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.
This has been like watching the badminton competition on the Olympic Games channel!
If you are a skeptic: Trust bats. They know that food will be in short supply due to cold temperatures. And they have no funding! Trust your fanny. If its freezing, its getting colder. And I don’t believe anyone has given you a grant for fanny modeling. You could also trust the fact that warm weather crops are freezing out around the globe, from grapes in Oregon to Aussie lettuce.
If you are a AGW fan, you have no course but to trust the models.
Yes, the cold snap could be just noise. But then the models don’t deal in noise.
Anthony, you are gonna luv this:
Right off of NOAA National Weather Service Heat Warning for the Willamette Valley:
IN ADDITION TO THE HOT AFTERNOONS…LITTLE RELIEF IS EXPECTED
TONIGHT AND FRIDAY NIGHT. THIS WILL ESPECIALLY BE THE CASE IN DOWNTOWN
URBAN AREAS…WHERE TEMPERATURES WILL NOT LIKELY FALL MUCH BELOW
70 DEGREES OVERNIGHT. OUTLYING RURAL AREAS WILL BE A BIT COOLER
OVERNIGHT…BUT MOST LOCATIONS ARE FORECAST TO HAVE LOW
TEMPERATURES IN THE 60S TONIGHT.
Very interesting. The urban bias is beginning to be part of the official record. Urban areas bias temperature readings.
REPLY: Yes, that’s fairly common in NWS narrative these days. NWS accepts UHI as a fact of forecasting temperatures. They see the data daily, they know the drill.
Yet we have people like Parker and Peterson that write papers trying to convince us that UHI doesn’t exist. Parker’s 2004 paper on UHI, which claims a lack of prescence, it taken hook line and sinker without question by Realclimate. In my opinion it is one of the worst perversions of science I’ve ever seen and an insult to the intelligence and common sense of most people. – Anthony
Pamela Gray: Look I hope we are wrong in a way, a cooling world will do no good for any of us. But the input that this site generates is all great. I like the
feel of the tread on Maine real peoples input. You want data you got it! real data not garbage computer sims. Thanks to Anthony for hosting this site!
Average people can have a say and we can swing the tide.
Well, there is no lack of passion on this subject. Talbot, you often demonstrate self-control and valid research in your statements. However, I will challenge you on your characterization of the UAH evolution. I was in the “pro-AGW camp” back in those days, and I remember Christy being quite gentle in his comments and his emphasis on the slightness of any trend that he is seeing. It was because of UAH’s openess of its methodology and the availability of raw data that enabled RSS to develop the correction for orbital decay. Christy graciously accepted the insight and incorporated corrections into his model. Subsequently, (years later) UAH noted that RSS was understating temperatures and helped them figure out what was wrong with their algorithm.
Although I have greater faith in satellite temperatures as opposed to surface temperatures, I am aware of potential problems and issues in the former, and I hesitate to quible about .1 degree centigrade with all those issues. Nevertheless, it is mind-boggling to consider the precisenss that the space program has achieved on many fronts.
Claims here by some of the posters that the Stick has *not* been debunked are astounding. The stick removes the MWP and the LIA to form the handle. The blade is meaningless without the handle. The entire graph rests on the premise that all has been in a steady state until man started driving SUV’s. This is how the entire AGW argument was sold — it’s what put the A in it!!
All it takes to debunk that silly stick is one paper showing that the LIA or MWP existed. These exist. The handle is not straight, hence the Stick is debunked.
Is there like some sort of special school of English usage for alarmists where they take classes in mendaciousness and obfuscation? Is it possible to assert that the Stick is uncontested given that the entire graphic import and meaning is based on the straight handle? Ye flipping gods.
randomengineer (00:15:33)
All it takes to debunk that silly stick is one paper showing that the LIA or MWP existed. These exist. The handle is not straight, hence the Stick is debunked.
But, could it get “published”?
You know that old saying. It’s not what you know, it’s who you…….
Mann, Amman , and Wahl are just puppets, someone or some group wanted that paper published so it could be used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
It just goes to show that “peer” review, IPCC management and others involved with the AGW movement are just as corrupted as ERON or any dictatorship.
Steven Talbot (18:43:25) :
Agree on using all the data sets available, which appear to be matching very closely in general trends.
Also agree there was a definite warming from 1970 to 1998.
Now I believe we have seen a definite plateau since 1998. Furthermore, we have seen a slight cooling since 2002.
There has been a big drop since 2007. However, one year a trend does not make.
So my advice, not that anyone cares, is to wait another five years before doing anything other than those projects that make economic or health sense on their own merits.
You want to build a windmill? Do it, but pay for it yourself.
Dittoes for ethanol alcohol; solar cars, electric cars, and all other alternatives to fossil fuels.
