Or as an alternate title: “Why we find it difficult to trust certain climate scientists.”
This posting by Bishop Hill, telling the tale of the nefarious temperature reconstruction known as the Michael Mann hockey stick, from start to present, is an excellent summation for the layman reader struggling to understand the entire affair and why it is such an amazing pox on the conduct of science and practice of peer review. This sums it up quite well:
That the statistical foundations on which they had built this paleoclimate castle were a swamp of misrepresentation, deceit and malfeasance was, to Wahl and Amman, an irrelevance.
I highly recommend reading it, and Bishop Hill deserves thanks for condensing this affair into a readable story.
Steven Talbot (11:58:12) links to ‘Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years’ (Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council) and lifts part of one paragraph in support of the Mann HS.
They conclude that the Mann assertion that the N.H. was warmer than in 1000 years “plausible” (may appear to be convincing or believable on the surface, but may not be so upon closer examination) but “….even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium’ because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions…”etc.
Christopher Hanley,
Yes, of course – we can all select quotations. That was rather my point! (And you probably know I could select further quotations from the NAS report, and then you could select some more, and so on)…..
…..which tends to show that nothing is so clear-cut as some would like it to be…
…and so it goes on and on, with the ‘sceptic community’ obsessing about disputed limitations in a ten-year-old scientific paper. Get over it, and consider the whole body of the scientific case today, I would say.
Pielke, McIntyre, Lindzen, Gray, Spence, D’leo, Hackbart…. etc., etc. . Hasse, Bill and Pierre Gosselin…. recommend:
Movie of the week “I’ll Always Know What You Did Last Summer”
Ptolemy’s model was debunked ?
“We can all select quotations” Steven Talbot (14:17:38).
Who’s “we”.
“We can all select quotations” Steven Talbot (14:17:38).
Who’s “we”.
Huh? You can select quotations, I can select quotations. What’s your point?
Probably in another ten years time other new people will be able to select quotations……
I think science will move on regardless. And, of course, the climate will do whatever it’s going to do, irrespective of how steamed up posters on a blog get in this year of 2008.
I think science will move on regardless. And, of course, the climate will do whatever it’s going to do,
My point exactly.
You’re starting to sound like skeptic-good job!!!!!
If it wasn’t for the injection of politics into this(by some of the scientists btw) then none of this would really matter all that much.
Steve,
“(Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press)”
Doesn’t that just bring us full circle?
“Are you seriously not aware of the limitations of this paper?”
No, and apparently you’re not interested in discussing them either as you seem to have gone off on some irrelevent tangent about Loehle and Spencer/Christy. Perhaps you could just point me to the published research that will lay it out for me so that I can look into that myself?
You’re starting to sound like skeptic-good job!!!!!
But I am already a sceptic (I’m British, hence the ‘c’)! It’s a matter of how well evidence and arguments, on either side, stand up to sceptical doubt. Scientists of all colours are trained to be sceptical. Perhaps some lose that objectivity – but it would surely be foolish for any sceptic to presume that, according to one’s position of judgment, the ‘opponents’ have lost it whilst the ‘proponents’ have not. I think that’s the main theme of my posts on this thread: be as sceptical of what seems to confirm your inclinations as you like to declare yourself being sceptical of what seems in opposition to them. Apply the same standards ‘on both sides’. Be ready to be doubtful of Steve McIntyre, or Anthony Watts, just as you are ready to be doubtful of Hansen or Mann. Everybody makes mistakes, even those with whom you have tended to agree.
But we are agreed, Profarmer – the climate will not be subject to our arguments. At one extreme we will waste money unnecessarily on mitigating a problem that doesn’t exist, at the other we will allow the generation of doubt to delay our best actions. We’ll probably be around long enough to realise which was the worst choice, though perhaps not long enough to experience the full consequences of either.
And yet, despite a 1000 fold or more increase in computer power, and despite “more realistic” modelling, and despite billions of dollars being thrown at it, what do we have to show for it?
