From The Senate EPW Jim Inhofe Press Office, well worth your time to watch.
Dr. John Christy, Alabama’s State Climatologist, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing on global warming and stated:
“During the heat wave of late June and early July, high temperature extremes became newsworthy. Claims that there were thousands of records broken each day and that “this is what global warming looks like” got a lot of attention.
However, these headlines were not based on climate science. As shown in Figure 1.3 of my testimony it is scientifically more accurate to say that this is what Mother Nature looks like, since events even worse than these have happened in the past before greenhouse gases were increasing like they are today.
Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.
A climatologist looking at this heat wave would not be alarmed because the number of daily high temperature records set in the most recent decade was only about half the number set in the 1930s as shown in my written testimony. I suppose most people have forgotten that Oklahoma set a new record low temperature just last year of 31 below. And in the past two years, towns from Alaska to my home state of California established records for snowfall. The recent anomalous weather can’t be blamed on carbon dioxide.
See also his written testimony here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Robbie says: August 2, 2012 at 10:22 am
“I hope Dr. Christy is right about CO2 having caused no global warming. I really hope he is right.”
___________
I’m pretty sure John Christy is essentially correct, Robbie, but I wish he was wrong.
We are heading into another continental “Ice Age” – anytime in the next few thousand years.
Watch out when a 2km thick continental glacier comes knocking at your door.
There goes the neighbourhood!
And another thing: http://gcaptain.com/arctic-thickest-decade-shell/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29
Joel Shore,
You claim:
“Let’s take the “upside down proxies” example. In fact, the Tiljander proxies were not “upside down”…Their orientation was automatically determined by the algorithm based on its correlation with the temperature. ”
This is quite incorrect. The paper is unambiguous on this point in discussing screening: “Where the sign of the correlation could a priori be specified (positive for tree-ring data, ice-core oxygen isotopes, lake sediments, and historical documents, and negative for coral oxygen-isotope records), a one-sided significance criterion was used.”
You know what “a priori” means, right? The Tiljander proxies should never have passed screening and the only reason they did is because (1) they were contaminated in the screening period and (2) they were used upside down. Yes, upside down.
Joel, until you and your fellow warmists accept the simple fact that Mann made a mistake, you will have very little credibility among skeptics. Skeptics are going your use your unwillingness to acknowledge this rather basic error as a cudgel to beat you for years to come.
fedden,
You are absolutely correct about the upside-down Tiljander proxy. But you are too kind in allowing that Mann ‘made a mistake’. Dr Tiljander had informed Mann before he published that she discovered that her sediment proxy was corrupted. But MANN USED IT ANYWAY because it gave him the hockey stick shape he wanted.
Mann did not make a ‘mistake’. He deliberatly engaged in scientific misconduct.
Robbie-“I hope Dr. Christy is right about CO2 having caused no global warming. I really hope he is right.”
I’d believe your sincerity more if it didn’t require you to put words in people’s mouths and totally misrepresent the position of an esteemed scientist. When, in his testimony did Dr Christy say that CO2 hadn’t caused any warming globally? Nowhere. Not ONCE did he say anything remotely resembling that.
I hope you get your hearing checked. I really do.
From around minute 134 in the EPW video of the hearing, is an exchange between Sen. Boxer in a Sheila Jackson Lee moment. Dr. Christy had used the word ‘bias’ in his statement regarding the temperature station readings and results. Sen. Boxer wanted to know “who is guilty of this bias”, which ridiculous question threw Christy off. Dumbest question ever.
Boxer outdid herself, exposing not only her impenetrable ignorance, but her stellar stupidity, as well. She could be described as intelligent only relative to those who voted for her.
Andrew says: August 2, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Thanks for the correction. You are correct. He didn’t say that. Dr. Christy admits global warming by CO2 and not what I have written.
I misinterpreted the title of the blog with CO2 and global warming.
It takes a strange logic to claim, (as does Joel Shore,) that plagiarism, (actually poor citation,) invalidates a papers results.
Using that logic, if I were to plagiarise the entire MBH98/99 papers, my result would be invalid, therefore, the plagiarised papers would logically also be invalid. Do you get that Joel?
DaveE.
Scott B says:
August 2, 2012 at 8:40 am
Inferences about warming based on reports of high temperatures are thoroughly worthless. This is easy to prove in practice. Go to Wunderground and look at the list of temperature stations for your neighborhood. There are at least 15, right. There in your own neighborhood are fifteen possible high temperatures for each day of the year, century, whatever. Suppose each of those 15 thermometers in turn registers a high temperature for that thermometer. You have 15 consecutive days of high temperature. Yet it tells you nothing about the (average or overall) temperature for your neighborhood. That is because the other 14 thermometers can be a degree or two lower than the one “high” thermometer on its day. The information is simply worthless.
