More Evidence Against The "hockey Stick"

[The PIT]

Science is never 100%. The recent discovery of a 4.4 million year old bipedal hominid fossil Ardipithicus Ramidis has blown paleoanthropology out of the water. There will be more discoveries in the future. Climate science is no different.

The problem is politics has become involved and politics is always 100%. Even when it's 100% wrong.

Add in money needed for grants and the human element plus there's now a growing industry around global warming which means it's got to be there it does at times make things questionable.

Edited October 3, 2009 by The PIT

[masheeuk]

9) Swine flu, ditto especially once the weather turns cooler, viruses prefer cool to heat.

The chief medical officer, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, said that in the worst case scenario 30% of the UK population could be infected by the H1N1 virus, with 65,000 killed.

The best case scenario is that 5% of the population contract the virus, with 3,100 deaths.

current mortality level still in double figures

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.newscient...article/dn11646

Ands Mr Manns collaberative efforts with and without tree ring data

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full

Edited October 3, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[La Bise]

Following advice by climatologists is going to cost trillions to our economies, affect our way of life and quality of life yet creatures as venal and shortermist as politicians are willing to take steps in that direction. The money we stand to lose and the sacrifices we will eventually do make make any "green industry" looks like the corner shop 'round yours vs a mega Tesco. There is no economic case to push a conservation agenda vs a growth at all cost agenda, it is economy at its most basic. Yet business leaders are coming round to the idea of restricted growth. Are they also incompetent liers along with scientists, politicians and, well, anyone who is into the great climate change swindle...?

[Iceberg]

I asked a question wrt the % of data which is in question here, (assuming that Maybe the skeptics have a point, not that I think they do I should add, but I've made my comments on here about this).

Sorry for the length of post, but I think that people perhapes need to see the amount of peer reviewed data which goes into the "Hockey stick" reconstruction. BTW the Hockey stick isn't the work of a single person (not even Mann), but countless reconstructions support the idea that tempertures are higher now than anytime in the last 1000-2000 years. A couple admittedly have temperatures nearly as high during the MWP, but these are local in nature.

Out of interest the Russian tree core samples amount to less than 1% of the data.

I fully admit that one or two poor pieces of science will likely slip through the net, but you really are talking about conspiracies and dishonesty of unbelievable magnitude to discount all or even most of the evidence.

Global Surface Temperature (Geothermal Heat Flow Analysis: Boreholes), 20,000 Years, Huang et al. 2008, Text or Excel.

Global & Hemispheric Temperature, NAO, and SOI (Review), 2000 Years, Jones and Mann 2004.

Global Temperature (PCA: Tree-rings, Ice Cores, Corals, Sediments, Historical), 1000 Years, Jones et al. 1998

Global & Hemispheric Temperature (Review), Multiproxy, 2,000 Years, Ljungqvist 2009.

Global Temperature (PCA: Tree-rings, Ice Cores, Corals) and Spatial Distribution, 600 Years, Mann et al. 2000.

Global & Hemispheric Temperature (CPS & EIV: Tree Rings, Multiproxy), 2,000 Years, Mann et al. 2008.

Global Temperature (PCA: Tree-rings, Ice Cores, Corals, Historical), 600 Years, Mann et al. 1998.

Global Temperature (Glacier Length), 400 Years, Oerlemans 2005

Global Temperature (Geothermal Heat Flow Analysis: Boreholes), 500 Years, Pollack et al. 1998.

Antarctic Temperature, EPICA Dome C, (Isotopes: Ice Core) 800,000 Years, Jouzel et al. 2007.

Antarctic Temperature, Vostok, (Isotopes: Ice Core) 414,000 Years, Petit et al. 1999.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (Tree-ring, Ice Cores, Corals), 1000 Years, Ammann and Wahl 2007.

