Bishop Hill Yamal is back!
Oct 22, 2009 Climate David Appell reports on his blog that he has a new article in this month's Scientific American, reporting on a new method for creating temperature reconstructions by Tingley and Huybers. It goes without saying that their results are hockey stick shaped.
I don't have access to the article, but the theory doing the rounds at Climate Audit is that David is referring to this manuscript. The link is to an unpublished version of the paper, but it's not clear from David's article if it has now gone to print or not, and it is of couse possible that it's a different paper entirely. I hope so, because within about half an hour of my posting a link to Appell's story up at CA, when reader JeanS pointed to the linked manuscript, he also observed that the dataset used in that paper included Mann's Hockey Stick itself (the PC1 for the technically minded among you) and the now legendary Yamal series.
It's too funny.
And besides, if the reconstruction includes Mann's PC1, then it is not, as Appell puts it "a completely different method". Tingley and Huybers's results are biased by Mannian short centring just as much as the Hockey Stick itself.
Bishop Hill
McIntyre is reporting that there is in fact another unpublished paper by the same authors. This looks interesting because he has been able to get something of a fix on the data which, rather than having 20th century upticks, has downticks instead. This being the case, it's something of a mystery as to how Tingley and Huybers' methodology manages to generate a hockey stick.
Watch this space.
Share Article
Reader Comments (16)
Bish,
Not sure why you waste time on this quark dude. He's not a scientist - by his own admission. He's like someone who hangs round a hospital chatting to doctors and nurses but will never become a doctor.
The whole idea of a 'global climate' is tosh. It's minus 40 and dry at the south pole. It's +30 and humid in Singapore and it's +40 and dry in Cairo. What is the 'average' climate for 2009 ? It's like the average phone number for Scotland.
And to go back thousands of years in time based on a few trees in Russia. It's bonkers. Maybe if you studied 1000s of trees in Russia you may get an estimate of the climate in Russia for previous eras. But how would you calibrate this ? It's extrapolation in spades and on stilts - taking viagra.
And this punk wants me to stop driving my car and cancel my holidays ?
Well, I'm not a scientist myself! He's a science journalist and his views are worthy of respect, particularly as he has an article in SciAm. Also I believe he has a hotline to the Team.
John Hughes
Hear hear.
You know, I do miss Frank O'Dwyer. Perhaps even he has figured out the game is up for the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Another potential Bishop Hill-worthy piece over at WUWT?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/and-then-what-happens/#comment-210202
This time, the whole thing is in your back-yard...
Readers might like to go over here and vote:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
I've counted myself out. You have to give name and e-mail so may even be fair.
(Hat tip The Englishman)
That poll at the Science Museum that DocBud and I both referred to is becoming a humiliation. Both of the Miliband brothers, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, appeared at the opening for this thing and put their prestige behind it. If it was so important, why didn't the morons who put that poll together at least ensure that it was restricted to UK residents (my one vote appeared to count, and I'm not a UK resident) and that there would be only one vote per visitor?
Aside from the dodgy science, UK residents should be howling with indignation at the arrogance and incompetence of these people. If you can't count on them to properly rig a poll, how can you trust them with anything else?
I counted myself out and also posted the following comment to 'Got an opinion?', though I doubt it will be given any serious consideration...
The information on your 'Evidence' page seems rather weak and unconvincing when one considers the basic science behind the theory of human induced climate change.
As I understand it, the science behind human induced climate change is based upon two distinct theories.
1) CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, traps heat and thereby raises the temperature of Earth's atmosphere.
2) positive feedback mechanisms then amplify this warming by a factor of two or more.
Based upon measured changes in CO2, Theory 1) predicts a temperature rise of 1-2C, more than half of which should have already taken place. The resulting impacts on both environment and society are expected to be relatively small and, therefore, insufficient to justify the proposed remedial actions. My understanding is that most scientists agree that Theory 1) is valid, based upon experimental evidence.
Theory 2) builds upon this to predict a temperature rise of 4C or more, the majority of which we have yet to experience. The resulting impacts on both environment and society are expected to be relatively large and, therefore, sufficient to justify the proposed remedial actions. My understanding is that a significant number of scientists are not yet convinced that Theory 2) is valid, based upon observational evidence.
In science, unambiguous observational evidence is a fundamental requirement if a theory is to be accepted as fact. Furthermore, it must be possible say how a theory could be falsified in order to help confirm its ultimate validity. Unfortunately, the models that justify Theory 2) predict such a broad spread of future climates that:
a) it is extremely difficult to identify an unambiguous signature that matches to the observational evidence;
b) any significant deviation that could falsify them will only be discernable many, many decades into the future.
