Bishop Hill Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey stick
Jun 14, 2013 Climate: MWP
The Met Office's My Climate and Me website has removed a blog post about the Marcott Hockey Stick:
We previously posted an article entitled “New analysis suggests the Earth is warming at a rate unprecedented for 11,300 years” covering the paper by Marcott et al in Nature. The title of our article drew on the original press release for the paper. However, we note that authors of the paper have since issued an extensive response to media coverage [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/] which includes the following statement:
Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.
In the light of this statement from the authors, we no longer consider our headline to be appropriate.
Reader Comments (114)
Omnologos I agree.
Lots of comments appearing here these days attacking people instead of concentrating on the real issue.
A pity- this site used to be quite free from that.
Every time I look at the Met Office web site the unscientific propaganda leaves me furious. As a tax payer, I really object to this organisation's unscientific obsession with viewing weather and climate through the prism of clearly failed climate models.
The management should have been replaced years ago, but now I think that the whole lot are incapable of conventional scientific logic. They no longer serve any useful, reliable or credible purpose and should be shut down.
Yes Cat.
If the Met Office was a charity we could officially complain that it was 'spreading inaccuracies'.
Some stuff archived at Webcite. (Webcite does not correctly reproduce the MO pages but you can see what they said)
Earth is Warming at a Rate Unprecedented for 11,300 Years
Due to the fact the science contained in the original article did not originate from the Met Office and that the media coverage surrounding this report has already been extensive we have made the decision not to approach a Met Office scientist for comment.
Every time I look at the Met Office web site the unscientific propaganda leaves me furious. (...)
Jun 15, 2013 at 2:54 PM Schrodinger's Cat
My Climate and Me is not "propaganda".
I'm quite sure that the alarmist claims about catastrophic warming being made by the establishment, the media and others is a wonderful recruiting agent for customers who are worried about the alleged consequences and who are seeking more information.
I cannot comment on My Climate and Me since I have never looked at it.
@omnologos @pesadia
Richard Betts is one of the more sane members of a chronically warmist organisation. He is indeed seeming doing a good job of changing it from the inside by bringing more balance to the MetOffice position. And in that respect it is not correct to give him too hard a time. On the other hand he is still a warmist I believe - all be it a luke warm one.
As he does engage with the sceptical side of the argument, I concur we should treat him with special respect.
FarleyR
I respect the fact that Richard Betts contributes to this blog and I would like to think that we all welcome his input. I would be very disappointed if he felt that he was being driven out.
I still think that his employer is no longer managing climate science in an objective, balanced and responsible manner. I am ashamed of the Met Office.
Prevarication - is not enough, there is no dialogue and therefore there is no communication.
Get a grip SC, these types, er, gentlemen engage because they wish to appear to listen, by artifice shall we know them. Integrity means just that, there is no middle way, if a person who has good academic qualifications wishes to leave an institution......... there are many openings outside in the private sector.
Guile, cunning, deceit is how the government and apparatus of state is run, by duplicity and hypocrisy the hand wringers in our government - they listen.....'learn lessons'......... and carry on unaltered, regardless of any change of circumstance whether it be in the science, or indeed the reality.
Dammit all - our economy is in reverse whatever the figures say - therefore enacting insane policy attending to, pumping vast sums... down the drain into any sort of green agenda is a lunacy we can no longer carry on enduring. The Met Office is no innocent observer, it is a participant - in that, it actively engages in promulgating the Myth of man made runaway warming.
It's time someone in the MO really spoke out and to the truth of the matter: man made warming is bunk. We await the revelation, though most of us here know the truth already - I ain't gonna hold my breath.
There seems to be a common pattern with all these paleoclimate reconstructions. Initially they show a graph with a significant uptick (hockey stick) in the 20th century, usually based on statistical models. The media pick this up as proof of unprecedented warming by mankind. Some weeks or months later this is identified as being an artifact. The authors then agree that this is the case and point out that the original paper actually contained a disclaimer acknowledging how unreliability were the fits or the resolution used - so no conclusion can be drawn. They maintain their scientific integrity after others have tried to reproduce the results. However by then it is too late because the public only reads the first article.