Northern Hemisphere & Regional Temperature (Age Band Decomp.: Tree-rings), 600 Years, Briffa et al. 2001.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (Regression: Tree-rings), 600 Years, Briffa et al. 1998.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (Tree-rings, Ice Cores, Historical), 1000 Years, Crowley & Lowery 2000.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (RCS and STD: Tree-rings), 1300 Years, D'Arrigo et al. 2006.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (RCS: Tree-rings), 1000 Years, Esper et al. 2002.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (Least Squares: Tree-rings), 1,500 Years, Hegerl et al. 2007, Text or Excel.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (Boreholes, Tree-ring, Ice Cores, Corals), 500 Years, Huang 2004.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (Review), 1000 Years, IPCC Fourth Assessment, Working Group 1, 2007.

Hemispheric Temperature, NAO, and SOI (Review), 1000 Years, Jones et al. 2001.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (PCA: Tree-rings, Ice Cores, Corals), 1000 Years, Mann et al. 1999.

Hemispheric Temperature (Historical, Tree-rings, Ice Cores, Sediment), 2000 Years, Mann and Jones 2003.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (Wavelet: Sediments, Tree-rings), 2000 Years, Moberg et al. 2005.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature, Warm/Cold Spatial Extent, 1,200 Years, Osborn and Briffa 2006.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (Review/Comparison), 600 Years, Rutherford et al. 2005.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (Speleothem Layer Thickness), 500 Years, Smith et al. 2006.

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (Tree-rings), 250 Years, Wilson et al. 2007.

Local and Regional

Greenland Temperature, 49,000 Years, Alley 2000

Arctic Temperature, 2,000 Years, Kaufman et al. 2009

Arctic Temperature, 400 Years, Overpeck et al. 1997

Antarctic Temperature, 200 Years, Schneider et al. 2006

Dome Fuji, Antarctica Preliminary Temperature, 340,000 Years, Kawamura et al. 2007

Africa

Lake Malawi, East Africa Surface Temperature, 25,000 Years, Powers et al. 2005.

Lake Tanganyika, East Africa Surface Temperature, 60,000 Years, Tierney et al. 2008, Text or Excel

Congo River Basin Mean Air Temperature, 25,000 Years, Weijers et al. 2007, Text or Excel format.

Asia

China Temperature, 2000 Years, Yang et al. 2002.

East China Winter Temperature, 2000 Years, Ge et al. 2003.

Beijing, China Temperature, 2650 Years, Tan et al. 2003.

Taymir, northern Siberia, Summer Temperature, 400 Years, Jacoby et al. 2000.

Yamal Peninsula, western Siberia, Summer Temperature, 4000 Years, Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002.

Kathmandu, Nepal, Pre- and Post- Monsoon Temperature, 550 Years, Cook et al. 2003.

Hokkaido, Japan Warm Season Temperature, 440 Years, Davi et al. 2001.

Lake Suigetsu, Japan Temperature, 15,700 - 10,200 YrBP, Nakagawa et al. 2006, Text or Excel format.

Australia, New Zealand

New Zealand Temperature, 270 Years, Xiong and Palmer 2000.

Tasmania Temperature, 3600 Years, Cook et al. 2000

Europe

European Gridded and Regional Summer Temperature and Data Visualization, 225 Years, Briffa 1988.

European Seasonal Temperature, with Data Visualization, 500 Years, Xoplaki et al. 2005, Luterbacher et al. 2004.

European Pattern Climatology, Gridded Monthly Temp., Precip., 500hPa Height, and Data Visualization, 340 Years, Casty et al. 2007.

European Alps Temperature and Precipitation Reconstructions, 500 Years, Casty et al. 2005.

Central Alps Temperature, 2,000 Years, Mangini et al. 2005.

Lake Silvaplana, Switzerland Chironomid Temperature, 140 Years, Larocque et al. 2008, Text or Excel.

Swiss Alps Temperature, 400 Years, Blass et al. 2007, Text or Excel.

Switzerland Spring-Summer Temperature, 526 Years, Meier et al. 2007.

Burgundy Spring-Summer Temperature, 630 Years, Chuine et al. 2004.

Northeastern Fennoscandia July Temperature, 2,000 Years, Bjune et al. 2008, Text or Excel.

