Bishop Hill Wolff on the Hockey Stick
May 29, 2011 Climate: HSI Climate: MWP I thought I'd set down my thoughts on one aspect of Eric Wolff's email to Neil Craig - namely the millennial temperature reconstructions. Eric has adopted what I called the "NAS defence" when I discussed it in the Hockey Stick Illusion. This is the idea that, whatever the failings of the Hockey Stick itself, a series of other temperature reconstructions have reached broadly the same conclusions - Mann may have used in appropriate data and a biased methodology but he still reached the correct conclusions.
Suffice it to say that I find this highly unsatisfactory.
In the spirit of Eric's "what we agree on" approach, I would have thought that we should be able to agree:
- that bristlecone pines and their ilk should not be used for temperature reconstructions
- that Mannian "short-centred" principal components analysis is biased.
These were the conclusions of the NAS panel (and Wegman too), so it is hard to see that there can be much argument on this score.
Can we agree that this is not a thermometer?If we can agree this, then I would hope that we can also agree that temperature reconstructions that feature either bristlecones or short-centred PCA cannot be cited as support for the idea that current temperatures are unprecedented.
I realise that this is not Eric's area and that he is probably therefore repeating the received wisdom - the IPCC line if you like - but it seems very clear to me that the IPCC line is insupportable on this count. I would have hoped that this area was somewhere where a measure of agreement could be reached.
Reader Comments (58)
There is also the point that the primary purpose of the Hokey Schtick was / is tendentious.
Get rid of the MWP.
Far too many climate scientists accept the IPCC consensus for areas for which they have no expertise. They need to have a Judith Curry moment and accept that all may not be as they have been told. They need to be critical and to question other scientists' work. How many are prepared to do this and stick their heads above the parapet?
Prof. Woolff clearly hasn't read THSI, or taken more than a passing interest in paleoclimatological outputs, also he's being very selective in his scientific readings as he's unfamiliar with the hundreds of papers produced outside of the Mann clique that show a MWP. Nor does he seem to be aware of the heavy dependence on bristlecone pines and inverted varves in the supporting papers. He's also strangely unquestoning for a scientist. Does he know that Mann has a paper extant which uses the inverted Tijander varves despite being told that they are inverted?
For instance he doesn't seem to know that the temperatures have been rising on the planet since the middle of the 17th century, so at any point between now and then we could say that the planet is warming, but for most of this warming period human emissions of CO2 have been insignificant. Wouldn't a scientist take some interest in that and wonder what was causing the warming prior to the late 20th century?
He also said that he hadn't heard any scientists using the word "catastrophic" (could have been "catastrophe"), well if they don't believe the warming is going to be "catastrophic" why don't they say so, becasue their silence is reinforcing the position of those who want to de-industralise/destroy the western economies (which, should it ever occur, will mean we certainly won't have enough money to support the BAS!). Even taken to less extremes the futile attempt to reduce fossil fuel output in the total absence of a viable alternative is going to damage our economies and wreak havoc in the underdeveloped world. So speak up man! Tell the politicians that you've never heard any scientist using "catastrophic" or "catastrophy"
Does he believe the Antarctic will melt sufficiently to raise sea levels by 20ft by the end of the century? indeed what timescale does he believe the 20ft increase in sea levels will evolve over?
Th Hockey Stick , was not a piece of scientific research its was a graphical way of provided 'evidenced ' to support a politically based viewpoint , that has now become an icon of the AGW faith . Challenging icons is a much bigger much, more dangerous thing to do than any research, and for some no amount of proof will ever undermine it.
That's part of the problem , people think there taken on just a poor piece of research, which it is , but there not , so they need to think of it as religions icon or a political tool instead , and for that they need to accept that for some it simply can't be wrong , evidenced, facts and the science have nothing to do with it.
It is worth pointing out (again?) that "catastrophic" is a quite precise technical term with a meaning different to the layman's use of the same word.
Put simply, a "catastrophe" occurs when a stable system has a small change of a parameter which causes a large change in the location of the stable point.
An example would be a stuffed toy rabbit sitting happily and stably on the edge of a kitchen bench. A small disturbance -- wind, a passing truck -- might cause the rabbit to fall and establish a new stable position on the floor.
This is quite literally a catastrophe. However, no damage is done.
It is entirely possible (but not proven) that things such as antarctic ice, or ocean current flows could undergo a catastrophic change and move to a new equilibrium.
This however says absolutely nothing about the effect it would have on people, animals, cities etc. The observable effect could be good or bad, large or small.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a foeld only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Really, really depressing!
The thoughts that tumble out turn out to have been ably expressed in the earlier postings.