I have now been round this loop twice .
1) Marcott et al. see here and then here and finally here
2) The new results from Briffa et al.2013 - "Yamalia Chronology". There is a lot of work in this paper and the data look sound. However there is yet again a smoothing algorithm used again accentuates a final uptick by almost a factor 2. They also acknowledge this problem of end effects in their paper ! - see http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5040
First order physics of the CO2 GHE is clear - it leads to ~1 deg.C warming if nothing else changes. Models predict 2-6C warming. So I can't help thinking there may be a "subconscious" tendency at play among paleoclimatologists to boost results.
But of course I could be wrong !
It most certainly is, and the fact that on at least one occasion they put out something which wasn't entirely alarmist doesn't change that. At least some attempt at subtlety is to be expected.
Calling it "communication" and suchlike doesn't alter the fact that it is the State attempting to persuade the public that their policies are right.
Again, in what way is it the role of the UK Meteorological Office to disseminate third party information of this sort?
Athelstan. I agree totally.
Of course this no doubt means the NYT's and Washington Post and everyone else who jumped on this study will be printing an extraction.
(not)
It matters not one iota if newspapers publish corrections. These people have cried wolf so many times, long ago the general public had decided the scary scenario, hockey sticks and the like were BS.
The problem is IMO the general public doesn't know how to stop governments spreading the BS and blowing all our money on joke science and windmills.
Neit! Neit!
The only reason for the withdrawal is the existence and persistence of The Fifth Estate, into the realm of which, the ilks of My Climate & Me have ventured.
TFE has already proved to be a far harder and fairer scrutineer than the now soft bellied, once vigilant Fourth Estate.
The blank canvas brings with it an inherent rigour!
Tug forelock to ntrophy & co
I don't think many appreciate the difficult nature of Betts' relationship with the climate internet. It's something connected with its job, and his employers have strong opinions on climate change. How can he express his actual thoughts without risking his livelihood for some silly comment perhaps written in jest? How can he be sure he's actually writing what he believes and not what the saner parts of his brain says should be written lest the family will have to seriously curtail their lifestyle and ambitions?
Personally I find it impossible to reconcile truth, opinion and employment. For this reason I have written almost zero in blogs and tweets about my day job. I trust it's somehow part of Richard's assignment at the Met Office and so he can spend some time trying to make it the best way he can make it.
Everybody else, we should just marvel at the fact he hasn't run into problems with Slingo et al. All the requests for him to stand up and choose martyrdom should respectfully be coming only from people that have stood up, and chosen martyrdom already, and have evidence of that.
omnologos
once again I applaud your comments.
Let he who is free........etc etc
But what if the behaviour of the "people" is the "issue"?
The behaviour of Betts is not that important. He's no Zaphod, you know, and this is not his personal Total Perspective Vortex. Same applies to us.
omnologos
I have walked, on principle, and grown from it and my family now appreciate my decision.
I do not know Richard personally and cannot possibly comprehend the complications of his position. I therefore try very hard to restrict my communications with Richard to actual verifiable data and if possible MO verifiable data.
I do not expect answers, I am usually intrigued when I get one, recognise that it might not answer directly. But, I do know that a certain aspect of verifiable data has now been acknowledge. Might not have been "endorsed" or "welcomed" but it has not been refuted.
With such I move on.....as I am sure Richard does.
wise word from omnologos:
"Everybody else, we should just marvel at the fact he hasn't run into problems with Slingo et al. All the requests for him to stand up and choose martyrdom should respectfully be coming only from people that have stood up, and chosen martyrdom already, and have evidence of that."
Can the abusive types such as Stephen Richards and Don Keiller say that they have always been so personally abusive in all aspects of their working lives as they project their alpha-male personalities on this blog?
Jun 15, 2013 at 3:40 PM | Martin A
My Climate and Me is not "propaganda".
I find the next sentence by RB with regard to 'My Climate and Me' more interesting:
Viewed through the alarmist prism it seems unusual that the surprising result (to them) of the article did not attract any comments.
The man on the Clapham omnibus however might tend to view the article as 'Well, duh?'; no comment required.
