More Evidence Against The "hockey Stick"

[VillagePlank]

Thing is, he still won't provide some of the data he used......

Well, if that's the case, on that basis, it should never have passed peer-review, or did the reviewers have access to data that "we" currently don't have?

[pottyprof]

Well, if that's the case, on that basis, it should never have passed peer-review, or did the reviewers have access to data that "we" currently don't have?

Good question.. Pass!!

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Mann chose not to publish his formula for scientific scrutiny, it had to be reverse engineered.

Also, it is my understanding, that the world actually has warmed over the last two centuries or so. OR did I miss something?

Nobody disagrees with that. That is not what the "hockey stick" is for. The "hockey stick" is designed to make the temperature trend for the last few thousand years look flat until the 1980s - so making recent warming look unprecedented and scary. So wipes out the Roman Climatic Optimum, MWP and others - they become the 'stick' - and the recent warming forms the 'blade'. The 100 or so group of scientists driving AGW have been called the 'Hockey Team', of which guys like Mann and Briffa have been two of the most important, particularly Mann because of his statistical techniques. Stephen McIntyre is a statistician - hence the name of his blog is "Climate Audit".

Edited October 4, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Methuselah]

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......

Thanks Potty,

Which means that Mann's work is not 'required to produce AGW Science' at all...Which, when you consider that I attended an AGW Science lecture in 1973 and did most of my studies of the subject prior to 1997, is hardly surprising?

Indeed, IMO, this whole MacIntyre-instigated charade is but another exercise in Stawmanism...

[Admiral_Bobski]

Here is the problem with not just the Hockey Stick but with any proxy reconstruction. Below is a picture of the MBH98 graph which caused so much controversy:

Note that the black line is the average derived from the blue line - the blue line is data derived from the proxy measurements.

The big grey block around the blue line is the uncertainty margin.

Now, I know this will arouse a lot of criticism (because I've made this self-same point before), but it is worth pointing out that the actual temperature at any given point can, in reality, occur anywhere within the grey block.

The likelihood of the data points being at the extremes of the uncertainty margin may be relatively small, but that doesn't negate the possibility that the historic temperature graph could look very different from the one presented in MBH98 (and, indeed, in any proxy reconstruction).

Here's an example of how the MBH98 graph could look (MBH98 with blue and black lines removed, uncertainty bars kept, new blue line added by me - a bit shoddy, but it's just a quick job to illustrate my point):

This is the problem with proxies. Of course, the trick in science is to appreciate the nature of these error margins and acknowledge their existence. It is common in AGW papers for the error margins to be identified and quantified, but the significance of these error margins is frequently then disregarded or played down.

Proxies are useful tools, but they are certainly not the be-all and end-all of historical analysis.

CB

[Methuselah]

Proxies are useful tools, but they are certainly not the be-all and end-all of historical analysis.

CB

But, when attempting to recreate ancient climates, what else will we ever have - without time-travel, that is?

[Admiral_Bobski]

But, when attempting to recreate ancient climates, what else will we ever have - without time-travel, that is?

Well, exactly. I'm not saying we shouldn't use proxies. And I'm certainly saying that we shouldn't trust proxies.

My point is that we should accept proxies for what they are.

The hockey stick is only a hockey stick because of the way in which it is presented - it plays down the error margins and perhaps over-exaggerates the flatness of temperatures over the past centuries. It isn't necessarily wrong, but I would call it disingenuous.

CB

[Devonian]

Mann chose not to publish his formula for scientific scrutiny, it had to be reverse engineered.

Nobody disagrees with that. That is not what the "hockey stick" is for. The "hockey stick" is designed to make the temperature trend for the last few thousand years look flat until the 1980s - so making recent warming look unprecedented and scary. So wipes out the Roman Climatic Optimum, MWP and others - they become the 'stick' - and the recent warming forms the 'blade'. The 100 or so group of scientists driving AGW have been called the 'Hockey Team', of which guys like Mann and Briffa have been two of the most important, particularly Mann because of his statistical techniques. Stephen McIntyre is a statistician - hence the name of his blog is "Climate Audit".

My bolding.

Let people think about what you're saying...

....

....