William McClenney says:
August 1, 2012 at 10:27 pm
“Intentionally repeating myself, “warmists and skeptics thus find themselves on the mutual, chaotic climate ground where the efficacy of CO2 as a GHG had better be right.”
The “Precautionary Principle” is rather absolute on this point.”
The Precautionary Priniciple is a version of Pascal’s Wager. When is Lisa Jackson going to take up Pascal’s Wager and require all of us to attend church on Sunday mornings?
You might be rather young. The Precautionary Principle was analyzed fully and put to death on WUWT several years ago. You will not find people here who are interested in it.
Stephen Richards says:
August 2, 2012 at 7:19 am
“I am thoroughly disappointed with Mosher. Since he tagged with Lucia and Zeke he has completely lost the plot. He makes cryptic comments sans valeur. Criticisms without a critique. A few years back he took a break from blogging and I suspect fell in with a bad crowd. Sad really sad.”
You might not have noticed but for several years Mosher has gone bananas whenever he discovers that someone he respects, such as Anthony Watts, is arguing from observable data to the conclusion that some statistical trend work is incorrect. In a contest between observable data and statistical analysis, Mosher will argue that the data are wrong or, more insidiously, that they are irrelevant.
Anthony, thank you for that detailed response as it is exactly what I have come to trust regarding your work. I find it disappointing that his involvement with BEST has made him behave like this. He is also attempting to work McIntyre over to try and get at you.
I completely support releasing the data AFTER the paper is published. You are under no obligation to do so before.
Lately Mosher has also been arguing from strawmen relating to nonsense about skeptics not supporting that it has warmed since the LIA. I suspect he believed the BEST results would convert more people to his position and not receive the backlash that it did.
Allan MacRae says: August 2, 2012 at 8:10 am
I don’t have time to back-up all my statements, but here is a critical point regarding North agreeing with Wegman:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/18/the-question-put-to-dr-mann-at-disneyland-today/#comment-989861
Here is direct evidence of the facts: Both the Wegman and North Committees condemned the Mann et al methodology.
_________
P.S. to Joel:
The four most beautiful words in our common language: “I told you so.”
– Gore Vidal, October 3, 1925 – July 31, 2012
I’m ashamed I’m from California where that disgusting woman, Barbara Boxer was elected. I simply do not understand how she won the California Senate election.
Barbara Boxer slams Christy for an “error” in Satellite temperature data that was within the margin of error, but says nothing about how far off the predictions are from the reality.
Barbara Boxer is a liberal. Aren’t liberals supposed to be concerned about poverty? As Christy said “I’ve lived in Africa, and I can attest that without energy, life is brutal and short.” I suppose not. Only when it has a vote attached to it.
Gail Combs says:
August 2, 2012 at 7:37 am
Gail (and Theo Godwin August 2, 2012 at 2:52 pm), I was having some fun with the PP.
As regards Gail’s point 2, I submit:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/30/the-antithesis/ and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
As regards Gail’s point 4:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-%E2%80%9Ctrap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/
Theo did indeed guess correctly though, I am indeed quite young. I turn 58 next month, having only spent the last quarter century plus either risking-away inconsequentially contaminated sites or more frequently designing/building and running from my iPhone, these days, some of the most sophisticated toxic cocktail remediation systems you may never have imagined.
To me it’s all good, clean fun.
As it turns out the humor I was intending to purvey missed its mark with some. If, strictly for the purposes of discussion, one accedes that CO2 actually is the heathen devil gas it is made out to be, the only, repeat, ONLY intelligent reason for reducing its concentration in the late Holocene atmosphere would be to assist a normal, natural descent into the next glacial. I propose that this would not be a bad thing. Removing said heathen devil gas from the late Holocene atmosphere might be the physical equivalent of adding some much needed chlorine to the hominid gene pool………if you take my meaning.
Leaving or increasing plant food’s atmospheric concentration could be the functional equivalent of supporting the propagation of Mannly McKibben’s. Are you really sure that would be the preferred outcome? Plant food for thought, you might say……….
Meanwhile, enjoy the end extreme interglacial, while it lasts.
A mountain of BS that has been spread here and elsewhere about the North and Wegman reports on the Mann hokey schtick.
Here are some facts – my apologies for the long post.
North and Wegman agreed in their conclusions – that is proved above.