Have these advanced models “pinned down” climate response to 2 x CO2 any better? Err, no actually. In 1988, the models suggested 1.5-4.5C. In 2008, the models suggest 1.5-4.5C.
Then perhaps we have “finer” resolution – perhaps, instead of being stuck with just a global average, we have some realistic, verifiable projections on regional scales? Err, no again. “Down sampling” is still required for regional projections/predictions. “Down sampling” in this specific case means adjusting, BTW.
Then perhaps we have better weather simulation – perhaps, instead of a smooth line, we have a wiggly line that matches real world temperatures? Errr, no, again. Oh sure, we have the nice wiggly lines, but they don’t match real world weather, and they are averaged over multiple runs to get the nice smooth trend line that makes the “climate” prediction. And that smooth line is the same shape and slope as the old models.
Then perhaps these wiggly lines (weather simulations) can give us some idea of innate variability? Err, no, alas. Lucia’s blog shows that the weather in these models is very different in statistical terms than real world weather is. In point of fact, their variability seems to be in the exact opposite direction from that required by Gavin and the “Team” when they explain that the recent real world events (the last 10 years of data) is simply weather and is encompassed by the models.
Then perhaps we have shortened the time frame required to verify model projections? Err, no yet again. Gavin et al still insist that 30 years is the required time frame for establishing climate trends.
What did we gain? Why then, do we need these overly complex models when they tell us nothing more than the simpler models of 20 years ago? Hey, I’m sure they’re nice toys for the climate guys to play with, but they told us they needed more money and better computers to give better projections/predictions. They got all that, so where are the better projections/predictions?
Oh yeah – Gavin still insists that the old models (which you bet were wrong) were actually pretty good. Of course he would – they were his predictions, after all. Lucia doesn’t agree. Let’s see, we have two people who both think AGW is real. One made a set of projections 20 years ago, and thinks they stand up well. The other thinks they are likely wrong. Gee, who should I believe – the one that says “I was right all along, see?”, or the one who says “I don’t think you were right, and here’s the math to back it up”? The one with the vested interest in showing he was right, or the one trying to show it was right, but actually showing it was wrong? No really much of a contest there, I would think.
Stephen Talbot: So you are here to teach us critical thinking, not just piss us
off?
Ken G,
“Are you seriously not aware of the limitations of this paper?”
No, and apparently you’re not interested in discussing them either as you seem to have gone off on some irrelevent tangent about Loehle and Spencer/Christy. Perhaps you could just point me to the published research that will lay it out for me so that I can look into that myself?
No, I can’t point you to published papers. Nobody’s bothered to write about it, which will tend to be the case with inconsequential papers. I can give you this link, which you may not like, to a Real Climate review:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
It’s perfectly reasonable for you to think that Real Climate has its own agenda, but I’d suggest you see how well you think the paper stands up to the criticisms, if you’re interested. For example, it seems indisputable that they chose to use radiosonde data that was not the most recent update (and the data they chose showed the least warming trend). I could link to other blog analyses which are considerably less polite, but that’s not what you’re asking from me.
I could give you my own observations, but you have no reason to think they’re worth much ( for example, I could note that the introductory remarks depend upon quotations taken from before the UAH records were corrected!).
What I think I’ll do is to leave it to history. If the paper’s of any consequence, then it will be referenced in the literature, and vice versa. I’d put money on the latter, but that’s just my opinion.
It would be amusing, really, to see what Climate Audit made of this paper’s
approach to calculating uncertainties. If people here are outraged by MBH98/99 methodologies, well, there’s plenty more out there to get your teeth into!
Steven Talbot
Do you believe the UAH process and data have been sorted out?
Are the temperatures being reported correct?
How large were the adjustments made to the UAH data?
I certainly do agree with your statement:
Anyone can make a mistake, and they’re all dealing with imperfect observations and methodologies that are still being evolved.
Which is why I don’t want to see any draconian measures imposed on our economies until all of these observations and systems are sorted out.
