co2science.org/edit/v6_edit/v6n22edit.htm

 

[Locrian]

I particularly like that second link, thank you for them Chronos.

 

[Andre]

I fully agree, but guess how the global warming adepts react to that site.

See the http://www.co2science.org/center.htm

Now, guess what kind of people the idswoods are:

Foes of global warming... (doesn't the titel sound pathetic)

The Idsos, who have been linked to Western coal interests, do not reveal financial sources. But IRS records filed by ExxonMobil Foundation show that it provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000.

Even as global warming intensifies, the evidence is being denied with a ferocious disinformation campaign. This campaign is waged on many fronts: in the media, where public opinion is formed; in the halls of Congress, where laws are made; and in international climate negotiations. In their most important accomplishment, global warming critics have successfully created the general perception that scientists are sharply divided over whether it is taking place at all.

Key to this success has been the effective use of a tiny band of scientists -- principally Drs. Patrick Michaels, Sherwood Idso, Robert Balling, and S. Fred Singer -- who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Deep-pocketed industry public relations specialists have promoted their opinions through every channel of communication they can reach. They have demanded access to the press for these scientists' views, as a right of journalistic fairness.
...etc, etc,

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4097&method=full

ExxonMobil states candidly that it "provides support to selected organizations that assess public policy alternatives on issues with direct bearing on the company's business operations and interests...
For example, the company supports the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, staffed by Sherwood Idso, a longtime coal-sponsored skeptic, and two relatives, Craig Idso and Keith Idso.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/helvarg.htm

Its science advisory panel consisted of Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso and Dr. Patrick Michaels, three leading "climate skeptics" who, by their own account, have received close to a million dollars of coal- and oil-industry funding (including a publishing grant from the government of Kuwait) for their efforts to refute the scientific consensus on global warming.

Any idea why I get angry and cynical in the discussion about global warming. There is no discussion. It's the good guys against the bad guys and it has nothing to do with science. If you conclude for yourself that antropogenic global warming is failed science, falsified over and over again, at the best, you have just become a bad guy, a greedy pocket filler, comtempting the environmental issues.

 

[pebrew]

Well, Andre, money plays a big part in US politics. So when people see scientists funded by big oil/coal coming out with results supporting industry and disagreeing with most other science they react cynically. No matter how big the alleged 'global warming lobby' is, i can guarantee you the fossil fuel lobby is bigger. a lot bigger.
Conservative politicians (mostly republicans) in the US have been for many decades generally anti-regulatory and support industry. Since the early 1980s they've been working with the energy industry to help disprove AGW theory. Now essentially all conservative policy organizations argue against AGW theory. Not because they are good scientists and think it is wrong on scientific bases, but because they are political and that's the political team they're on, anti-AGW. This is why i, for one, am distrustful of articles, research, etc put out by organizations like http://www.co2science.org/center.htm and http://www.nationalcenter.org/ . These are politically concerned groups. they have the agenda that AGW theory is wrong and that they need to convince people of that. They DO NOT have the agenda that they want to support the best science regardless of it's results. I don't mean to turn this into a political discussion, but this is the reality of why people are so mistrustful and cynical about those websites and energy-industry supported journals and research. the industry has profitability in mind, not good science, so why should we expect them to support good science that may hurt that a lot?

On one hand we've got conservative and energy industry supported research and on the other hand we've got the traditional scientific community and many journals looking for good science to publish. Now, don't you think the energy industry and the people it helps elect have a greater interest in oil and coal profits than the scientific community has in lying, en masse, to the public about one of the most important scientific theories in modern history?

There are certainly good reasons to question AGW theory. And there is probably good science contained in journels funded by industry money. But when people know the industry simply has an agenda to convince us not to regulate them due to AGW theory, they are rightfully distrustful. Unfortunately this has caused people (probably including scientists) to be less accepting of anti-AGW research in general. If the energy industry would stop propping up whatever anti-AGW research it can find, the good anti-AGW research would stand out better and people would be less reactive against it since it wasn't funded by people with profit in mind.

You say,

There is no discussion.

, Andre. But you have to allow for discussion. You're always polarizing the debate in the threads so that it becomes an all-or-nothing AGW debate. I know you aren't in complete disagreement with the pillars of AGW theory, but that doesn't usually show in your comments. You seem to feel compelled to argue against even the slightest pro-AGW argument, ignoring any scientific merit you may see in the pro-AGW argument. If we could hold less polarized debates that concentrated on the scientific merit of the specific issue, rather than turn every thread into "this is why AGW is wrong, point A, B, and C", we'd learn a lot more, and more importantly, we'd inform more people about the problems with AGW theory.