Northern Coastal Norway Temperature, 650 Years, Kirchhefer 2001

Abisko Valley, Northern Sweden Temperature, 10,000 Years, Larocque and Hall 2004, Text or Excel.

Raufarhofn, Iceland August Temperature, 2,000 Years, Axford et al. 2008, Text or Excel.

North America

Baffin Island Summer Temperature, 500 Years, Hughen et al. 2000.

Baffin Island Summer Temperature, 1200 Years, Moore et al. 2001.

Baffin Island Summer Temperature, 1,000 Years, Thomas and Briner 2008, Text or Excel.

Northwest Canada Temperature, 350 Years, Szeicz et al. 1995.

Northwest Territories Summer Temperature, 2,000 Years, MacDonald et al. 2008, Text or Excel.

Boreal Canada Regional Temperature, 12,000 Years, Viau ang Gajewski 2009, Text or Excel

Eastern Beringia Regional Temperature, 25,000 Years, Viau et al. 2008, Text or Excel

Nunavut July Temperature and Precipitation, 2,500 Years, Peros and Gajewski 2008, Text or Excel.

Nunavut Summer Temperature, 2,000 Years, Porinchu et al. 2008, Text or Excel.

Canadian Rockies Summer Temperature, 1050 Years, Luckman and Wilson 2005.

Gulf of Alaska March-May, March-Sept., and April-Sept. Temperature, 400 Years, Wiles et al. 1998.

Southern Alaska Summer Temperature, 1,500 Years, Loso 2008, Text or Excel.

Wrangell Mountains, Alaska Warm Season Temperature, 400 Years, Davi et al. 2003.

USA Pacific Northwest Temperature, 250 Years, Wiles et al. 1996.

East-central Idaho July Temperature Reconstruction, 850 Years, Biondi et al. 1999.

Southern Colorado Plateau Temperature Reconstruction, 2,262 Years, Salzer and Kipfmueller 2005.

West N.America Gridded & Regional Summer Temperature and Data Visualization, 400 Years, Briffa et al. 1992.

Large Scale N.American Temp. and Precip., Description, and Data Visualization, 400 Years, Fritts 1991.

North American and Regional July Temperature Reconstructions, 14,000 Years, Viau et al. 2006, Text or Excel.

South America

Central Chile Austral Summer Temperature, 1142 Years, von Gunten et al. 2008, Text or Excel format.

Southern Andes Temperature, Text or Excel format, 350 Years, Villalba et al. 2003.

[johnholmes]

one of the key comments in all this data is this

The crucial point is that our modern civilisation has been built on the basis of the prevailing climate and sea levels. As these change, it will cause major problems.

surely that is the main problem IF the rises in predicted temperature, even the most conservative are anywhere near correct, the red text explains why we need to do something now for those parts of the world which are going to be worst affected, be it by lack of rain or higher sea levels?

Edited October 4, 2009 by johnholmes

[Iceberg]

Completely agree John, I think that's one of the main claims of the hockey stick/past climate reconstructions. Climate has been wonderfully stable in the last 1000-2000 years. Natural climate change is something we will have to overcome, but climate change due to man's own activities is something that we probably can overcome, but we shouldn't have to if we can stop it from potentially happening.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Iceberg, your Mann and Briffa links have been dealt with. Many of those other reconstructions are from tree rings (e.g. Tasmanian) even though it's not stated in the title. We know some of them use Mann's "Hockey Stick" algorithm to process the temperature data.

It's called a "Hockey Stick" algorithm because the program produces hockey stick shaped graphs whether or not they are fed real data or noise. This has been the subject of McIntyre's previous published work (Energy and Environment, I think).

Northern Hemisphere Temperature (Speleothem Layer Thickness), 500 Years, Smith et al. 2006.

This goes back to 1500 and shows warming prior to the Dalton Minimum. Did you actually check each link you provided to see if they supported your case, and in what way?

A short explanation would be good.

Edited October 4, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Iceberg]

Of course I didn't This isn't about only posting things that support your point of view it's about posting ALL the evidence for past temperature reconstructions, to show you how important the biffa russia samples are.