Note the words 'is for' and (crucially) 'designed' and 'so making the recent warming look unprecedented and scary'. This is a serious allegation. You are saying the HS was 'designed' (fixed, dishonest, in other words it has to be a lie) to deceive people ('designed....so making the recent warming look unprecedented and scary').

You are, quite clearly, accusing Dr Michael Mann of all theose things - shame on you Oppose the science, show it to be wrong if you can, but cut out the allegations.

[VillagePlank]

Here is the problem with not just the Hockey Stick but with any proxy reconstruction ... [snip]

Yes, it is always interesting to draw graphs of the extreme ends of error bars. I think they should be drawn by default, especially when that data is going to be used for further study and/or corroberation of future theory.

Indeed, in the software world, we call it "testing" - that is, to say, that we test extreme ends of our function's in and outs. If we didn't do it - we'd be shot.

[Devonian]

Well, exactly. I'm not saying we shouldn't use proxies. And I'm certainly saying that we shouldn't trust proxies.

My point is that we should accept proxies for what they are.

The hockey stick is only a hockey stick because of the way in which it is presented - it plays down the error margins and perhaps over-exaggerates the flatness of temperatures over the past centuries. It isn't necessarily wrong, but I would call it disingenuous.

CB

In what sense of the word disingenuous?

[VillagePlank]

In what sense of the word disingenuous?

Simply put - and I'm sorry if I'm stepping on CB's toes, here - that it's impression is that it is an accurate recollection of past temperatures. When I first looked at it, that's what I thought it was.

Is it? Or, more realistically, it is the best we can currently do, which, certainly, and definitively, must have mistakes in it given by the wide margin of error.

Therefore, I think, it might be construed as disingenous because it appears to hold a position that it doesn't do. That might well the fault of proponents who claim it is a panacea, and not of Mann et al. I don't know - but I know it's not the end of the matter. After all, hasn't it, like all good science, been revised, at least once?

[Admiral_Bobski]

In what sense of the word disingenuous?

Thank you for the link, Dev - just in case I wasn't sure what "disingenuous" meant!

The first one - more specifically the "not straightforward" bit. In that the case is put forward as being far more straightforward than it actually is.

What VP says, basically...

CB

[weather eater]

Thank you for the link, Dev - just in case I wasn't sure what "disingenuous" meant!

The first one - more specifically the "not straightforward" bit. In that the case is put forward as being far more straightforward than it actually is.

What VP says, basically...

CB

It's also simplifying a complex process, it hides the fact that climate fluctuates naturally. It looks in short like an idiots guide.

Edited October 4, 2009 by weather eater

[VillagePlank]

You are, quite clearly, accusing Dr Michael Mann of all theose things - shame on you Oppose the science, show it to be wrong if you can, but cut out the allegations.

Peter,

This is where I draw the line; for sure, I am as guilty as any other party on this, too, but, hopefully, people have seen that I have reformed my ways.

Buy you haven't. You are the FIRST to denigrate others when they criticise (and I admit unfairly) others; but you don't argue against the basis that they should be arguing science rather than the person. I understand that - I get that.

I know you have a position (which, I guess, for you, is difficult to move) but you defend it in a manner which means those, who are most likely to know less than you, are subject to all sorts of "other people know more than you" Psychologically speaking - it's the same thing.

If we can ignore the ad-homs - ie just let it ride, and ignore those who choose to do so - do you think we would have a better debate.? It would focus it on science, and mathematics, and the natural world. Surely that's the goal of all people interested? I know it's a hard thing to do.

Thanks for considering,

Mark.

[Iceberg]

Thanks VP for reminding me about this thread.

Sorry if this sounds a bit off, but I am finding this debate more and more silly.

So according to some skeptics on here(not all I admit) we have a formula that will always produce a hockey stick.

Yet at the same time we have a scientist of international standing who has manipulated his data even though he doesn't have to because as we have been told in this thread even noise produces a hockey stick.

So there is no reason for him to manipulate his data, but he does in the knowledge that if he is found out by either:

His colleagues,

The peer reviewers of the publications,

The IPCC,

The multitude of sceptics who check every piece of climate science with a fine teeth comb( IMO climate science has more hostile checking than any other scientific disipline and it's highly likely that if you make a mistake or manipulate something it will be shown up in very short order).

His repuation would be in tatters. So he does this all quite willingly but without need.

