Wednesday
Dec092015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill A state ideology
Dec 9, 2015 Civil liberties Climate: Sceptics Mark Steyn was breathtakingly good in his Congressional Testimony today.
Dec 9, 2015 Civil liberties Climate: Sceptics
Reader Comments (139)
He now should know, even if he didn't before, that all modern reconstructions, including those of Mann and those of PAGES2K which have had their egregious errors fixed, show the MWP to be as large as the present warming.,/i>
I asked for a reference to back that assertion up, if you recall ...
If Steyn is "extreme right wing", then WTF is Corbyn on the Left side of things. Extreme right. Bah. I would say he stands up for all of us.
Steyn, extreme right wing, he's Canadian, there's no such thing as an extreme right wing Canadian!
Don't feed the troll who refuses to answer questions and is only interested in preaching the SkS-gospel.
Phil
The paper referenced in the recon with the MWP shown on the actual webpost even said the same thing ie agreement with Moberg and the corrected Mann08 (no bristlecones, no upside-down proxies in the SI of Mann08). Another was the Loehle recon which we know agrees with the corrected Mann08 because 'believers' brought that to my attention (I had a link to a plot a while ago here). And I also linked to the Kauffman PAGES2K recon reproduced on climateaudit. Again I place as much faith in any of these as McIntyre does but at least they are truly independent this time.
For what it's worth there is something there for everyone in this result; a general conception that natural variation has been underestimated up to now, a general agreement that Mann is an arrogant twit (see climategate emails or Steyns new book) yet still an arguable increase in the rate of change of the current warming from that of the MWP.
Phil Clarke
I can't see that any of his hockey-stick-stuff is among those references. Are you trying to change the subject? By nitpicking phrases ...
Wrt to the actual issues, I'm still interested in who has fed you your beliefs.
Something that I find unpalatable, being more liberal than not, is that so many disbelievers are indeed right-wingnuts with crazy views on a variety of subjects. However, mixing with this crowd, I have come to appreciate that right-wingers actually turn out to be correct a lot and that there are just as many loony lefties. The trouble with this pathetic partizan split is that people dig deeper into their belief system rather than face the fact that there is no such thing as ideological truth and that scientific truth should be the goal - not biased policy and censorship of dissenters.
There should be no doubt for anyone objectively keeping up to date with the actual science that the hype and hyperbole is not based on facts but dubious and debatable opinion that seems to be propped up by a self-sustaining groupthink yet is continually debunked by real science (ie less models and more data). Of course there is rapprochement possible in many areas; ie win-win situations and sometimes folk consider it for 5 minutes but then they retreat back to their tribal comfort zones.
Sanity will seemingly only return with widespread blackouts or obvious cooling that can't be adjusted away.
The paper referenced in the recon with the MWP shown on the actual webpost even said the same thing ie agreement with Moberg and the corrected Mann08
I'm a bit dense at times. Which paper (DOI pls) and which webpost?
I can't see that any of his hockey-stick-stuff is among those references. Are you trying to change the subject?
I was refuting the lie that the IPCC had dropped Dr Mann. The third reference is to Mann et al 2008, which was an improvement on MBH98/MBH99, the same authors contributed, plus new experts, and it sits within the error bars of the previous studies.
HTH.
JamesG
"Something that I find unpalatable, being more liberal than not, is that so many disbelievers are indeed right-wingnuts with crazy views on a variety of subjects. "
Me too. In addition to poisoning of the well of anti global warming opposition with right wing crazies, there is the deep entrenchment of the idea that there is a war between environmentalists and the oil industry when the reality is that the oil /banking industry (and their client states) has been running and funding this scam since Kyoto in 1998.
http://scrapthetrade.com/history
JamesG
It's exactly the same divide and rule game of constant, full bloodied war between two tribes arguing about ludicrously irrelevant nonsense like homosexuality, gay marriage, Jesus, Muslims, gun control, man hating, transgender, Donald Trumpton, global warming whatever.
It is estimated that up to $200 trillion may have disappeared from the global economy virtually overnight and not one corporate journalists asked where it went, never mind found out.
One did briefly ask early on, but had to run for cover when the full scale started to emerge.