Also, let the market decide. You’ll get a lot more done if you have people make their own decisions rather than imposing rules from above.
If something makes sense economically for people, they’ll do it.
And I would like everyone to tone down the hysteria. No one really knows the truth about any of things going on in the world.
Regards
Sigh. My statement about the extension of the growing season in temperate regions was concerning long-term trend rather than comparing this year with the last. Evidently, saying “every farmer knows” was a sloppy way of expressing myself (I guess I was tired). I apologise to any farmers who have not been benefiting from an extended season over recent decades, and I recognise that the weather this year has been poor in many areas. Ok?
Ken G,
I think you have misunderstood me. I don’t have any problem at all with people criticising a scientific paper. For example, I think M&M’s criticisms of MBH98/99 were valuable and have helped to move the science on.
Smokey,
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.
The measurements (which are not direct measurements of temperature) may indeed be accurate, but it seems self-evident to me that the translation of these observations into indicative temperature anomalies is subject to systemic bias or error, since RSS and UAH produce differing figures. This is something that both RSS and UAH recognise themselves.
I think you also misunderstand me: I am not rejecting satellite measurements (and GISS uses satellite measurements for its SSTs anyway). I am simply saying that all temperature records are interpretations of data, and we should be aware of the qualities of each.
An Inquirer,
For sure, I don’t have anything against Spencer & Christy’s work at UAH. I was really wishing to point out that it’s well to remember mistakes (or systemic error, for that matter) can happen on both ‘sides’, and I don’t personally think it’s reasonable to leap to the conclusion that human bias is involved. I’ve probably over-stressed the point about the UAH error, but that’s the outcome of an occasionally confrontational debate, I think! I also have faith in the satellite measurements, though they’re not quite measuring the same thing, of course.
randomengineer & old construction worker,
I think the MBH99 graph does show an MWP and a LIA, though less emphatically than in some other reconstructions. I think there was an MWP and a LIA (and the IPCC thinks so too). Personally, I don’t think palaeo reconstructions are certain enough to give us confidence in discussing comparisons to fractions of a degree.
Loehle 2007 presents a reconstruction which shows an emphatic MWP & LIA, so such a paper has already been published –
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Can’t increased growing seasons be due to increased CO2 alone even if temperatures are not up?
This seems to coincide with reports of a 6% increase of CO2 and a 6% increase of plant biomass (esp. in the tropics where temperature increases have been the smallest).
Pamela,
Yes it is a bit like watching the Olympics, with China assuring us the age of the competitors is at least 16, and that their judging is fair.
Sigh. My statement about the extension of the growing season in temperate regions was concerning long-term trend rather than comparing this year with the last. Evidently, saying “every farmer knows” was a sloppy way of expressing myself (I guess I was tired). I apologise to any farmers who have not been benefiting from an extended season over recent decades, and I recognise that the weather this year has been poor in many areas. Ok?
Steve, my family has been at this a looonnngggg time(like 4 generations now). O.K. There is a very long oral history. What is going on now is neither extreme or unprecedented. Things change. You adapt. The growers in the Canadian prairies would love to be able to count on a few extra days of growing season. The growers in the south might be able to double crop in some places where they can’t quite do it now. In the North, temperature is very important. In the south, Moisture tends to be the most important factor. We can pretty easily manage around a small temperature increase by altering planting dates, varities, crops etc. We can’t easily manage around freezing, or a growing season too short to be productive. Go to the USDA website and look up average corn, soybean, and wheat yeilds for the U.S. You can do the same for Canada. It pretty much looks like the CO2 curve.
Loehle 2007 presents a reconstruction which shows an emphatic MWP & LIA, so such a paper has already been published –
Once again, Loehle shows that what is going on climatically is neither extreme or unprecedented.
I don’t think palaeo reconstructions are certain enough to give us confidence in discussing comparisons to fractions of a degree.
I would tend to agree.
Tell us again why you believe in AGW?
Steve Talbot: I don’t agree that we can in any way rely on adjusted surface measurement.
We all know how severely the surface stations have been affected over the last 30, 50, 100 years. We all know how “urbanized” (including sub-, ex-) the stations have become.
Yet the NOAA USHCN1 adjustment for Station History (SHAP) is POSITIVE. And apparently USHCN2 adjustment is 40% MORE positive than USHCN1–but they don’t publish the same damning graph for v.2 that they do for v.1.
FILNET, which is supposed to be a neutral adjustment “average” also seems to wind up quite positive.
So why would we pay even the slightest attention to the adjusted surface data? (Other than to point out that no reasonable person would pay it the slightest attention?)
I’ll go with the satellite data (for whatever it’s worth), thanks, all the same.