Given these facts, the statement on your 'Evidence' page seems rather speculative when it says “The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes. It is only when we allow for increases in temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that the current warming can be explained”. This suggests that the models are sufficiently complete to include all of the relevant natural causes. However, this is then undermined by the statement that “Natural effects may in fact be having a cooling effect on the Earth at the moment. Without them, warming caused by humans would be even greater” because it raises the obvious question: if the models are sufficiently complete, why did they not predict the current non-warming trend?
I understand that this subject is both scientifically complex and politically charged, which makes presenting it to the general public a real challenge. However, to re-iterate my initial comment, I do feel that the explanations you present as ‘Evidence’ are rather weak and unconvincing and therefore do a real disservice to science in general and the Science Museum in particular.
If you really want to be of service to the public, I may suggest that you concentrate on presenting the science, rather than the political rhetoric, to explain the subject of human induced climate change.
Dave,
Sending in such rabid hate mail to the science museum will only guarantee a visit by the inquisitors for global warming (tm) :)
Regards
Mailman
Hmmm, wasn't this the same guy making such a big deal about Steve M being not peer reviewed ? He seems to have a completely different set of rules for papers that are not peer reviewed that forward his point of view. Maybe unpublished papers of "the right sort" already come with some sort of super secret peer review if you have the right decoder ring and I am unaware of this ?
For further entertainment I wonder if we can provoke the usual "technical arguments against this paper must be ignored because they are not OKed by the right people" defense with a paper that is not itself peer reviewed.
A few days ago I came across the following story and somehow it seems - well, a propos.
CORED OF THE RINGS
Once upon a time, on a planet strangely similar to our own, the Earth was covered with trees. Great was the power of the trees for they could teleconnect and nothing was unknown to them. Millennia were spent in leafy contemplation, but there were ripples in the Force, for Men were becoming more numerous and they prospered.
Great was the consternation of the mighty Lord Goron of Ordure for he feared the rise of Men and had foreseen how their science might destroy him. Many were the casts of the multi-proxy stochastic runes. His conjurors advised that he must sow confusion in the minds of Men and turn their very success against them. The trees would be instrumental in his scheme.
The Lord Goron called for his fleet of private dragons, which were known as Carbon, Aerosols and Particulates (or CAP for short), and flew to a carefully pre-selected clearing where he disported his great bulk and massive intellect. 'O trees', he addressed them, 'at present your powers are great and they will last for millennia to come, but Men will inexorably seize the world and they will exploit you for their own purposes and from your energy they will build their civilisation. The rule of Men will be known as the Instrumental Period but they must be destroyed and your reign restored. They must come to doubt their achievements and convince themselves that they are the agents of their own doom.'
He continued thus, 'I will persuade them that they will be destroyed by a conflagration of their own making. O trees, I know that you can teleconnect and that you feel the average temperature of the Earth. Each year you produce the Rings of Growth, and I wish you to produce your rings not according to temperature but according to rain, wind or flood; in fact, according to anything you like as long as there is a flatness in the trend of your rings. At the coming of the Instrumental Period, when your powers are gone, my servants will search out magic trees that show a pronounced upturn in ring growth. The greatest of these will be known as YODA 6 and great will be the Force with him for he will be a full Sigma 8 tree. YODA 6 will underpin every doubt and the civilisation of Men will be uprooted.'
The trees thought long and hard and eventually gave their consent to this plan, whereupon they resumed humming quietly their favourite song 'This Land is My Land' by the arboreal troubador, Woody Guthrie.
In the fullness of time Men prospered and the Instrumental Period arrived, but the machinations of Lord Goron were without rest. The first of his servants to warn of the doom to come was Grima Gisstemp. Many were his manipulations, but he lost sight of the ancient saying that the truth needs no memory but no lie can be forgotten. His millennial discontinuity nearly destroyed the project and great was the Lord Goron's anger. He threatened that Gisstemp would be shovelling coal forever if he was not more careful.
Another of the data conjurors was the mighty Sarumann who collected the Rings of Growth, although in truth there were few. Amongst his searches he discovered the magic Briffacones which showed a massive growth spurt in the late Twentieth Century, even though the local temperatures were falling. 'I must persuade Men that all the trees have this pattern,' he exclaimed to his fellow conjurors. 'I have devised a new alchemy by recalculating the means and the variances which shall become known as the Sarumannomatic.' Thus the Hokum Stick was born, and with it certain proof that temperatures were rising. Whatever the data, the climatology-dust ensured that the Hokum Stick would always appear.