Where do we go to be saved?
Oh! I can now add this: Bishop, you've met him; could you take the horse to water and get him to drink? After all, to this ignoramus, the case seemed proven and closed and it should be easy enough.
Are there any falsifications abroad? What does he cling to?
Everybody. Climate science is a very big area, so I don't think we can criticise people for accepting the received wisdom on much or even most of it. If Dr Wolff hasn't looked at the millennial temperature reconstructions or read HSI, that is not something you can blame him for.
He was asked a question by Neil and answered with his understanding of what the situation is. If we are nice and polite, perhaps he will confirm that he is relaying received wisdom or alternatively tell us why we are wrong.
But please, let's not just complain. Let's wait for a response.
Fellow commenters
Might I ask that all of us use abbreviations and acronyms with care, especially for the sake of new readers. It is standard practice to write the full name the first time of use and to put the acronym in brackets. Then, when the acronym is used again everyone knows what you mean.
for example, BAS (from geronimo at 08:55 but he is by no means alone in this) could mean
Bureau of Analysed Samples
British Aphasiology Society
British Alpaca Society
Board of Actuarial Standards
British Arachnological Society (the website is britishspiders.org.uk)
and a wide range of commercial organisations including an artist.
These come from a brief survey of BAS in Google. The are many more!
It also means British Antarctic Survey* which, I suspect, is geronimo's meaning.
* A meaning that is missing from the 76 meanings in the first dictionary of acronyms in a Google search for acronyms BAS. (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/BAS)
Amen to the Bishop's post of 10:05
Dr Wolff will probably make use of Gerald North's statement. The Old Gerald North ploy i.e. say you broadly agree with Wegman when under oath and then something different when not under oath. To me that the NAS report seems to have suffered from North's influence. Especially when we see later papers with Michael Mann amongst the authors, thanking him for his help. The NAS report (which Gerald North Chaired) said the bristle cone pines should NOT be used as a temperature proxy but seems happy to let the Hockey team use them even now.
Alan Bates: Dr Wolff works for the British Antarctic Survey team, but you're quite right I should have made it clear I was referring to the British Alpaca Society. Sorry for the confusion.
"If Dr Wolff hasn't looked at the millennial temperature reconstructions or read HSI, that is not something you can blame him for. "
True, but when he proposes a set of things we can all agree with, it would be nice if he was better informed about years of history we have to get over first. No personal criticism, but I find his position unsound, if only because we must go over all the same ground again to bring him up to speed.
Rhoda
No, Eric's list of things we agree on was based on what we heard at the conference in Cambridge, not on climate science as a whole.
This problem is specialisation, its true within companies too, you work in a speicalised dept and trust the other depts are experts in their specialisation. But once a year there is an external independent audit, have direct experience of these audits weeding out the wrong doing which in my examples was always in the accounts dept. Its why the should be more Steve McIntyre's and also why the scientists should be welcoming audits.
The similarly flawed source and / or a similarly flawed method,just because they are used by several people, doesn't make them more likely to be correct.
My mum told me 'two wrongs don't make a right'. By extrapolation then it would also be true to say theat, 'four or five wrongs don't make a right'.
Bish, You are right, the original list of things was contextually based on the Cambridge meeting. Most of it is unexceptionable, although IMHO not well put. I have a big problem with the sensitivity figure, of course.
Obviously his responses to Neil's questions are a different thing entirely. I don't think he is to be blamed for not knowing the answers. Whether one can detect evasion and tribalism is a subjective thing. But it is arguable that he is not sufficiently well-informed for his answers to specific questions in long-disputed territory to be of interest.
Rhoda, BreathofFreshAir
I think that it's will be great if Eric Wolff takes a look at the millennial temperature reconstructions in more detail. That way we get another audit and it is this that makes his views interesting.
99% of scientists are honest people. So when they hear of the sort of things described in the Hockey Stick Illusion (HSI) they will automatically assume that it is wildly inaccurate, because it is so far removed from their own morals. It is only natural (and practical) to rely on "received wisdom", we all do that. At some point though, when the alarm bells have sounded long enough, you'll have to take a closer look yourself.
Jasper Kirkby reproduces multi-proxy reconstructions for the last 1100 years - the MWP and LIA are clearly obvious - and shows the hockey stick also, and notes in the text there are problems with the latter (understated academia talk). Page 3:
http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
In the interests of trying to further common ground and not complaining, perhaps we could come up with more questions for Dr Wolff.
Mine would be:
1) Do you accept that the Climategate e-mails showed leading climate scientists behaving in shabby, underhanded and manipulative ways?
2) Do you believe that if global temperature warms by more than 2C by 2100, there will be severely damaging consequences for humanity?