Thanks in advance.
Ken G (again),
I want to correct something I said in my previous post, viz. “it seems indisputable that they chose to use radiosonde data that was not the most recent update”. I have been doing some more research, since I was interested in your questioning me. It appears that, whilst it’s true they didn’t use the most recent update, it is disputed that they ‘chose’ this. My apologies for my assertion.
For reference, here’s a rather good spat between Gavin Schmidt (of Real Climate) and Dr Douglass (scroll down a long way to get to it) –
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/04/08/why-multiple-climate-model-agreement-is-not-that-exciting/
I happen to think Douglass comes out of that with more dignity than Schmidt, but remain of the view that the Douglass paper is questionable. As I’ve suggested, I tend to rely on the scientific process of review to bed down what is worthwhile or not, and that’s a process which takes some time.
Steven,
“No, I can’t point you to published papers. Nobody’s bothered to write about it, which will tend to be the case with inconsequential papers. I can give you this link, which you may not like, to a Real Climate review:”
That’s right, you can’t.
“I could give you my own observations”
Honestly, I don’t think you could. I think you can parrot Realclimate opinions well enough, but that’s about it.
“Be ready to be doubtful of Steve McIntyre, or Anthony Watts, just as you are ready to be doubtful of Hansen or Mann. Everybody makes mistakes, even those with whom you have tended to agree.”
But not Gavin. Apparently, if he opines that a paper is “inconsequential” that’s more than enough for you to come here and state your case confidently, despite the lack of any published support what-so-ever.
“Oh, for sure, I know what is being said on Climate Audit. I look forward to Steve McIntyre publishing his paper on the matter, presuming that he has something to say beyond insinuations on a blog.”
Does the word “hypocrite” mean anything to you? Apparently Gavin’s opinion is good enough for you to bash other scientists (mostly through insinuation ironically enough), but Steve’s blog is mere insinuation unless published. And you have the audacity to lecture people here about bias?
Steven,
“For reference, here’s a rather good spat between Gavin Schmidt (of Real Climate) and Dr Douglass (scroll down a long way to get to it) -”
Thank you. I’ve already seen it however.
“As I’ve suggested, I tend to rely on the scientific process of review to bed down what is worthwhile or not, and that’s a process which takes some time.”
That’s certainly not the impression you’ve left here, in my humble opinion.
Jack Simmons,
My current view is that, for both UAH and RSS, it’s still rather early days in firming up the methodology. I’m always puzzled by the seemingly popular notion that the satellite record is somehow ‘gold standard’ in terms of telling us what’s really going on. It seems to me that the process of generating temperature anomalies from satellite data is hugely more inventive and potentially questionable than the surface-based records (which are obviously subject to error themselves, as is recognised). The divergences between UAH and RSS (although they’re reducing recently) should be enough to tell us that methodological matters are an issue.
I think the smart thing is to look at all the records, and consider the extent to which they provide confirmation. Also, to recognise that they each have systemic biases. GISS extrapolates polar regions from nearest data points, Hadley averages such regions, satellite data is a ‘fudge’ for lower troposphere temperatures (which will respond more to ENSO oscillation anyway) and doesn’t cover most of Antarctica, the N pole extreme or the Himalayas and part of the Andes, for example, and so on.
The UAH 2005 adjustment resulted in (from memory) a c.40% increase in the positive trend.
My own view is that we’re fussing around with questions of accuracy, but that the record of trend is clear. I don’t want to see draconian economic measures either, but then I don’t want to see draconian punishment for neglect of what we should be able to figure out. There’s been a prevailing scientific view that we’re facing anthropogenic warning since the 1970s at least (Jason project, Charney Review). Frankly, what are we doing here now, arguing about the accuracy of possibly unsatisfactory observations? We should already, at least, have been getting that sorted out! It would have been relatively cheap!