The original Wegman Report is online at
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf
The Wegman Report (excerpts)
The debate over Dr. Mann’s principal components methodology has been going on for nearly three years. When we got involved, there was no evidence that a single issue was resolved or even nearing resolution. Dr. Mann’s RealClimate.org website said that all of the Mr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick claims had been ‘discredited’. UCAR had issued a news release saying that all their claims were ‘unfounded’. Mr. McIntyre replied on the ClimateAudit.org website. The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyre’s claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. North’s NRC panel have done.
While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.
“Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the ‘centering’ issue off the table. [Mann’s] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. 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.
The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.
It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.
We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.
Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper’s visibility… The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics’ prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of [principal components analysis] puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.
We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick
Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99… Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.
Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann’s work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.”
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.”
‘Treeman says:
August 1, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Australia needs a John Christy to counter alarmist shrill on this side of the Pacific.’
You have one, Treeman.
He’s called Professor Robert Carter.
Christy didn’t stonewall access to his data, put some data in a “censored” file, misrepresent his exchanges with Mc (e.g., that Mc had asked for data in spreadsheet form), accuse his critics of bad faith, etc.
Mr MacRae Here is direct evidence of the facts: Both the Wegman and North Committees condemned the Mann et al methodology.
Hardly. In his testimony, Gerald North agreed that there were less than ideal choices made in some respects, in particular PCA, that is where he agreed with Wegman, but unlike Wegman he was clear that these did not have a material effect on the outcome…
North As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type
of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of
the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in
Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended,
does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of
hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without
using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar
to the original curves presented by Mann et al. […] none of the
statistical criticisms that have been raised by various authors
unduly influence the shape of the final reconstruction. This is
attested to by the fact that reconstructions performed without
using principal components yield similar results.
And, consistent with what Joel has written, North was ‘not impressed’ with many aspects of Wegman:-
At the hearing you were asked if you disputed the conclusions
or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report, and you stated that
you did not. Were you referring solely to Dr. Wegman’s criticism
of the statistical approach of Dr. Mann, or were you also
referring to Dr. Wegman’s social network analysis and conclusions?
North: Dr. Wegman’s criticisms of the statistical methodology in the
papers by Mann et al were consistent with our findings. Our
committee did not consider any social network analyses and we
did not have access to Dr. Wegman’s report during our
deliberations so we did not have an opportunity to discuss his
conclusions. Personally, I was not impressed by the social
network analysis in the Wegman report, nor did I agree with most
of the report’s conclusions on this subject […] I was
also somewhat taken aback by the tone of the
Wegman Report, which seems overly accusatory towards Dr. Mann
and his colleagues, rather than being a neutral, impartial
assessment of the techniques used in his research. In my
opinion, while the techniques used in the original Mann et al
papers may have been slightly flawed, the work was the first
of its kind and deserves considerable credit for moving the
field of paleoclimate research forward. It is also important
to note that the main conclusions of the Mann et al studies
have been supported by subsequent research.
When Senator Joe Barton made the same claim as Mr MacRae in a letter to the Washington Post, North’s response was unequivocal:-
While we did find some of the methods used in Michael E. Mann’s original papers to be less cautious than some of our members might have used, we have not found any evidence that his results were incorrect or even out of line with other works published since his original papers.
Not exactly a ‘condemnation’,
Sources:-
http://init.planet3.org/2010/10/gerry-north-complaint-re-rep-barton.html
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm
Phil Clarke,
Are you prepared to step in and defend Mann’s use of upside down Tiljander? Joel Shore has now gone remarkably radio silent after his misunderstanding was pointed out. It amazes me that not a single warmist will admit the most basic of errors when committed by their champions. And then warmists wonder why their credibility is challenged by skeptics. It seems to me that skeptics are far better at acknowledging genuine errors and correcting them. On the flip side, it is extremely rare to hear any warmist acknowledge any shortcomings in, say, short-centered PCA, biased screening, BCPs or, of course, upside down Tiljander.
Phil Clarke says blah blah blah. : August 3, 2012 at 3:37 am
I already covered this point elsewhere Phil, at comment-1050435, excerpted below.
Dr. North, in my opinion, veered widely off his task to say that even though Mann’s methodology was incorrect, that did not mean that Mann’s results were incorrect. North was an inappropriate choice for the task, imo, because he was clearly supportive of Mann’s conclusion (even though Mann was demonstrably false).
Wegman responded directly to North’s nonsense by saying:
“[Mann’s] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. 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.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/01/pielke-jr-demolishes-ipcc-lead-author-senat-epw-testimony/#comment-1050435
(excerpt)
The good Dr. North was rather mealy-mouthed in his public comments about the validity of Mann’s hokey stick, UNTIL he was placed under oath.
UNDER OATH, Dr. North stated that his committee’s conclusions agreed with those of the Wegman Committee.
Quelle surprise!