The point I am clumsily trying to make is that not everyone expects the world to end next week because climate changes. You only tend to have that view if you've been to the school of global warming/climate change/climate disruption.
I cannot take "My Climate and Me" seriously. For some reason I picture Teletubbies with hockey sticks, or the Tweenies singing Old Mann River (I haven't identified yet the source of this children TV link).
I suspect I am way, way off their target audience.
"My Climate and Me"
Is to me the epitome of the demise of the MO. A wonderful example of the dumbing down of our ability to educate our children.
My father taught me to "read" (his word) the weather by listening to the Shipping Forecast and following, geographically, the outlook for each sea area as it was announced (clockwise) around the UK.
Still use it, still works, just plain, simple physics and logic.
@Diogenes. I have been "outspoken" about climate psientists for 2 reasons.
1) They are wrong and they know it.
2) One famous climate psientist actually plotted how to make my life "difficult" at my place of work.
Given this background, I believe I am entitled to feel animus to this bunch of charlatans.
"How can he be sure he's actually writing what he believes and not what the saner parts of his brain says should be written lest the family will have to seriously curtail their lifestyle and ambitions"
That sentence puzzled for a while omnologos but I'm still on my first coffee. Nevertheless when someone is not content in their employment they usually find an alternative. But if Richard is trying to change things from within then a little more blood and guts are required cos they aint listening at the moment.
Or it maybe simply his mission to infiltrate and report back to HQ.
Don -you're adding to the noise. Get a resolution with the "plotter".
Martyn -my sentence applies to anybody that blogs about something he's paid by somebody else to do. It has nothing to do with being content. Call it a "conflict of interest".
If I complain about my job on the net, I expect to be helped by my employer with a quick firing. If I praise my job on the net, I expect people to say, "of course he would do that, to protect his job".
So whatever one writes about one's job, it's bound to be self-defeating. So unless told otherwise by my employer, I will and should never write anything about my job.
sorry guys I forgot to log in. Maurizio Morabito = omnologos (at least as a name ;) )
'They are wrong and they know it'. Here is one of the keys to the great mystery.
============
omnologos:-
Your post in the main is about Bett's and in your opinion a possible conflict of interest and I am suggesting when he visits skeptic blogs it may not be a conflict of interest it may be just plain underhand deception. Knowing your enemy is half the battle as it were.
With regard to Richard Betts I think there may be an element of talking past each other. Richard has made it clear that he believes CO2 causes warming and the only question is how much. Personally, I don’t accept this as the null, but my position is driven by other considerations – I do not agree with any policy that has the effect of making energy artificially more expensive. In my view any such policy is wrong. My major quibble with Richard is not arguing about the nuances of ‘climate sensitivity’ if such a thing actually exists but the fact that he is part of an organization that has aided and abetted the politicians who have introduced policies that are designed to impose hardship on the citizens of this country and to accelerate the demise of British industry.
I certainly wish Richard no ill but I do require that our national meteorological office do science not propaganda. Because of his belief in the magical powers of CO2, Richard is unfortunately blind to the propaganda activities of his employers – or at least he rationalizes them as supporting something he believes in. In this regard I believe he has lost the objectivity that we are entitled to expect of science and scientists.
On the question of ad hominem comment, there are certain members of the opposition who do not deserve anything more than an Anglo Saxon epithet. To seek to articulate rational argument against idiots is a waste of mental energy.
And as an example of the ludicrous policies lumped on the hapless citizens of this once green and pleasant windturbinefree land we have some hard numbers on the cost of the 'Green' jobs bonanza
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html
An object lesson in how to destroy wealth. Read it and weep.
I think noTrohpywins (just above) is unfair to Richard Betts. Almost all climate sceptics (excluding Skydragonslayers) agree that adding CO2 to the present amount in the atmosphere must cause some warming. This is not magic. The current question is whether such warming is, or is likely to become, detectable. If or when it does become detectable, one can start considering possible side-effects of that particular contribution to warming, beneficial or otherwise. There are many other factors, natural and anthropogenic, which could be affecting climate locally, regionally and even globally; as things stand, CO2 is way down the list. Richard seems to me to be doing his best to knock some sense into his colleagues. He deserves our support for his efforts.