Can’t increased growing seasons be due to increased CO2 alone even if temperatures are not up?
This seems to coincide with reports of a 6% increase of CO2 and a 6% increase of plant biomass (esp. in the tropics where temperature increases have been the smallest).
I think instead of increased growing season you mean increased yield?
Steven Talbot, I’m surprised that you dont seem to understand why people prefer the satellite data. Here are two obvious reasons to start with:
1. There is no question of UHI, UHI adjustments, station move adjustments, TOBS adjustments, stations surrounded by air conditioning units, etc.
2. The method by which the results are obtained is constant in time. By contrast, GISS station numbers are dropping like a stone, so the method used is constantly changing (This is a favorite trick of the global warming exaggerators). Worse still, the stations Hansen keeps tend to be cities and/or airports (often misleadingly referred to by Hansen as ‘rural area’). And as for HADCRU, Jones won’t even give the details of his stations.
Pofarmer,
I respect your direct knowledge of the climate’s effects upon agriculture and, obviously, such knowledge is crucial to adapting to whatever the climate brings us. Perhaps I should clarify my view: it seems that on average projected further warming would be beneficial to agriculture in North America in terms of crop yields, up to mid-century, say. So I am not in dispute with what you have said on that. However, the opposite is projected for some other parts of the world. In general, poorer areas are likely to experience negative effects soonest and most severely (although the projections for Australia, for example, are rather worrying).
As for Loehle’s paper, I really don’t think it’s very useful. Now it seems that Ken G thinks I’m being a hypocrite in saying something like that, but I’m not sure why, since I don’t think MBH98/99 is very useful either. Ah well.
Tell us again why you believe in AGW?
Lol! Well, ‘believe’ is not a word I’d use, but never mind. I’ll try to be brief 😉
1)I’m convinced that GHGs are positive forcings (the matter of climate sensitivity remains for discussion);
2)I’m convinced that CO2 (and others) has been increasing
3) and I’ve yet to see a convincing explanation of 20th century climate change that excludes anthropogenic influences.
That’ll do for now, and will probably attract enough flack already ;-). I’ll change my mind if the evidence for any of those three changes.
Evan Jones,
If we could only have one type of record, I would also keep satellite data. However, I think we can benefit from developing increasingly accurate records of all kinds, particularly with a view to being able to predict regional climate variation in the future (regardless of which way the global temperature goes).
PaulM,
Given that you think so little of the surface-based records, and seem to suggest that they are exaggerated, can you show me the extent of this exaggeration by comparison to both RSS and UAH? It seems to me that the different types of records correlate very well, although the lower troposphere satellite record show greater response (both high and low) to ENSO variations and volcanic activity, as would be expected.
Steven,
I never even mentioned Loehle, you did on your quest for strawmen to burn.
Why I felt you were being hypocritical was clearly laid out, so let’s not make more of it than it was, since as you can see I clearly don’t have the patience for moral relativism.
Ken G,
No, you didn’t mention Loehle, but I criticised another paper and you said that was hypocritical, even though I have made clear (and had before that) that I think the criticisms of MBH98/99 are valid and useful. Therefore, I do not understand your charge, however much you say it has been “clearly laid out”.
You are, of course, entitled to whatever opinion you wish to hold. It’s of little consequence to me if you wish to continue with a personalised attack on this board, beyond the fact that I think it interferes with useful discussion.
If we could only have one type of record, I would also keep satellite data. However, I think we can benefit from developing increasingly accurate records of all kinds, particularly with a view to being able to predict regional climate variation in the future (regardless of which way the global temperature goes).
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.
However, the opposite is projected for some other parts of the world. In general, poorer areas are likely to experience negative effects soonest and most severely (although the projections for Australia, for example, are rather worrying).
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?
1)I’m convinced that GHGs are positive forcings (the matter of climate sensitivity remains for discussion);
2)I’m convinced that CO2 (and others) has been increasing
3) and I’ve yet to see a convincing explanation of 20th century climate change that excludes anthropogenic influences.
1.) I agree. But I think the amount of forcing ( without positive feedback loops) is very, very small.
2.) Agreed.
3.)
a. Reversion to norm after the LIA.
b. Fluctuations since 1977 due to the “big 6” atmospheric/ocean cycles going warm one by one. (Now they are starting to go cool.)
3) and I’ve yet to see a convincing explanation of 20th century climate change that excludes anthropogenic influences.
I wonder if you are really looking.
3) and I’ve yet to see a convincing explanation of 20th century climate change that excludes anthropogenic influences.
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.
Pofarmer,
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!
🙂
wikipedia didn’t like my link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hockey_stick_controversy&action=history
oops looks like I started an edit war.