America was conned - who will pay? Larry Elliott, economics editor, Guardian
The South Sea Bubble ended in riots as trust was lost. Wall Street also duped the public
Bear Stearns marks the moment when the global financial crisis went critical. Up until last Friday, it had been possible - just about - to believe that the worst was over and that things were about to get better. That pretence was stripped away when JP Morgan, at the behest of the Federal Reserve, stepped in when the hedge funds pulled the plug on the fifth-biggest US investment bank.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/mar/17/economics.useconomy
Christiansen, B. and Ljungqvist, F.C. 2012. The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability. Climate of the Past 8: 765-786
Naomi Klein on the merging of the green industry with the fossil fuel industry
The whole affair, according to Klein, underlines a painful truth behind the “catastrophic failure” of some environmental organisations to combat the fossil-fuel industries responsible for soaring
greenhouse gas emissions. “Large parts of the movement aren’t actually fighting those interests – they have merged with them,” she writes, pointing to green groups that have accepted fossil-fuel
industry donations or partnerships and invited industry executives on to their boards.
It is no coincidence, suggests Klein, that several environmental organisations have also championed climate policies that are the least burdensome to the energy industry, including generously designed
carbon markets and the use of natural gas as a bridge to a cleaner energy system.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e373bd70-3d8e-11e4-b782-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3IlD0mBsv
Naomi Klein: 'Big green groups are more damaging than climate deniers'
Well, I think there is a very a deep denialism in the environmental movement among the Big Green groups. And to be very honest with you, I think it's been more damaging than the right-wing denialism in terms of how much ground we've lost. Because it has steered us in directions that have yielded very poor results. I think if we look at the track record of Kyoto, of the UN Clean Development Mechanism, the European Union's emissions trading scheme – we now have close to a decade that we can measure these schemes against, and it's disastrous. Not only are emissions up, but you have no end of scams to point to, which gives fodder to the right.
The right took on cap-and-trade by saying it's going to bankrupt us, it's handouts to corporations, and, by the way, it's not going to work. And they were right on all counts. Not in the bankrupting part, but they were right that this was a massive corporate giveaway, and they were right that it wasn't going to bring us anywhere near what scientists were saying we needed to do lower emissions
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/10/naomi-klein-green-groups-climate-deniers
"I was refuting the lie that the IPCC had dropped Dr Mann .. "
Well, a very narrow reading of only one phrase could arguably be read to be have made that claim. But nothing of the preceeding discussion. So I take it, this was an excuse to change the subject using very selective reading.
I don't think this is a particularly smart 'strategy' given what you usually try here, and the level of how 'correct' you usually get your interjections ...
Anyway, I asked you who has fed you the things you apparently believe and repeat here?
For Phil Clarke's benefit, it is worth repeating that Mann's Hockey Stick is computer adjusted climate science at it's most incredible. This is why those climate scientists wishing to retain credibility have declined to support Mann in court.
Obviously this leaves the way clear for Phil Clarke to rescue his hero, singlehanded, and earn a place in history.
JamesG - O I C.
Thanks. Tree rings are back in, I see. I guess you're referring to The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th century, equalling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005), Mann et al. (2008, 2009), Ljungqvist (2010), and Ljungqvist et al. (2012). .
Mann 2008 being the 'uncorrected' recon with all those data quality issues.
I notice also The geographical distribution of temperature anomalies in the MWP shows larger inhomogeneities than observed in the LIA. For the period 950–1049 AD the mean is 0.49 ◦C, but only 9 out of 16 local reconstructions show warm anomalies, although the cold anomalies are weak
And I'm not sure Fig 6. supports the assertion that all modern reconstructions, including those of Mann and those of PAGES2K which have had their egregious errors fixed, show the MWP to be as large as the present warming. especially.
According to HADCRUT the surface is now 0.8C warmer than it was in 1950.
Thought for the Day
If Steve McIntyre had poured a fraction of the effort into producing a reconstruction that met his forensic audit standards for methods, reproducibility and so on, rather than attacking the work of scientists from the sidelines, then perhaps by now we would have a Gold Standard.
But he hasn't, has he?
Dec 9, 2015 at 5:12 PM | Phil Clarke
=========================
Well, Phil, if you have a beef with McIntyre, why don't you talk to HIM about it - he's very amenable. Rather than dumping your crap all over the Bish eh? Bet you won't tho' - all gong and no dinner would be my guess about you.