Far to late , the pumped this all it was worth without question not because it was good science , for that it really was not , but because its helped 'the cause ' to which they have become addicted. And we been here many times before .
Completely OT,
but why are the Met Office UK forecasts so bad. Currently the BBC site (which I assume is closely Met Office related - bottom of page has "BBC Weather in association with the Met Office") has rain stuck over Cornwall/Devon only whereas the rainfall radar from raintoday.co.uk has the very south of England and Wales covered by rain now. Yesterday the Met Office App had no rain for South Wales at all which was updated this morning. My Android app of choice is 1Weather which had the forecast rain pretty much spot on yesterday. They get their data from Weather Decision Technologies by the look of it.
Does anyone know if there are any objective comparisons available between different forecasters. My completely subjective view has the Met Office a long way behind other forecasts from all over the world I've used for the last few years. Maybe the forecasting budget is being reduced in comparison to it's climate budget?
Martyn & noTrohpywins. Thanks for making my arguments for me:-)
Coldish
the MO should have put all their resources into understanding natural variability from day one and not played the politically expedient card of persecuting CO2. I refer to it as the 'magic' element because it seems it can cause droughts floods heatwaves snowstorms tornadoes hurricanes and 17 years and 4 months of little or no so-called global warming. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that CO2 actually causes any detectable warming of that part of the atmosphere that we humans inhabit. The concept of global mean temperature is completely meaningless. And then we spend billions on models trying to predict something that is completely meaningless. As any 70's DJ worth his salt would tell you 'It's bonkers, mate. It's bloody bonkers!'
And now it seems that after spending millions of our money persecuting an innocent and largely beneficial atmospheric molecule the MO are slowly but surely realising that natural variability holds the key to understanding climate. That is the null that the MO should have spent our money on. Their relentless persecution of CO2 has caused this country immeasurable damage and for that I do not and will not forgive them. That they have also brought science into disrepute is to their everlasting shame.
had the Met-O done otherwise than they have done, funding wouldn't have been anywhere near what's been - when science meets politics, money wins
Jun 16, 2013 at 1:46 PM | noTrohpywins
Isn't there the circular argument of being given money to look at the effects of CO2 leading to actually looking at the effects of CO2. And of course the effects open ended conclusion with demands for more funding.
Rob - in addition to that there's money given to report on any worry that results in reports full of worries, in turn generating more worry-bound money.
That's why all those climate scientists end up looking like worry-full buffoons, without even noticing.
The fact that the Met Office has persevered with alarmist forecasts based on their flawed model for 17 years of non-warming suggests that they believe that their model simulates reality while data collected through observation is unreliable and should be ignored. Clearly, the MO abandoned science years ago.
Now, media reports tell us that Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office, said: "We have seen a run of unusual seasons in the UK and northern Europe, such as the cold winter of 2010, last year's wet weather and the cold spring this year."
Goodness! Cold weather in winter! A cold spring! Surely not wet weather in the UK? If the Met Office is holding an emergency summit with leading scientists to discuss this "unusual" weather then they must be living on another planet.
Our weather has returned to normal as several others have pointed out. So what is the MO up to?
Their alarmist forecasts are just a regular joke now and they know it. I suspect that the new plan is to re-brand our normal cold and wet weather as extreme and bizarre. Then, such weather becomes the proof of global warming. That alone is a bit far-fetched, but back it up with the claim that a summit of leading scientists reached a consensus that our bizarre (aka normal dismal summer) weather is evidence of man driven climate change and there you have the new strategy.
If I am right, you can watch this unfold over the coming weeks and then you will understand why I want to see the MO get shut down.
Here is the problem as I see it.
Left wing politics = Flawed CAGW theory = Fiddled data = "Green" energy = Subsidy seeking = Higher energy bills = fuel poverty = More dead pensioners.
Apart from wallet-stuffers like Troffa, debased science and outsourcing what remains of our energy intensive industry, to no effect on CO2 levels, what am I missing?
Don
why and how did it ever get off the ground?