But whatever the fractional uncertainties may be in our temperature records, there is copious observational evidence of the world warming. Every farmer in temperate regions knows that the growing season has extended. Every resident of tundra regions knows what is happening to the permafrost. The fixation with global averages masks the reality of the step-changes in northern latitude temperatures. So, I’m worried.
Ken G,
That’s certainly not the impression you’ve left here, in my humble opinion.
Well, I’m sorry you think that. Posting on bulletin boards can be a rather intemperate process, I think. I hope you’ll note, though, that I took the trouble to correct my over-assertive statement before. I would say that you posted the link to the Douglass paper without any qualification, as if that were enough in itself, so there is a way in which one attitude provokes another. Nevertheless, I hope we can both agree that the process of scientific debate should be what counts, rather than our own comments.
Every farmer in temperate regions knows that the growing season has extended.
Yeah, well, not so much lately. 10 years ago we were growing 110-112 day corn. Today? Yep, still the same. It’s been a very cold, wet growing season here this year.
The trend may or may not be certain. There’s a saying in grain trading “the trend is your friend.” The danger is when the trends change.
I heard an epidemiologist today on the radio. He was talking about cancer and DDT and all sorts of things. His statement was that there are all sorts of things that correlate, but that doesn’t prove causation. Very apt to the discussion of CO2 and GW here, I do beleive. How does a gas at .00035% of the atmosphere overcome watervapor that comprises 1-4% of the atmosphere and can swing whole percentage points in the course of a day?
Ken G,
I’ve just seen your previous post, which I missed before my last post.
Excuse me, but don’t lecture me on ‘published support’, not on this blog, nor in reference to Climate Audit! You ask me if the word ‘hypocrite’ has meaning? Pah!
I actually already gave you part of my own observations of the paper. You may note that my comment was not parroted from Real Climate, so frankly what cause do you have to be insulting? I have already said that I thought Gavin Schmidt showed less dignity than Dr Douglass in their exchange, so frankly how do you suggest that I am simply supporting ‘Gavin’?
I see that your approach is to attempt denigration of those with whom you disagree. Given that, I have absolutely no interest in discussing with you further my reservations concerning the Douglass paper.
Steven Talbot, Ken G, please take it down a notch and be civil please~charles the moderator.
No…I don’t care who started it.
Steven Talbot:
” Every farmer in temperate regions knows that the growing season has extended. Every resident of tundra regions knows what is happening to the permafrost. The fixation with global averages masks the reality of the step-changes in northern latitude temperatures. So, I’m worried.”
Worry all you want Steve won’t change the weather, Glad to hear you have talked to every farmer and resident of tundra regions. We call them eskimos
Here in Cananda. Funny some of the farmers that have been posting here
say this season is showing a tread to being shorter. Heard lot’s of talk like that lately. Sure they’re just a bunch of raving lunaitics. What would American farmers know about weather.
Steven Talbot:
I am sure Steve you have details of your chat with all these farmers and residents of the tundra. I’d like to see the computer model of that please,
peer reviewed of course.
“Excuse me, but don’t lecture me on ‘published support’, not on this blog, nor in reference to Climate Audit! You ask me if the word ‘hypocrite’ has meaning? Pah!”
You obviously missed something.
Anyway, my apologies to everyone else for the derailing, but it just irks me to no end to watch someone come here and lecture people about bias and standards for both sides while he also bashes other people’s work with inisinuation and double standards.
everyone please lighten up~charles the moderator
Steven Talbot:
So we have a previously resolved argument over the accuracy of satellite measurements — which are acknowledged to be the most accurate temp measurements of the entire planet. Why??
Answer: to obfuscate the situation. Because by admitting that satellite measurements are accurate, the entire AGW/planetary disaster hypothesis crashes in flames.
So the endless argument continues, as the neo-Luddites fan the flames of the AGW/CO2/climate disaster hypothesis in the only way they can: by changing the subject. When AGW purveyors are cornered, they always attempt a red-herring or similar argument, in order to take the spotlight off the central fact: the planet is cooling, not warming.