That's not the reason it's called a Hockey stick and I really feel you need to read up on the subject, yes it's called a hockey stick because of the shape, it's open to debate whether or not red noise produces the same results , Skepics say yes, others say no. It's not only Manns work, nor only Manns formula that produces a Hockey Stick it's also the other 30 independent studies.!

I am trying to keep this On topic it's not about the hockey stick but the attempted rubbishing of Biffa which you've said is some kind of nail in coffin of climate change.

[J10]

I asked a question wrt the % of data which is in question here, (assuming that Maybe the skeptics have a point, not that I think they do I should add, but I've made my comments on here about this).

Sorry for the length of post,

Cheers for the post

Have you got internet links for a few of those, as I like my Excel stats.

[johnholmes]

regardless of not whether the hockey stick theory is correct, the world IS warmer than it was 150 years ago, and, minor hiccups apart, no one has yet been able to show solid evidence that it will not continue.

Thus the part I showed in red is still valid I would have thought?

[VillagePlank]

The crucial point is that our modern civilisation has been built on the basis of the prevailing climate and sea levels. As these change, it will cause major problems.

I find that very difficult to subscribe to.

If we are, like any other animal, subject to evolutionary force; then what this means for us and climate, is that varying degrees of climate change have suited humankind to be able to excel in that climatic niche (which incidentally, for the core seeds of civilisation, was in very hot places)

If we are subject to evolutionary needs then evolution will kill us all off should we change the climate - no problem for anyone but ourselves. We can all safetly ignore the species extinction ratio, as I understand it, and backed by the fossil record, extinction ratios are now at their lowest levels for non-catastrophic change (like a big rock from space) since whenever we have some record for it.

If we are not subject to evolutionary change, then we haven't built our civilisation on the basis of some climatic niche, so the argument that human have only, are partly, been successful because of climate, is irrelevant.

Of course, it could be some mix between the two, but then you'd need to find the time when we stopped being subject the natural forces of nature, and became our own masters - which, I think, is an intractable problem.

[Methuselah]

I do find the cherry-picking of climate proxies rather amusing, really...In one breath the sceptics are decrying the use of tree-rings, varves, pollen data and ice-cores et al as indicators of past climate per se - in the very next breath, however, we are told to accept exactly the same sources of data as PROOF that the Mediaeval Warm Period was IN FACT warmer than today???

[VillagePlank]

I do find the cherry-picking of climate proxies rather amusing, really...In one breath the sceptics are decrying the use of tree-rings, varves, pollen data and ice-cores et al as indicators of past climate per se - in the very next breath, however, we are told to accept exactly the same sources of data as PROOF that the Mediaeval Warm Period was IN FACT warmer than today???

I would consider myself in the sceptical part of the debate. Although, to steal off of our political friends, I would say centre-sceptical - Anyway, I haven't decried the use of any proxy technique .... yet.

[johnholmes]

I find that very difficult to subscribe to.

rather than go round in circles VP, as some seem to enjoy-lets just agree to disagree about our opinion to the quote I made.

That is not shirking the issue folks but just trying to keep the debate in forward motion rather than a circle.

[pottyprof]

one of the key comments in all this data is this

The crucial point is that our modern civilisation has been built on the basis of the prevailing climate and sea levels. As these change, it will cause major problems.

Agree with that one John. Makes no nevermind as to anthro/natural change, things are changing and provided there are no side effects with regards to the environment then we should do what we can.

That's not the reason it's called a Hockey stick and I really feel you need to read up on the subject, yes it's called a hockey stick because of the shape, it's open to debate whether or not red noise produces the same results , Skepics say yes, others say no. It's not only Manns work, nor only Manns formula that produces a Hockey Stick it's also the other 30 independent studies.!

But the algorithm has been shown to produce a hockey stick with just noise. I posted a couple of links a while ago that demonstrated this. As for the 30 independent studies, I'll have to say pass as I've not seen them.

