From the Telegraph:
The ‘hockey stick’ that became emblematic of the threat posed by climate change exaggerated the rise in temperature because it was created using ‘inappropriate’ methods, according to the head of the Royal Statistical Society.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Professor David Hand said that the research – led by US scientist Michael Mann – would have shown less dramatic results if more reliable techniques had been used to analyse the data.
Prof Hand was among a group of experts charged with investigating the “climategate” email scandal that engulfed the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) last year.
Sceptics claimed that the hacked messages showed scientists were manipulating data to support a theory of man-made global warming.
However the review, led by Lord Oxburgh into the research carried out by the centre, found no evidence of ”deliberate scientific malpractice”.
Lord Oxburgh said the scientists at the research unit arrived at their conclusions ”honestly and sensibly”.
But the reviewers found that the scientists could have used better statistical methods in analysing some of their data, although it was unlikely to have made much difference to their results.
That was not the case with some previous climate change reports, where “inappropriate methods” had exaggerated the global warming phenomenon.
Prof Hand singled out a 1998 paper by Prof Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a constant target for climate change sceptics, as an example of this.
He said the graph, that showed global temperature records going back 1,000 years, was exaggerated – although any reproduction using improved techniques is likely to also show a sharp rise in global warming. He agreed the graph would be more like a field hockey stick than the ice hockey blade it was originally compared to.
“The particular technique they used exaggerated the size of the blade at the end of the hockey stick. Had they used an appropriate technique the size of the blade of the hockey stick would have been smaller,” he said. “The change in temperature is not as great over the 20th century compared to the past as suggested by the Mann paper.”
…
Prof Hand praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results.
======================
Complete article here
Now that we know that the sun only affects Europe, we can understand why the MWP only warmed Europe – while the climate of the planet as a whole was completely stable.
It is clear to all of our top scientists now that minivans and SUVs affect the climate more than the sun – except in Europe where the sun has a much stronger effect.
“Hide the Decilne”-Move along, nothing to see.
Better than I expected, however..
It is remarkable that the focus is still on the size of the temperature rise in the 20th century. The “illusion” of the hockey stick is that the climate was stable prior to recent times. If the warm periods had not been mathematically removed, it would have been necessary to explain the climate varibility1000 and 2200 years ago before you could lay the blame solely on greenhouse gases.
What is the source of the graph in the article?
There is no attribution.
-Jay
“The change in temperature is not as great over the 20th century compared to the past as suggested by the Mann paper.”
Ignoring the question of the validity of the instrumental reconstruction, how could its alleged rise over the 20th century have been not as great as it was? Hand apparently thinks Mann’s wild tree rings are the thermometers.
Indeed, a series of factor analyses against factors that all look like hockey sticks will make anything look like a hockey stick.
“Mainstream” affirmative acknowledgment finally beginning for Steve Mc? And what to do with “the Mann”? Is PSU going to get an earful?
So Lord Oxburgh is basically saying to us, “talk to the Hand”.
Has McIntyre shown that the statistical methods did indeed produce different results, rather than could have produced misleading results.
In other words, any evidence that the hockey stick graph is wrong?
Anyway MBH98 is obsolete anyway, and maybe it is time to stop argueing that it is faulty or misleading, as there is better data in more recent publications.
I saw this on the Financial Times, but it was behind a paywall %&*#.
I’m posting it right now.
Steve McIntyre demonstrated early on that all valid methods of combining the MBH98 proxies produced a time series with no particular trend and showing considerable noise. Prof. Hand is plainly wrong in his claim that with correct statistical methods the MBH98 or MBH99 proxy series would produce a “field hockey” stick.
To summarize:
“We Brits are blameless, we were led astray by that incompetent American!”
@ur momisugly paullm (09:03:49) : “Mainstream” affirmative acknowledgment finally beginning for Steve Mc? And what to do with “the Mann”? Is PSU going to get an earful?
Steve should get a medal, but nothing will happen to Mann. Penn State’s alumni have already given them an earful and are threatening to withhold donations (and students on campus are still collecting petitions), and look how THAT turned out.
“Prof Hand praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results.”…………I’d be more apt to believe the inappropriate methodology was unintentional if they’d hadn’t been told it was inappropriate YEARS ago. Where’s the corrections? Where’s the update to the studies? They applied “inappropriate” methods to a study. That’s fine, correct the errors when your informed. They didn’t. In fact, continued to tout same methodologies as proof of our impending doom unless we acquiesce our energy consumption choices to an alarmist near you.
They can candy coat in whatever manner they wish, the can offer left-handed congrats to Steve all they want, it doesn’t change the time line of when the CRU knew they were in error and their body of work since. Further, I’ve still yet to see a retraction or correction to any of the studies in which they applied the wrong methodologies. The people of the inquiry are distorting as much as the hockey-stick graphs are distorting.
dang……not “the can”……”they can”. I wonder why I never catch those things until I submit? lol
“as there is better data in more recent publications.”
Indeed. Regardless of their inherant mistakes and consistant reliance on the same dodgy data to produce the bulk of the trend, the “improvements” have meant the MWP has been making a comeback in recent years! Who would have guessed climate changed so rapidly!
kadaka (09:27:05) :
To summarize:
“We Brits are blameless, we were led astray by that incompetent American!”
lol, Well, you know how we can be…..so Briffa’s hockey stick was just a monkey see, monkey do sort of thing……odd they don’t mention that stuff. What of the other plethora of hockey stick graphs I’ve seen over the years???
Dear Mods,
In kadaka (09:27:05) I meant that to say “they were lead astray” as “they” specifically indicated CRU. I appreciate your diligence in correcting the mistakes of we commentators, and regretfully inform you that in this ONE instance it was not a mistake and did not require correcting.
Sincerely,
kadaka (actually “another” KDK)
[My apologies for being too helpful. ~dbs]
Ermm the west didn’t warm during the MWP. It was not yet discovered.
Truthfully, our satellite data also shows no mid devil warming either.
My keeborad is has spelling issues after some volcanic dust settled in it.
” bob (09:13:00) :
[…]
In other words, any evidence that the hockey stick graph is wrong?”
Welcome to the 21. century! No, we don’t have flying cars yet.
The real problem with this is the hockey stick chart combines the instrumental record with tree-ring proxy data. The chart has to use only one or the other, not both.
I would be more convinced if the tree-ring (and/or other proxy data) showed the blade of the hockey stick. Until I see that, I am going to have to call that chart and others like it BS and a fraud.
**************
Pat Frank (09:22:44) :
Steve McIntyre demonstrated early on that all valid methods of combining the MBH98 proxies produced a time series with no particular trend and showing considerable noise. Prof. Hand is plainly wrong in his claim that with correct statistical methods the MBH98 or MBH99 proxy series would produce a “field hockey” stick.
*******************
Hmmmm … would this be sleight of Hand?
“It wasn’t us, it was the Americans”?
Corrected Mann Hokey Stick chart: click
“The answer is still right, even though the method is incorrect.”
Bull. $#!t.