3) Do you believe that reducing CO2 levels to 350ppm will hold global warming to under 2C by 2100?
4) Do you think there is anything the UK can do to ensure that global CO2 levels are reduced to 350ppm?
"If Dr Wolff hasn't looked at the millennial temperature reconstructions or read HSI, that is not something you can blame him for."
Actually, I think that I can and will. If Dr Wolff cannot be bothered to read the literature around the area on which he is pontificating, then he should not pontificate on it.
And if he does pontificate he should most certainly admit his lack of knowledge, lest his Doctorate be perceived as being put forward as an "appeal to authority", i.e. "I don't know anything about this subject, but I've got a PhD so I'm right and you're wrong."
In other words, those with academic qualifications have a duty to declare when they are not arguing from a position of direct knowledge, else they bring their entire profession into disrepute*.
DK
* I know, I know: the idea that climate science could be any further degraded in the public imagination is pretty funny, but you get where I'm coming from...
DK
I think that's going too far. He was asked to comment on the Hockey Stick. He answered to the best of his knowledge. I think most people here will realise that he isn't a tree ring guy. I don't think he should be held to a standard that requires him to state his credentials every time he opens his mouth on a technical subject. Let's just hear what he has to say and challenge him if we disagree.
How many red flags does it take before a scientist decides to think for himself? After all, we are only talking about the most prominently discussed political issue facing the world. How many revelations does it take? These are supposed to be scientists after all, not sheep or lemmings. [Perhaps Josh could use lemmings in one of his cartoons ......]
Anyway, the extraordinary number and size and scope of the scientific irregularities and weaknesses undergirding the alarmist case are such that all the scientists in the world should have had enough notice by now that they should check some things out for themselves. Once they realize that the standards underlying climate science would be inadequate in their own field, it should be game over and back to square 1.
Oh, yes -- hundreds of lemmings hurling themselves off a cliff, and one lemming trying to persuade an unwilling lemming to join them: "But we're the consensus, goddamit!"
A good summary of the issue is also at:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/steve-mcintyres-ipcc-presentation/
This presentation shows how dependant the hockey stick is on three things: the bristlecone pines and the Urals
Secondly, ...of course, Mann's clique would say and propagate the impression that the NAS panel supports the hockey stick. Muddying the waters - they are past-masters and experts at that. The NAS panel said "plausible" and these guys got together and reorganized the English language to suit their ends. The same is true of Mann 08 as well- these are post-normal science papers written to support a plausibly supportable scientific position with a reasonably, scholarly-appearing methodology, the flaws of which will be evident only to those who go digging deep.
@ Bishop Hill
DK
I think that's going too far. He was asked to comment on the Hockey Stick. He answered to the best of his knowledge. I think most people here will realise that he isn't a tree ring guy. I don't think he should be held to a standard that requires him to state his credentials every time he opens his mouth on a technical subject. Let's just hear what he has to say and challenge him if we disagree.
+++++++++++++
Have to disagree on this one. If he is unsure or does not have the requisite knowledge, then the answer should be that he is not sure or doesn't know. The problem for me is that the type of answer given repeats the "concensus" view and of course the warmers will jump on it as another scientist agreeing with their theory. As you point out climate science is a massive subject and answering "I don't know" is not some kind of academic suicide. Just be honest about your limitations.
I agree that we need to cut Prof Wolff some slack, in that tree rings are not his speciality, and he is engaging with us, at least to some extent, and that is progress of sorts. But if you are reading this Eric, I really do implore you to read the HSI, and also do some research into the IPCC's flawed remit, dubious structure and practices. Donna Laframboise's is a good place to start. Another thought - ok tree rings are not Eric's subject, so can someone perhaps ask Prof Wolff if he thinks Steig et al 09 is worth the paper it is written on ?
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/2/8/steigs-method-massacred.html
I'm happy to cut Dr Wolff some slack. Thank you for for your show of engagement.
A show is what it is. I am personally very long retired from UEA and climate science in general. It seems know more than you. Ignorance is no excuse for ignoring the data. The British Antarctic Survey was something I longed to join. No longer.
Agreed with Mactheknife. Bart V already did what Mac points out.
Having followed this blog and others for a couple years now, I long ago came to the conclusion that the "research" done on "climate science" is shabby at best, and most likely disingenuous in intent.
How does deciding the "consensus" or forming "lists of agreement" make it factual or true or even "scientific"?
What needs to happen is to scrap all this crap and start again in a careful scientific manner. That has not been done.
What we have here are political exercises for power's sake. Pure and simple.