On top of this this formula of Manns which is according to skeptics used everywhere, is actually top secret(even though lots of scientists use it). It's wrong (even though it's been through many peer review processess).

Apparantly they haven't even done the basic negative and postive testing of the formula.!.

The proxies are all incorrect (this includes tree rings, sediment samples, oxygen takes, bacteria measurements and organism ranges.

So the above is all likely, but somehow the possibility that maybe, just maybe temperatures are very high now somehow doesn't stand a chance.

I know where my money would be.

[VillagePlank]

Thanks VP for reminding me about this thread.

Sorry if this sounds a bit off, but I am finding this debate more and more silly.

So according to some skeptics on here(not all I admit) we have a formula that will always produce a hockey stick.

Yet at the same time we have a scientist of international standing who has manipulated his data even though he doesn't have to because as we have been told in this thread even noise produces a hockey stick.

So there is no reason for him to manipulate his data, but he does in the knowledge that if he is found out by either:

His colleagues,

The peer reviewers of the publications,

The IPCC,

The multitude of sceptics who check every piece of climate science with a fine teeth comb( IMO climate science has more hostile checking than any other scientific disipline and it's highly likely that if you make a mistake or manipulate something it will be shown up in very short order).

His repuation would be in tatters. So he does this all quite willingly but without need.

On top of this this formula of Manns which is according to skeptics used everywhere, is actually top secret(even though lots of scientists use it). It's wrong (even though it's been through many peer review processess).

Apparantly they haven't even done the basic negative and postive testing of the formula.!.

The proxies are all incorrect (this includes tree rings, sediment samples, oxygen takes, bacteria measurements and organism ranges.

So the above is all likely, but somehow the possibility that maybe, just maybe temperatures are very high now somehow doesn't stand a chance.

I know where my money would be.

It stands, or falls on the integrity of the work done. That's it.

I can't find anything, intially wrong with the idea, myself; but I freely admit I haven't looked into it.

What's wrong with someone saying the rate of change of warming has gone mad, recently?

[pottyprof]

<snip>

Sit down, grab a coffee and stop waving your arms about.... Deep breath... There. does that feel better now??

[Gray-Wolf]

Sit down, grab a coffee and stop waving your arms about.... Deep breath... There. does that feel better now??

Never did for me P.P. , just ended up with a caffeine rush and a bigger drive to be understood.....

[Devonian]

Sit down, grab a coffee and stop waving your arms about.... Deep breath... There. does that feel better now??

:lol:

Iceberg talks great sense, his posts deserves rather more than that kind of put down

[Gray-Wolf]

Iceberg talks great sense, his posts deserves rather more than that kind of put down

It's just banter Dev. I'm sure no=one takes it seriously (P.P's Ad Hom I mean)

Edited October 5, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

It's just banter Dev. I'm sure no=one takes it seriously (P.P's Ad Hom I mean)

I just wish posts slinging abuse at a named scientists received similar banter - I'd feel better for such a balance that's all :lol:

[laserguy]

More commentary on this -

http://www.spectator...-scam-ctd.thtml

If I'm really quick I might just catch it on the 1 o' clock news,right after the 'Ms Spears falls over outside nightclub' lead story...

[Iceberg]

Sit down, grab a coffee and stop waving your arms about.... Deep breath... There. does that feel better now??

:lol:

Much better, I'd post it on watts as well but me thinks I would be banned instantly as they all ready don't like me over there, don't know why ?.

[sunny starry skies]

Thanks VP for reminding me about this thread.

Sorry if this sounds a bit off, but I am finding this debate more and more silly.

So according to some skeptics on here(not all I admit) we have a formula that will always produce a hockey stick.

Yet at the same time we have a scientist of international standing who has manipulated his data even though he doesn't have to because as we have been told in this thread even noise produces a hockey stick.

So there is no reason for him to manipulate his data, but he does in the knowledge that if he is found out by either:

His colleagues,

The peer reviewers of the publications,

The IPCC,

The multitude of sceptics who check every piece of climate science with a fine teeth comb( IMO climate science has more hostile checking than any other scientific disipline and it's highly likely that if you make a mistake or manipulate something it will be shown up in very short order).

His repuation would be in tatters. So he does this all quite willingly but without need.