Phil Clarke, when did Mann admit there was anything wrong with the Hockey Stick that needed any form of correcting?
Was it other members of the Climate Science Hockey Team who pointed out his mistakes and inconsistencies, or was it someone from outside the self fertilising bubble of climate science?
Frankly, instead of promoting Steyn's somewhat self-serving knockabout, it would be preferable to highlight the thoughtful contribution of Prof JR Christy. Which includes positive recommendations on how (US) research funding into climate might be taken forward.
Phil
Now who is nitpicky? Not so picky with Manns daft teleconnction notion, upside-down data, including trees that were not even proxies to local temps, grevious data-mining or many other substantial errors were you? If you were remotely even-handed or objective then the troll label would not apply.
And you need to learn to read more carefully:
"...which have had their egregious errors fixed..." especially. I didn't say paleos were yet as adroit as they need to be (particularly in not using standard, prove methodologies) but a few seem to be more aware of proper proxy selection at least. A strict comparison of error-corrected recons has therefore yet to be published but the individual data and graphs are all there as I have already pointed out. The match is rather better with the error-fixed version. And yes Mann08 is still a crap method (or rather 2 crap methods) even if in the SI he managed to vaguely approach a reasonable answer after some errors (not all) were fixed.
Also note "The proxies are of different types and of different resolutions (annual, annual-to-decadal, and decadal) but all have previously been shown to relate to local or regional temperature. ".....
This was one of my original 9 points. When a tree-ring or (preferably) treeline proxy does this then it is acceptable. If not then it is just not a proxy. Manns Bristlecones, which were in numerous other recons were stated as being anomalous (and not therefore a proxy) to local temperature in the original paper - as was the influential Yamal. Numerous paleos refused to care about that because all they wanted to achieve was a hockey-stick. They still have not learned some basics but finally (perhaps due to Loehles work) they do accept this truly basic point at least. Of course Mann08 did not do this exceedingly basic check and neither did any other recon bar Loehle and this one.
McIntyre btw did a reconstruction and published it in 2005. He didn't promote it as such because he does not believe that the sparsity of the data is sufficient to warrant a reconstruction in the first place. It was therefore included only as a sensitivity test. And yes it has an MWP. But would you do something if you thought the result was not likely to be useful? Probably only if you had received the grant money already and had to publish.
I can't believe I was dragged back into teaching the blind to read. Whither education and basic common sense!
I posted a transcript of the video (the 5 minute discussion between Markey, Steyn, and Curry).
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/12/10/senate-climate-hearing-91817/
It nicely illustrates why public policy is gridlocked on this important topic.
Charlie does make a good point, in that the phrase he has quoted actually does make no sense. You haven’t been tutored by Ken Rice, by any chance?
The Baobab tree is also known as the 'Upside Down Tree'. Taking dendro cores from a Baobab, might solve some of the obvious flaws in Mannian Methodology.
Shorter James G - I get to decide which proxies go in. Take out the proxies I don't like and you get the result I want.
Sounds exactly like what Mann was accused of.
Strip-bark bristlecones are perfectly fine before 1850 and carry useful climatological information. Read Wahl and Ammann, especially Fig. 2.
The reconstruction in MM05 failed validation, as I'm sure you know.
Q. Phil Clarke, when did Mann admit there was anything wrong with the Hockey Stick that needed any form of correcting?
A. Our initial study published in the journal,
Nature, in 1998 was followed by an additional study in the
journal, Geophysical Research Letters, in 1999. The main
conclusion of the 1998 study was that there had been
unprecedented warming in the Northern Hemisphere in recent
decades. The 1999 study reinforced this conclusion but
also reassessed and expanded the uncertainties and added
he tentative conclusion that it was likely that the 1990s
were the warmest decade over that thousand year time period
and that 1998 was the warmest year.
The 1999 study included a graphic depiction of the
temperature history over the last millennium, which
demonstrated an unprecedented rise during the 20th Century.
Some have dubbed this graphic the hockey stick. If the
question this committee seeks to answer is whether knowing
what I know today, a decade after starting the original
study, my colleagues and I would conduct it in exactly the
same way, the answer is plainly no. The field of
paleoclimate reconstruction has evolved tremendously over
the past decade.
Important new proxy data have been developed.