Tree rings:
Dendrochronology has proved a remarkably useful dating tool, but this success cannot be transferred to being a useful temperature proxi. I suspect the comparative success of the former has influenced the level of confidence in tree rings as a temperature proxi.
Tree growth is limited by which factor saturates first:
1. Sunlight (including latitude)
2. Temperature at relevant season - trees stop growing below 0deg C. A good growing season might be followed by a bitter winter and not show up in the tree ring.
3. CO2 level - the main nutrient
4. Moisture/rainfall
4. Other nutrients in the soil, nitrates etc.
5. Pests
7. Place in forest or stand of trees: young trees in the centre would show poor growth from lack of sunlight until mature trees died and fell, opening the young tree to more sunlight.
8. Height above sea level
9. Weather (not climate): eg storms blow down trees
10. Fire
Many of these are interlinked. It is clear that tree rings are a poor guide to temperature.
I am a little confused. Is this the same conference where the subject of (dare I type it?) "Climategate" was banned? Just asling but it seems to me maybe had it been discussed the good Eric may have had an inkling.
I will give the guy a chance but it does seem strange that, in your words Bish, "He was asked to comment on the Hockey Stick. He answered to the best of his knowledge". Maybe he should have reserved the right to not ask/answer until he was up to speed, at least on the disagreements from both sides because it makes him come over to me as just another biased voice.
While I obviously tend to agree factually with most of the criticisms of Professor Wollff's answers I think it important to remember that he & he alone, worldwide, has been willing to try and answer what I believe to be questions that all those supporting the theory of severely damaging warming must be able to answer if it is correct. That makes him more worthy of respect than them.
Bruce Hoult's defence of the term "catastrophic warming" is scientifically ingenious but I hope he will agree that that is not how the term has been used by policymakers or indeed the likes of Hansen (whose testimony on oath in the Kingsnorth case is here http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080910_Kingsnorth.pdf. )
I am not personally convinced that there is zero anthropogenic warming but I am convinced that, even if it were not beneficial, unless it were sufficiently serious to be describable as catastrophic, it would not be proper to demand the trillions being spent on the current "war on fire" across the western world.
I find it fascinating to hear what a "mainstream" (concensus?) scientist believes. If this type of view is the view of "the vast majority of scientists", it confirms in my mind how weak the mainstream argument is. I think we must be very grateful to Dr Wolff for engaging with us, and to the Bishop for setting this in motion.
Bruce Hoult: "Put simply, a "catastrophe" occurs when a stable system has a small change of a parameter which causes a large change in the location of the stable point."
Suggest you drop the Encarta dictionary a line they seem to have the wrong definition.
"Catastrophe
1. disaster: a terrible disaster or accident, especially one that leads to great loss of life
2. total failure: an absolute failure, often in humiliating or embarrassing circumstances
3. theater resolution of plot: the concluding part of the action in a drama, especially a classical tragedy, when the plot is resolved
4. geology violent seismic change: a sudden and violent change in the Earth's crust caused by an earthquake, flood, or any other natural process
5. insurance event causing huge insurance claim: an event causing losses of insured property above a specific monetary limit and affecting a substantial number of policyholders and insurers
[Mid-16th century. Via Latin catastropha< Greek katastrophē "overturning" < katastrephein "overturn" < strephein "turn"] "
@ Neil Craig
Yes, I've just read of it described as "dangerous climate change".
@ Neil Craig
Absolutely, Dr. Wolff deserves all credit for approaching the debate in good faith. Likewise, regardless of the correct technical definition, the common meaning and intent the term "catastrophic warming" very strongly connotes a detrimental outcome.
"While I obviously tend to agree factually with most of the criticisms of Professor Wollff's answers I think it important to remember that he & he alone, worldwide, has been willing to try and answer what I believe to be questions that all those supporting the theory of severely damaging warming must be able to answer if it is correct. That makes him more worthy of respect than them."--Neil Craig
I certainly agree. And if Dr. Wolff takes a while to "get it," then fine. As with the esteemed Judy Curry, you have to consider primarily where he is coming from, not where we are. It may take a long while before he sees the entire picture. He may (or may not) become a sceptic or a luke-warmist, and either is a viable position. But what is most important at this juncture is his willingness to reexamine the issues in good faith.
I'm very happy with the idea of cutting Dr. Wolff some slack, as urged by many.
From the very little I know about him (mostly read on here) he seems a decent guy (although he's perhaps had a somewhat sheltered life thus far) and I'm sure he's wondering what the hell he's let himself in for in coming on here.
But he is in a funny position. Obviously, he can't be lumped together with the likes of Jones, Hansen & Mann. Let alone the likes of Ward, Romm & Gore. To say nothing about Huhne, Milipede, Lisa Jackson & the rest.