“Nothing focuses the mind like being shot at dawn.”
_______________
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
______________
more from the same session (full text above) …
MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
Here in France it’s really cold, and our local alarmist really quiet a real benediction ! I love cold summers…
On the flip side, it is extremely rare to hear any warmist acknowledge any shortcomings in, say, short-centered PCA, biased screening, BCPs or, of course, upside down Tiljander
Au contraire, North agrees that short-centred PCA was not an optimal choice, but as has been shown many times over, using ‘correct’ PCA or even no PCA gives you a Hockey stick. As for a ‘warmist’ admitting the shortcomings, here is Dr Mann himself from the same hearing…
If the question this committee seeks to answer is whether knowing
what I know today, a decade after starting the original
study, my colleagues and I would conduct it in exactly the
same way, the answer is plainly no. The field of
paleoclimate reconstruction has evolved tremendously over
the past decade.
Important new proxy data have been developed.
Reconstructions have been compared with independent
estimates from climate model simulations and confirmed by
those simulations. Statistical methods for reconstructing
climate from proxy data have been refined and rigorously
tested, and I have been actively working in each of these
areas. This is important because all the focus of criticism
on our work in the late 1990s has been on the statistical
conventions we used. My co-authors and I have not used those
conventions in our later work
And indeed there is no PCA step in Mann et al 2008, which fits within the error bars of MBH99. As for Tiljander, the choice was to use it in the orientation that the algorithm determined, or leave it out, potentially discarding useful proxy data. Mann himself was aware of the probelms with the sediments as he wrote in SI for the paper …
the original authors note that human effects over the past few centuries
unrelated to climate might impact records (the original paper
states ‘‘Natural variability in the sediment record was disrupted
by increased human impact in the catchment area at A.D. 1720.’’
and later, ‘‘In the case of Lake Korttajarvi it is a demanding task
to calibrate the physical varve data we have collected against
meteorological data, because human impacts have distorted the
natural signal to varying extents’’) […] We therefore performed
additional analyses as in Fig. S7, but instead compared the reconstructions
both with and without the above seven potentially problematic series, as shown in Fig. S8.
As for strip-bark Bristlecones, it is commonly stated that the NAS panel recommended they should be avoided, this is a half-truth, again we can go back to what North’s actual testimony
Hence, in context, what the clause “strip-bark samples should be avoided
for temperature reconstructions” was intended to convey is that
strip-bark samples from the mid-19th century to the present are
very difficult to calibrate against instrumental records of
temperature, and the easiest solution is therefore not to use
them. However, strip-bark data are considered suspect only after
the modern increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
In other words, conclusions from more than 150 years ago using strip-bark samples are unaffected.
What is actually rare is to hear any ‘sceptic’ put these issues and uncertainties, the like of which occur in every branch of the natural sciences in context and discover if in fact they have a material affect on central conclusions. For Tiljander, PCA and strip-barks, the answer has been known for some time. It is ‘No’.
Smokey says:
Simply untrue. Because of potential problems identified with the four Tiljander proxies and 3 other proxies, Mann et al showed in their Supplementary Materials how the reconstruction was changed if they were left out: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/09/02/0805721105.DCSupplemental/0805721105SI.pdf (See Fig. S8), which is not very much.
So, in other words, Mann et al did what any good scientist would due when faced with some data that are potentially compromised: He showed what happened both if the data were included and if it were left out.
Hi Joeldshore, I’m French so be lenient with my English. I used to analyze big data for banks using PCA and other similar statistical tools. From this experience, I think we find in data what we are looking for, the light do not magically flows from the data enlightening us with new information. It can happen we learn new things obviously but we look at data with our own prejudice and the willingness to find something or to consolidate claims we make.
What happens with climate data is nothing else but the real sin is to pretend to find something which is not in the data or to twist them in such a way we can make them telling what we want. This was Mann’s and Jones’ sin, but a bigger sin was to see scientists backing them up despite many signs showing that their graph was wrong. In particular, erasing almost completely the medieval optimum and the little ice age which were historically attested was astonishing.
Seeing Mann playing the role of the persecuted scientist by the force of the dark side would be hilarious if we were not almost every day shelled by the alarmist doxa in all the media, it is at least the case here in Europe. People do not want to be treated of deniers, of criminals, just because they do not believe what a group of politicians and scientists say : ti is however what happens every day. These methods are communist ones, politic commissars are on Michael Mann and Phil Jones side, not the contrary.
So trying to present things as a matter of spreadsheets and methodological errors not changing the overall picture is strange from my point of view. The all things is much more a Gramscist enterprise to take control of the society by controlling the cultural sphere than a debate between scientists.