I do find the cherry-picking of climate proxies rather amusing,

I find people relying on proxies amusing. They are only a best guess. Thing is when it's only a best guess, there are wide margins for errors. These are then fed into whatever model you want and straight away there are errors within the output. The question then is which cherry picked bit of data produced as the output do you use? Chaos theory demonstrates that a minor flaw at input can create major problems with the output. I'm not saying these proxies are not useful but they can cause problems themselves.

[Methuselah]

I would consider myself in the sceptical part of the debate. Although, to steal off of our political friends, I would say centre-sceptical - Anyway, I haven't decried the use of any proxy technique .... yet.

Sorry VP. I should have said 'some' sceptics...

I find people relying on proxies amusing. They are only a best guess. Thing is when it's only a best guess, there are wide margins for errors. These are then fed into whatever model you want and straight away there are errors within the output. The question then is which cherry picked bit of data produced as the output do you use? Chaos theory demonstrates that a minor flaw at input can create major problems with the output. I'm not saying these proxies are not useful but they can cause problems themselves.

Agreed Potty. But, they're also the only guesses we have?

[pottyprof]

Agreed Potty. But, they're also the only guesses we have?

I dare say that over time the accuracy will improve and as you say, they are the only guesses we have for the time being. I think that anyone who quotes proxies should treat them just as that though.... A huge guess.

[VillagePlank]

But the algorithm has been shown to produce a hockey stick with just noise. I posted a couple of links a while ago that demonstrated this. As for the 30 independent studies, I'll have to say pass as I've not seen them.

I haven't read your links, nor have I investigated the validity of the hockey stick, but what you say it vitally important.

If you have a model, that comes to some correlation - like the LI - you must run random data through such a model, to see what happens, and you must do it at least 20 times (1 in 20 tests reaches the 95% certainty level for one way or the other) You must also publish the results.

If it is true, and I have to be honest, I am sceptical that this is fully true - primarily because the 'hockey stick shape' is a qualitative return, and not a quantitative result against measurable correlation, say, then it is very important that this be made public.

But you still need a frame of reference for implicating results from a qualitative viewpoint. And they are essentially very difficult to decide, difficult to implement, and difficult to justify. If anyone basis an objective viewpoint on a qualitative return - in either way, for truth or negation - then they are in serious hot water.

As I understand it - and I freely admit, I understand very little in this area - random data, and real world data, both produce positive rates of warming as the series goes through time. So, there's only one thing for it, run more random tests until one or the other comes out on top at the ratio of 1/20. As it's unlikely, say, that we have 1 million sets of real-world data, and random test show it either way (I have no idea if this is the case or otherwise) the very very very best that someone looking to discredit the series is to say "it is unproven" And that is only slightly better than saying "it is unproven, but above the 95% certainty range"

Remember science is about disproving the null hypothesis, not about confirming the hypothesis. And that proof is made on the basis of probability. If it is true, yet not completed on the basis of probability, then it becomes a law, and immutable.

Edited October 4, 2009 by VillagePlank

[pottyprof]

It's not one of the links but an interesting point..

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/will-the-real-hockey-stick-please-stand-up/

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

It's not only Manns work, nor only Manns formula that produces a Hockey Stick it's also the other 30 independent studies.!

They use Mann's formula. Mann's forumla is a bit like Microsoft Word, it's the essential software required to produced AGW science. Do you read McIntyre's blog? If you did it would stop a lot of our talking above each others' heads.

[VillagePlank]

They use Mann's formula. Mann's forumla is a bit like Microsoft Word, it's the essential software required to produced AGW science. Do you read McIntyre's blog? If you did it would stop a lot of our talking above each others' heads.

As I understand it, the graph shows warming, but doesn't implicate humankind. That comes later. Also, it is my understanding, that the world actually has warmed over the last two centuries or so. OR did I miss something?

[pottyprof]

Still not what I was looking for.. More views on the hockey stick and the data used..

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/online-experiment-with-the-latest-hockey-stick/

[Methuselah]

When was Mann's formula published?

[pottyprof]

When was Mann's formula published?

The hockey stick came out in 1998 (I think). I think the number crunching side came out about 2001. Thing is, he still won't provide some of the data he used......