Reconstructions have been compared with independent
estimates from climate model simulations and confirmed by
those simulations. Statistical methods for reconstructing
climate from proxy data have been refined and rigorously
tested, and I have been actively working in each of these
areas. This is important because all the focus of criticism
on our work in the late 1990s has been on the statistical
conventions we used. My co-authors and I have not used those
conventions in our later work
Testimony by the 'arrogant' Dr Mann to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm
Phil Clarke used to post at WUWT, had his butt kicked thoroughly on all aspects of his posts, ran away from there like the coward he is and is now posting crap here about Mann's Hockey Stick being right, which shows the level of [in]decency of this guy. Just don't feed the pathetic dishonest troll.
Considering the removal of so many of the higher altitude and higher latitude stations, thus weighting readings to the warmer stations, should we be surprised? Let alone the severe tampering with the data that NASA has been indulging in! Why not consider the longest-running continuous readings so far, the Central England Temperatures (CET)? In the 350 years since their inception, they have shown a trend of… well… nil, really.
Sheesh. Where to start? Zeke Hausfather and others showed that the 'station drop-out' introduced a cooling bias.
http://s81.photobucket.com/user/hausfath/media/Picture170.png.html
http://clearclimatecode.org/the-1990s-station-dropout-does-not-have-a-warming-effect/
The CET is hardly a global proxy, and is unusable before around 1770 (no mercury in glass thermometers, readings taken indoors, missing data infilled from erm, Utrecht) As for no trend …
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif
Sheesh.
I don't understand these arguments. The complexity means you could literally dribble on for ever and be no further forward than where you started. I observed a conversation between Pielke Snr and Gavin Schmidt. They were so far apart no reconciliation was conceivable. That's when I stopped even reading climate science stuff.
What about Scottish independence ? That's an easy subject.
Phil Clarke used to post at WUWT, had his butt kicked thoroughly on all aspects of his posts
Yeah right. This would be the site where one of the moderators - Dave Stealey (amongst other screen names)- for years was allowed to sockpuppet as 'Smokey' and moderate his own arguments, delaying and snipping opposing posts that he didn't like.
This would be the site the deplores sockpuppetry and where posters are encouraged to elevate your status by being open and honest. People that use their real name get more respect than phantoms with handles.
So I'll be taking no lessons in ethics from that particular double-faced quarter.
(BTW For a while I also used to post as 'John Phillips' - when I thought using my real name unwise - you might like to research how your hero treated that poster.)
Phil Clarke, thanks for that clarification, about what Mann has so far admitted being wrong about.
Why is Mann pursuing Steyn through the courts? (to bring the thread back to roughly where it started)
We now know that Newton's Laws of Motion break down at quantum level. Was Sir Isaac Newton 'wrong'?
Steyn described Mann's work as fraudalent, Mann is suing for libel.
But you knew that.
There have been many attempts to equate what some call 'climate science' to the 'theory of gravity' (or even roundness of the earth). I'd say that such 'comparisons' are a sign of weakness of both the 'theory' and its proponents ability to argue its merits ...
Note the extra-tropical
Golf charlie asks :
"when did Mann admit there was anything wrong with the Hockey Stick that needed any form of correcting?"
I'd say around the time he published the Corrigendum to his 1998 article in Nature .
A decade earlier I leveled some mathematical criticism at a ( per-Murdoch ) rather polemic Wall Street Journal piece criticizing the "star wars" defense project whose authors included Nico Bloembergen and Henry Kendall. The authors replied with an indignant letter repeating the original error . As Bloembergen had been one of my advisors in grad school, I called on him , for the favor of informal peer review , and showed him both the angry letter I intended to publish in reply, and the article in The Journal of the Optical Society of America from which he and Henry had borrowed a scaling equation from an inappropriate regime of dimensional analysis.
I pointed out the problem , and having carefully read it , Bloembergen repeated a verbal formula he drummed into all his students: " When you're wrong, you should publish a corrigendum."
His appeared in the WSJ the following week.
Sheesh!
CRU Sponsorship
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order): British Council, British Petroleum, Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
Phil Clark, if you are able to read and listen other than SkS-gospel, here's something for you:
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/smoking-gun-of-wide-ranging-hockey-stick-malfeasance
Prof. Mullers points should be of interest to anyone defending "Mike's tricks"...