Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Are Geological Paleo-Climate Records Relevant to The Climate Debate?

Sooner or later you will have to confront the fact that hockey sticks tell a false tale. They have perverted the search for the answer to the question of attribution, and the delay is unnecessarily tragic. There may be forgiveness for the perversion, but science is unlikely to forget. Not this one.
===========================

Apr 19, 2016 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Any idea how long I will have to wait? I mean it's been 18 years since the first one, and so far, the hits just keep on coming.

Apr 19, 2016 at 9:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, so you are sticking with the Flat Line of climate history presented by Mann. No LIA or MWP?

Have you read the comments on the article you linked to? The author claims 11 exonerations for Mann and his Hockey Stick following Climategate. Lawyers acting for Steyn (possibly not Mann), may want to call him as a star witness.

Is this what you are relying on to push the Greenpeace message?

Apr 19, 2016 at 10:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Yes, GC. Interesting to see the well-presented argument by “Unknown” is answered with nothing but ad homs. My immediate reaction to a response like that is to view the author, Jim Milks, with suspicion; what he adds to later comments does nothing to alter my view of him – especially when Unknown reveals himself as a co-author of some of the papers being lauded! Being such a self-congratulatory echo-chamber, that site is well-worth avoiding.

Apr 19, 2016 at 11:18 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, it was frightfully jolly hockey sticks of Phil Clarke to flag up another own goal. The article was a few years ago, I am not sure if Mann still considered his outstanding fiction to be worth a Nobel Prize back then. Obviously Mann still considers himself worth a Nobel Prize, unfortunately the Nobel Prize Committee didn't read Mann's opinions.

I can only guess that Phil Clarke hadn't bothered to read the article he linked to, but I can recommend it. I am not sure whether any more of those Hockey Stick papers have been withdrawn, but references to "Mann" and "proxies" seemed to infest Phil Clarkes research material. He is going to be stuck without his crutch.

Apr 20, 2016 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I am not sure whether any more of those Hockey Stick papers have been withdrawn

Gergis et al was withdrawn and so removed from the list of studies that reproduced the broad findings of the MBH studies, leaving a mere 36.

You apparently missed this Update: I've posted two lengthy responses rebutting "Anonymous" in the comments. Quite frankly, none of "his" numerous claims stand up to scrutiny.

Powerful Morton's Demons you two have there.

Apr 20, 2016 at 7:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I do not think Wilson had practitioners like Mann and Marcott in mind when he wrote the lines below but his observations appear quite relevant to their work.

" The same freedom that empowers a statistician to pick a true signal out of the noise also enables scientist to manufacture nearly any result he or she wishes. Cajoling statistical significance where in reality there is none, a practice commonly known as “p-hacking,” is particularly easy to accomplish and difficult to detect on a case-by-case basis. And since the vast majority of studies still do not report their raw data along with their findings, there is often nothing to re-analyze and check even if there were volunteers with the time and inclination to do so."

His comments on Peer review appear to be quite germane when one considers the shrill insistence of their proponents as well:-

" ....once an entire field has been created—with careers, funding, appointments, and prestige all premised upon an experimental result which was utterly false due either to fraud or to plain bad luck—pointing this fact out is not likely to be very popular. Peer review switches from merely useless to actively harmful. It may be ineffective at keeping papers with analytic or methodological flaws from being published, but it can be deadly effective at suppressing criticism of a dominant research paradigm"

That should wake up EM, aTTP and Phil!

Apr 20, 2016 at 8:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterGlebekinvara

 And since the vast majority of studies still do not report their raw data along with their findings,

Name three. I notice Wilson does not include any references to allow us to check his facts. Irony? Using the superluminal neutrinos as an example is just ignorant, the CERN team were pretty sure they'd made an error, made all their data available and enlisted the international community to help them find it.

Fail.

These days, frontline journals insist on archiving of raw data as a condition of publication, a lot of climate proxy data is in public archives eg the International Tree Ring Database. As a software engineer, maybe Wilson is not quite up to speed on current practice.

First Things is published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life

Other things you can read there: The Defense of Catholic Marriage, Catholic Astronauts Keeping the Faith in Space

A religious body is anti-science! I am shocked, shocked I tell you. I want to know Wilson's position on the talking snake.

Apr 20, 2016 at 11:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Clutching at straws, again, Mr Clarke (Apr 20, 2016 at 7:58 AM):

(a) The "Little Ice Age" was not recorded in the proxies…
gets the response:
Mann et al. specifically highlighted a -0.02ºC/century trend between the middle of the Medieval Warm Period (AD 1000) and the end of the Little Ice Age (AD 1850).
So, a drop of 0.164°C is enough to plunge Europe into an ice age. Also, Jim Milks also completely dismisses contemporaneous reports from those times as “anecdotal”. Ri-i-i-i-ght… Check the demons on your shoulders, Mr Clarke.

I won’t go any further, While “Unknown” is prepared to offer good, scientific arguments, Jim Milks can only offer completely circular reasoning – A backs up B who backs up A who backs up B… ad infinitum, I suppose.

That both arguments are summarily dismissed as “gish gallops”, for reasons that are not obvious (even I can follow them!) is odd, but that must be some sort of scientific argument, ’cos Mr Clarke seems to happily support it.

Nice one, Cyril Glebekinvara! However, I doubt your hopes will be realised.

Apr 20, 2016 at 11:24 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Phil Clarke, if you are basing your faith, in faith based Green Propaganda, good luck.

How many of those 11 exonerations of Mann are you relying on? Or is Mann relying on?

Apr 20, 2016 at 11:30 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

RR - Europe <> Global.