In part I think it was the global nature of the imagined problem that appealed to the global-leader-wannabes that have inhabited no 10 for the last decade or so and their ever so lightweight sidekicks. Career politicians cannot resist the prospect of self-aggrandisement and what better prize than being seen as 'the man who saved the world'. Of course, this is not Hollywood and reality has a knack of kicking the hubristic firmly in the groin. There is a limit to the number of frozen pensioners that the citizens of the UK will allow to be sacrificed on the altar of stupidity.
They believe in the inherent rightness of their political ideology which involves communal living, education, employment, entertainment and associated infrastructure being provided by the state.
They tried promoting this on its own merits which fell on its face when it became apparent from the countries which tried it that it was an extremely unpleasant way to live among other disadvantages.
Thus the current attempt to promote it as essential on the basis that the alternatives are "unsustainable".
The problem they may be running into is that their vision is so unpleasant that the alternatives have to be really bad, and the disaster scenarios just aren't credible particularly when it's increasingly clear that the reality is that nothing very much is happening at all.
noT,
we already have the man who saved the world:
We not only saved the World
Mind you it's the same bloke who said we had 50 days to save the planet in 2009:
Clown
It's funny reading these old articles back, the tone has definitely changed these days.
Don Keiller
I think that you have to look much further back to the UN Agenda.
CAGW was just a convenient scare tactic which could be easily supported by the precautionary principle. Had it not been CO2, it would have (and might still be) something else.
The causes of climate change
This is Chapter 1 of Climatic Change and World Affairs (second edition), by Crispin Tickell.
This seminal book was first published in 1977, having been written the previous year while the author was on sabbatical from the Foreign Office as a Fellow at the Centre for International Affairs at Harvard University. It was published by the Centre and the University Press of America. The second edition, which represented a substantial revision and update, was published in 1986.
http://www.crispintickell.com/page79.html
Sir Crispin Tickell Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations 1987-1990.
I think the Metoffice is going through a crisis of confidence. There comes a time when cold reality dawns. The investor with the venture that bombs spectacularly, their business model trashed. The exploration team when the well reaches target depth and the logs show their reservoir model is a crock of sh*te. We all experience a dose of humility, and learn from it, normally early on in our careers. But the higher and more arrogant you are the harder it is to admit you are wrong. Few have the cojones to admit it, but when they do, their credo actually increases. Judith Curry, Fritz Vahrenholt. Its even more the politicians dilemma. Full marks to Douglas Carswell for this:-
'My biggest regret as an MP is that I failed to oppose the 2008 Climate Change Act. It was a mistake. I am sorry. On the very day the Labour government passed this fatuous attempt to "stop global warming", it was, if I remember rightly, snowing. Had I opposed the Bill, it wouldn't have made much difference, but I feel I should have known better. Unlike much of the gesture legislation that goes through Parliament, this law has turned out to have real consequences. The Climate Change Act has pushed up energy prices, squeezing households and making economic recovery ever more elusive.
The aim of the Climate Change Act was to create a low carbon economy. I fear the Act will do that, but perhaps not the way intended. The Climate Change Act is giving us a low carbon economy the way that pre-industrial Britain had a low carbon economy.'
http://www.talkcarswell.com/home/i-was-wrong-about-the-climate-change-act/2607
Perhaps Douglas Carswell should have read chapter 3 of Tickell's book linked above. At least he would have had a clue what was happening.
Pharos:
Do you really believe that the MO is going through a crisis of any sort?
I think they regard themselves as crusaders against carbon dioxide. The crisis may concern their mental faculties and loss of scientific reasoning. After all, when their model deviates from reality for 17 years, you would think that they might just begin to have doubts about it.
I see no signs of any doubts. Furthermore, their idiotic political masters are happy to continue with their insane policies, so no pressure from there.
I do believe that the MO people are aware of their credibility problem concerning warming forecasts. After years of "warmest ever" seasons that turn out to be dire, they know that they just can't carry on with that strategy. As I mentioned above, I think they will turn their PR machine (funded by the tax payer) towards trying to convince the gullible that our current normal and long term climate is somehow unusual, bizarre and a very, very strong indicator of catastrophic climate change.
It would be very amusing, were it not so evil, to watch this transpire. Politicians, of course, will lap it all up.