Some time later, in Canada, a hirsute statistician called McEntire was contemplating a game of squash when he caught a whiff of Goron's ordure. The Hokum Stick was reminiscent of hundreds of false mining prospectuses he had examined during his career and he decided to investigate. Myriad obstacles were placed in his path, and many were the times that he envied Sisyphus. Finally he managed to expose the workings of the Sarumannomatic. Great was the consternation of the servants of Lord Goron. 'We must produce a new Hokum Stick!' they cried.
Meanwhile, in an academic backwater in the east of England known as the University of Easy Access (two E's at A-Level and a cross on the application form being the only entry requirements), a statistics class was in progress. The lecturer measured the height of twelve students and solemnly declared that the mean height of male students was six feet two inches. 'But you have just measured the basketball team,' whispered a small voice from the back. 'Be quiet, denier!' came the stern reply, 'they are all typical students.'
Across the campus Professor Phil Silvers had ordered another spring-clean in the Climate Pool. Silvers was binning truck-loads of punch-cards, floppy floppy-disks, paper files, agreements - anything at all, really. However, when he came to the FORTRAN manual, he hesitated. 'I'd better keep this', he thought, 'I'm sure Sarumann and Grima still use it.'
Staff at the UEA were noted for their chlorophyll-impregnated clothing and their low-impact lifestyles. One such was Darth Briffa, a colleague of Silvers. Decades of animosity with a people known as the Russians had given way to a period of peaceful academic exchanges and Briffa, with his colleague Pinegrubber, were sent to Siberia. Pinegrubber collected his own tree core samples, but the Russians also supplied Briffa with some of their tree ring data for the Yamal Briffalarches. Included was data relating to the Tree of destiny, YODA 6. The prophecy was about to be fulfilled.
Briffa ignored Pinegrubber's data and used the Briffalarches instead. The Briffalarches contained the required late Twentieth Century upturn, and the Hokum Stick was reborn. 'Look!' cried the conjurors, 'Sarumann was right!' Briffa's work was cited again and again and it propped up the work of the IPCC (International Panel for Climate Conjuring). Mankind contemplated its future incineration. It was quite clear that it was hotter now than it had ever been, even at the time of the Big Bang.
Yamal was mentioned everywhere, but once again the pabulum of the Goron offended McEntire's nostrils. For three years McEntire tried to obtain the raw data. ('I hope McQuickbeam kept that old punch-card reader,' he mused, 'just in case.') Eventually Briffa published one paper too many and was forced to archive his data. Within three days McEntire had exposed its shaky foundations and showed that the whole edifice relied on a sub-set of basketball players. Once again the Hokum Stick was reduced to match-wood. Briffa got out his glue-pot and tried to stick the matches back together. Silvers panicked because he had no raw data to explain his processed temperature series. The Lord Goron contemplated the millions of dollars he would never make from his carbon trading scheme. Sarumann was outraged. Grima's mouthpiece, Gobbin Schmutz, hurled invective against McEntire on his website Realvoodoo, but to no avail. The deniers knew the truth - and truth needs no memory.
In the woods and the forests, in the everglades and the mangrove swamps, in the stands and plantations and along the hedgerows, the trees whispered to one another, 'Yes, it was warmer a thousand years ago.'
(To be continued...)
But do you think these views are worthy of respect?
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2009/10/lets-review.html
Seems to me that he has lost it.
Yer Grace:
Sorry for another OT comment, but I think the discussion going on over at WUWT concerning the hacking of the Science Museum's "Prove It!" poll and the intimate involvement of the Miliband brothers in commissioning the exhibit is worthy of your attention and commentary.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/and-then-what-happens/
At around 11pm (CET) yesterday (25/10/09), I noted that the "In" vote was ~550 and the "Out" ~4000. This morning, I see that the "In" vote is ~3900 and the "Out" ~4600, which means that more than 3000 "In" votes arrived overnight.
Should I conclude:
a) the Brits who believe in AGW only go on-line very late at night;
b) there's been an awful lot of voting on the pro-AGW from over the Pond;
c) someone at the Science Museum has been "calibrating" the raw data.
As the vote is supposed to reflect UK views, I hope that if it's b) the Science Museum will know this and filter accordingly.
Love the site. Nothing fills me with a warm glow like the debunking of "climate change" horse shit. Keep up the good work.
Bishop, Peter Huybers informed me that there is no 600-year paper submitted to a journal. I notified Appell of this.