 

[Andre]

Pebrew, let me explain.

Before 1999, I was a global warmer (just a believer) but then there was the shock of the Jarkov Mammoth in Siberia. An animal found in a place where he couldn't be, in the middle of the last glacial maximum. And as I'm fond of solving riddles, I decided to concentrate on the ice age including the Mammoth. Since I had not studied any environmental/geological issues I was unbiased, so I learned about the scholar view after having seen the facts and figures instead of the other way around like is common for students and there is a very wide gap between paradigm and facts, believe me. Ever found the Pleistocene mammoth steppe in the global warming explanations talking about ice age?

It's all completely different and I have found a few explanations to harmonize a http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/Publications/And2002a.pdf about that somewhere down.

So as there was a sound global warming free alternative that combines all the facts. By some odd change I also stumbled upon Venus as ultimate evidence of greenhouse gas effect and most stunningly Venus explains itself along the same pattern. So, one single hypothesis solves mysteries of two planets. It's a long and complicated story though, Venus being the easy one. Perhaps you have seen https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2974. I knew then for sure that anthropogenic global warming was is hoax, degraded to a futility. My biggest worry then was the damage that it would inflict on the scientific efforts and of course that a weird story like that - given the long row of crackpots - will never sell. Anyway, this is what happened:

A- Hey, the world may be in danger, due to global warming caused by antropogenic production of greenhouse gasses.

B - Okay that's bad, let's investigate how bad it really is.

A - I found a hockeystick somewhere, saying that it's really bad.

B - Okay I found several independ pieces of evidence in multiple disciplines that suggest that the current warming can be attributed to a lot of other factors, whilst the anthropogenic contribution seems to be minor, if at all. Besides that, your hockeystick seems to be doubtfull.

3 - Can't be, my hockeystick is right of course and since you are a crook, you're wrong. We have consensus here that the world shall fry and we have made models, working according to the garbage-in-garbage-out principle, which prove that we are right.

And I get to feel more and more bitter being stowed in the corner of the bad guys, the enemíes of mankind. I have a incredible story to tell and perhaps you appreciate that the story is exclusively based on normal sound physics. But I will never succeed because each and every speciality is involved. Astrophysics, Geophysics, Paleomagnetics, oceanography, climatology, you name it, and nobody is prepared to judge about the other specialities.

Somewhat earlier, Pebrew, you said that science loves it when the facts in various specialities seem to add up and come together. In the Anthropogenic Global Warming idea they most certainly don't.

But in Venus and the ice age discrepancy, mine do, but nobody seems interested.

Priority right now is to mitigate the Kyoto disaster ;hence my rants.

There is no discussion.

Meaning that it's very discouraging that the hard core global warmers have raised their standard of acceptance to such a level that the best you could expect is that they wait politely until you're ready and then continue with wathever they have to tell. Take the Urban heat islands for instance. I can work for hours proving that UHI effect does exist but it's hopeless, isn't there a study that says that they don't.

Discussion is communication and communication is talking alongside each other as closely as possible. But there are a few miles between the warmers and the sceptics - well beyond hearing distance.

But terrestrial planets have a serious design flaw and that's the truly important.

 

[pebrew]

Andre, thank you very much for the explanation. i do appreciate the work you do.
and even though i agree that the warmers and skeptics have a few miles between them - well beyond hearing distance - i don't think that that means we should yell. that is, i don't think that ranting or polarizing a discussion much will help convince people to question AGW theory. but i realize that i haven't been on this forum long enought to see examples of blind warmers ranting that direction. and i know that most warmers are just that, blind to any information that may dispute AGW theory. so i can understand how it may seem that there's no way to reach those people but by reacting as strongly as they do. especially if you've found as many problems with AGW as you have.
nonetheless, i think chiselling away at the hockeystick, the positive-feedback greenhouse effect, etc is a much more effective method to get people to see the problems, than shoving the whole thing in their face every time a mildly related topic comes up. but as long as information gets out, that's a start.

 

[Andre]

Well, for what it's worth, I changed my personal policy for global warming.

Here is why (notice the tar and feathers as immediate result)

 

[Mk]

Ah ha! I have finally moved my way down the thread, absorbing everything, and I am astounded to find how the hockeystick was broken. Dumbstruck.

 

[YourMom27]

Idso is AWESOME!-Chris

 

[wolram]

Andre, take a peek at

http://climatesci.org/2008/07/

 

[Andre]

Thanks, Wolram. Unfortunatily I'm maxed out for quite some time to come.