“Hockey Stick – It still hasn’t been shown to be “debunked.” Debunked implies it is incorrect; if it’s incorrect, than we wouldn’t expect any other records to match it in any way. There are many independent paleo-climate reconstructions used to corroborate the “big picture” of the past. RealClimate is still the definitive source rebutting this claim. Shoot the messenger if you will, but once again, no one has debunked the Stick. The only thing that has been shown is that there is a great deal more uncertainty in that particular reconstruction than in others.”

I can well understand why RealClimate would defend Mann’s “hockey stick”, but I certainly would not agree that “RealClimate is still the definitive source rebutting this claim” (i.e. that it has been “debunked”). Believe we all know that RC has “a horse in the race” on this one, so is not an objective source.

An objective source and renowned expert on statistical analyses is Edward Wegman, professor at George Mason University, who was asked to testify concerning the Mann “hockey stick” before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Wegman’s panel included two other experts, David Scott (Rice) and Yasmin Said (Johns Hopkins).

Wegman and his panel found that Mann made basic errors that “may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology.”

The panel concluded:

”Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis”

“The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.”

Supporter of the “hockey stick” have used the argument that, while there may have been errors in the methodology used by Mann et al., the conclusions reached were still correct.

As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: “I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.”

Forget this piece of “Bad Science”. It has been buried. Let it “Rest in Peace”.

Max

You could even refine your search to this domain if necessary, but the above worked very well.

I would expect the satellite records to continue to show greater short-term response, both negative and positive, than the surface-based records. The lower troposhere will react faster, and to a greater degree, to internal variation. This is true both ways – please see the response to the Pinatubo eruption and then to the 1998 El Nino: in the first case the troposphere reaction is more negative than surface, in the second case it is more positive. Exactly the same has been the case in response to the recent La Nina phase, which your figures above illustrate. What is relevant is whether there is divergence over the longer-term, once these predictable variations in response have evened out. Over the longer-term, the greatest divergence is between UAH and all the others, including RSS. GISS does not have the highest trend, as some here seem to suggest – both HadCRUT and RSS (for its shorter period) are higher.

(Sorry if this response is delayed, but I haven’t figured out how to keep in touch with topics that have slipped off the front page!).

I’m not sure what you (or counters) mean. There’s an entire chapter 11 on Regional Climate Projections in the 4thAR, WG1:-

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter11.pdf

My apologies, that was counters.

The models don’t predict stuff like that, sorry.

oops looks like I started an edit war.

The percentage of the atmosphere is irrelevant. Some 99% of the atmosphere is not GHGs (including water vapour, although that varies)!

Jeff B,

Yes, I’m looking. For example, I look forward to reading Roy Spencer’s next paper.

Evan Jones,

a. Reversion to norm after the LIA.

Which is (mostly at least) well explained by natural variation. If we presume a strong MWP & LIA, then we are assuming high climate sensitivity. I’m fine with the MWP & LIA hypothesis, but the implications of high sensitivity going forward are obvious.

b. Fluctuations since 1977 due to the “big 6″ atmospheric/ocean cycles going warm one by one. (Now they are starting to go cool.)

I think that’s the most tenable notion at the moment. But, at the moment, a notion is all it is. If I see some convincing science on it, then I might change my mind.

Pofarmer again -

Weren’t you just lecturing us upthread, or in another thread, on how it wasn’t proper to use the climate models in this way?

Er, no, I don’t think that was me!

:-)

I wonder if you are really looking.

It’s really amazing that some folks think the best explanation is that a trace gas has risen from .030% to .038% of the atmosphere.

I wonder if you are really looking.

Weren’t you just lecturing us upthread, or in another thread, on how it wasn’t proper to use the climate models in this way?

Yes.

Look for the new NOAA/CRN network for the US. They are made up of well sited stations (No SHAP). They are continual (no Max/Min) and automated (no FILNET). They will, in fact, need no adjustments whatever. The only poorly sited one I’ve seen shots of is on concrete-like terrain, so that may be a wash.

Once that is up and running we will have a US system that actually is trustworthy (depending on the gridding methodology).

But.

But until then, and as for the historical record, it is not adjusted in the correct manner and the raw data seems to have been “disposed of”. Recent proxies are regional and have a bigger margin of error than the differences they are trying to show (on a short timescale).

So.

Therefore I do not trust the historical record as measured by the NOAA. I therefore discount GISS and HadCRUT, which are based on NOAA/GHCN.

Fortunately we have satellite records, and these will prove a valuable check sum for the surface record going forward.