On top of this this formula of Manns which is according to skeptics used everywhere, is actually top secret(even though lots of scientists use it). It's wrong (even though it's been through many peer review processess).

Apparantly they haven't even done the basic negative and postive testing of the formula.!.

The proxies are all incorrect (this includes tree rings, sediment samples, oxygen takes, bacteria measurements and organism ranges.

So the above is all likely, but somehow the possibility that maybe, just maybe temperatures are very high now somehow doesn't stand a chance.

I know where my money would be.

Super post Iceberg! And thanks to John and others those who said 'welcome'. Just catching up on the 4 pages of this thread since friday! Jethro - I study environmental change as a postdoc. Before anyone shoots me down for having too much of a vested interest, I'm not directly in the climate change field, though my studies have crossed over (notably glacier reconstructions) from time to time.

Higrade - I believe Jethro and others have answered your questions quite nicely, and to follow from Redshift's point - what do you mean by "so-called honest scientists"? You, and one or two others, seem to think that the 'scientists' or ('boffins' to the Sun) are people with huge agendas and are trying to unfairly make extra money out of the subject. I think you'll find that much of the greatest arm-waving is done by media outlets trying to sell a story, much like your various health scare examples, quite legitimately worries for the incumbent chief medical officers or academics of the time, but which I bet were made to sound a lot worse by the media. As I've said before, the media are responsible for overinflating too much, the consequence of which is that people do not know what is reliable (or true) and what is not. On a similar note - La Bise - good post #43!

Some of you on here seem to think that Stephen McIntyre is an 'honest scientist' with no axe to grind, and that therefore 'Climate Audit' is a great place to find legitimate criticism of scientific writing. Well, given the slandering of Mann, Briffa and others on here, some information about McIntyre. From Wikipedia (yes, I know it's wiki, so with due reservations):

"He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics from the University of Toronto. He studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford.

McIntyre has worked in hard-rock mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada. He was the president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003."

So for balance, I think it is fair to say that Stephen McIntyre has had pretty substantial (probably millions of dollars substantial) reasons to attack climate science and any move to reduce our output of CO2 through the use of hydrocarbons. And that is not even making any aspersions about the fact he's not a climate scientist. I'm not going to suggest that everything he says is bunkum (he has published in GRL, and like anyone else, deserves respect, not ad hominem critique), but merely that what he says deserves every bit as much scrutiny as anyone else, and there seems more reason to suspect him of vested interests than most, and therefore think carefully about what he is saying and why.

I find it intersting that people are looking for so much 'certainty', especially when looking at past reconstructions. We can be reasonably 'certain' (or at least have a very small error margin) when it comes recent global temperatures, as we have the instrumental data with sufficient coverage to say so. Uncertainties clearly increase the further back you go in the palaeoclimatic record, and so far as I am aware these uncertainties are made clear in the great majority of palaeoclimatic studies. It does not make them 'wrong', nor does it make them useless. Scientists are, as TWS says, fallible human beings, but there is no reason to doubt them until good quality new data, or a good quality new theory arrives, something not seen yet for AGW. Maybe we are, with AGW, in the position of 19th Century physicists, who thought they had it all worked out with Newtonian mechanics, which fitted nearly all observations very well (only quantum mechanics did the job slightly better). But the Newtonian scientists were hardly 'irresponsible', were they? But for now, we have a scientific consensus, and we should act accordingly.

VP - your 'leaky integrator' does look really intriguing. I have all the time in the world for approaches using real data, and I will be interested to see if it ultimately, erm, holds water :lol:. Science moves forwards by the finding of alternate theories that fit the evidence. Maybe yours will, maybe not, but it's a rational approach and that is good to see!

laserguy - see ealier links re your link. Same old delusions reprinted in a renowed place for climate science I see.

sss

[johnholmes]

thanks SSS for another sensible and well made post-if only we could have a constructive debate about the issue-but never mind some of us will keep trying?

I repeat, I am, and have always been, pro GW with little reservation, and substantially pro AGW but with largish questions about some of it at times. I hope that shows my basic standing in here. I remain open to sensible and constructive posts/arguments from either side but PLEASE can we, from this point, turn over a new leaf and be less unkind about those whose stand we do not agree with-PLEASE?