But the fact remains that, whether he is aware of it or not, he is one of a large number of "consensus" scientists whose work is being used as justification for (inter alia) the "decarbonisation of the economy".
If he has thought about this (and more importantly, about the implications of this policy for the lives of millions of his fellow citizens) and if he is aware (a) that the proposed "renewable energy" alternatives are either eye-wateringly expensive, useless or both and that (b) the "science" used to justify the "urgent action required" paradigm (in other words all the various 'scary stories') are hugely contentious at best, then fair enough.
But I'd really urge him to browse through the Hockey Stick Illusion (by no means the only place to start - but a really good one). If, having done so, he's still quite relaxed about how the 'consensus science' thing is shaping up, then fine and the best of luck for the future.
But my hunch is that, if he's got anything by way of an imagination and a bit of empathy for his fellow man, he'll have difficulty in sleeping at night.
Don Pablo says; “I long ago came to the conclusion that the "research" done on "climate science" is shabby at best…”
This became apparent to me when WUWT (Watt’s Up With That) asked a number of climate experts about which benchmark should be used to measure the Earth’s heat content. Their responses were all over the map; land surface temperatures, ocean heat content, and many others (sorry I can’t find the post – it was sometime in 2011).
You can’t measure something, do research on it, compare results, or have an informed discussion/debate about why or how it changes when you don’t have a generally accepted benchmark for it!
After reading the WUWT post mentioned above, I resolved to save myself a lot of time and frustration and stop reading all of this climate crapola until a benchmark is arrived at. Until this day arrives, everyone is simply talking past each other and wasting a lot of time and resources. It’s so darned compelling, however, I still find myself reading about it, but the point remains.
Bishop, you are not in a church. You arte on the battle field. Try to rememmber.
It's my observation that the vast number of temperature reconstructions do not support Mann's hockey stick result. It would seem only his collaborators and associates are capable of hockey stick type output. Here are a couple sites with numerous reconstructions presented where the good Dr. Wolff could expand his knowledge on the subject:
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html and,
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Re Lemmings.
History repeats. Here is an early 1983 cartoon from Australia when the nuclear debate got a bit stronger.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/Lemmings.jpg
Bish,
I hope you don't mind me addressing you thus.
I understand that you know Dr. Wolff and at least have been in contact with Dr. Judith Curry.
I suggest that you set up a three way meeting, and allow Dr. Curry to explain the hockeystick to Dr. Wolff.
Just She, He and Thou.
Once it is realised that the hockeystick is a nonesense, it is impossible to hold out that the current period is unusually or dangerously hot.
End of story, I would have thought.
I mean the end of the AGW fairy story (read nightmare).
This may well be the way to roll the whole thing up, in small, quiet conversations, with one knowledgeable scientist explaining the truth to another.
Away from the shouting crowd which only leads uniformed scientists to rise in ignorance, to the defence of their deluded brothers.
Perhaps it's time to apply a little psychology.
Agree with AusieDan - I think this one to one approach has a lot of merit and is the way to go if possible. And I think it would be worth pursuing with a number of scientists who have publicly backed the CO2 thesis, without knowing the first thing about the hockeystick team's malpractice, or the basics atmospheric science (e.g. Nurse's '7 times' misundertanding).
I am reminded of what Neil Craig mentioned in an aside yesterday or the day before - that Prof Anne Glover stated that the length of day would change as a result of AGW - if this is true then it demonstrates the level of ignorance that the consensus depends on.
geronimo and Neil Craig:
I know very well what the layperson's/media meaning of catastrophic is. I was pointing out what it means to scientists when they use it in a scientific paper, and that people in the media who report on scientific papers may not be aware of the difference in meanings and therefore ascribe severity to the results that are not in fact intended.
I would not put it past Hansen to deliberately play on this by using the term in its precise scientific meaning (but in a concerned voice) when talking to the media.
More helpful stuff for Dr Wolff
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/30/kill-it-with-fire/
@ @ Neil Craig
It is worth pointing out (again?) that "catastrophic" is a quite precise technical term with a meaning different to the layman's use of the same word.
The normal, everyday use of the term is vastly more important than the technical use. It has only been a technical term since the development of "catastrophe theory" by the French mathematician Rene Thom in the 1960s. If it were not for its name few non-mathematicians would ever have heard of it.
When the word "catastrophe" is used in connection with climate change it is almost always in its everyday sense.
surely this post from Willis should set Dr Wolff's mind at rest - the hockey stick is an illusion:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/30/kill-it-with-fire/#more-40782
Shub - ta for the link to Willis' latest. Excellent as usual.