HTH

Apr 20, 2016 at 11:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

And since the vast majority of studies still do not report their raw data along with their findings,

Name three. I notice Wilson does not include any references to allow us to check his facts. Irony? Using the superluminal neutrinos as an example is just ignorant, the CERN team were pretty sure they'd made an error, made all their data available and enlisted the international community to help them find it.

To mix metaphors, one example does not a summer make, I am afraid; you have even given a reason for the CERN team to do what they did: “ the CERN team were pretty sure they'd made an error, made all their data available and enlisted the international community to help them find it.” That is an excellent example of scientific practice. Will any of the climate team you support ever consider that they have made an error? Does the phrase: “You only want the data so that you can prove me wrong…” ring any bells with you?

Fail.


Glebekinvara: who knew we could have a demonstration of your hopes being dashed so quickly?!

Apr 20, 2016 at 11:40 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Europe <> Global.
Ah, yes. The “Bill Nye the Science [sic] Guy” argument. I’ve had this before, and it didn’t take too long for me to find plenty of other papers examining the evidence provided by a wide range of proxies that the RWP, MWP and LIA were pretty much global. Each and every one of the papers I linked to was dismissed on the most tenuous of grounds. How very odd…

Apr 20, 2016 at 11:47 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

Apr 20, 2016 at 12:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, as you note, the Gergis et al paper was withdrawn.

Anyone not familiar with the tactics of the Hockey Team, and the emergency repair team, might like to Google Gergis et al, along with Climate Audit, WattsUpWithThat, JoNova, even a site called Bishop Hill.

Real Climate even had a post celebrating the Gergis et al paper, which given the list of authors, is not surprising, but it isn't all there.

Why did Gergis et al get so far, and past peer review, to support Mann, when it was 'flawed'? Lucky that people who do not refer to themselves at Climate Scientists were available to spot the mistakes Climate Scientists argued did not exist.

Apr 20, 2016 at 12:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

That is but a single example, note also that Gergis and Neukom published basically the same paper in 2014 in Nature CC:

Lead author Dr Raphael Neukom from Switzerland said the study showed the ‘Medieval Warm Period’, as identified in some European chronicles, was a regional phenomenon. 

http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/new-southern-hemisphere-climate-data-provides-clearer-global-picture-0

Apr 20, 2016 at 12:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Not bad going over all. 700 posts before Clarke gets desperate enough to drag religion (offensively) into the discussion.
Warmist troll ignorant about religion! I'm shocked, I tell you. But not surprised any more. Isn't there some sort of religious version of Godwin's Law?

Apr 20, 2016 at 1:22 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Does the phrase: “You only want the data so that you can prove me wrong…” ring any bells with you?

A very poor choice of words, I agree. The substantive point, though, was that the data (HADCRUT Station Data) was released and it showed exactly what the scientists said it did.

Apr 20, 2016 at 1:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, well spotted! Gergis et al was largely rehashed into Gergis and Neukom 2014, and it was still rubbish. Note the Gergis involvement in PAGES2K, and rehashing of Mannian proxies.

More details at Climate Audit for those, unlike Phil Clarke of a more discerning nature. nb, articles in Nature, are not discerning about climate science.

Your use of circular reasoning, and mutual admiration cliques, as referred to by Radical Rodent 11:24, isn't really getting you anywhere.

The Ocean2K “Hockey Stick” at Climate Audit is worth a read, including the comments. There really was so little of significance, that it is of little use to climate science, and that includes the anomalies about the anomalies.

Apr 20, 2016 at 1:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

What really worries me is the government’s insistence that we should stop being so reliant on reliable energy. Frozen remains of mammoths show that cold spells can be drastic – catastrophically so, as some frozen remains have undigested food in the stomachs. Should that level of freezing occur once we are reliant upon the unreliable (the Green Dream!), what will be the government’s excuses at such blatant disregard of the very people they are supposed to be considering? Will they really give two hoots about mere proles, as they gaze down upon them from the warmth of their tax-payer funded ivory towers? I suppose it will solve the housing crisis: “Want a house? Well, clear the stiffs out of that one, and it is yours!” Burial in permafrost might prove awkward.

Apr 20, 2016 at 1:43 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

By the way, Mr Clarke, your “Europe < > global” is yet another strawman. Jim Milks is at pains to point out: “Mann et al. specifically highlighted a -0.02ºC/century trend between the middle of the Medieval Warm Period (AD 1000) and the end of the Little Ice Age (AD 1850).” The inference is quite plain: the difference between the MWP and the end of the LIA is 0.164°C. Why would Mann et al specifically highlight this?

Apr 20, 2016 at 1:58 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, interesting you should mention 'burying stiffs in permafrost'. That was one of those niggles in the back of my mind 10-15 years ago, when I started to question the veracity of the Hockey Stick. It was the archaeological re-excavated graves in Greenland.

Either the residents in Greenland were living on permafrost during the Medieval Warm Period, and used diesel engined excavators to dig graves, or the Medieval Warm Period was actually warmer than it is now, and there was no permafrost, and they dug graves with spades.

Obviously climate science experts are not very good at digging their way through history, so have no understanding of digging graves. Which is not consistent with Phil Clarke's expertise at digging holes for himself and all of climate science.

Apr 20, 2016 at 1:59 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The Ocean2K “Hockey Stick” at Climate Audit is worth a read

Well, it certainly confirms McIntyre's addiction to lying by omission - he points to the lack of a blade in the 20th century ocean proxies, apparently forgetting the title of the paper: Robust global ocean cooling trend for the pre-industrial Common Era and curiously 'forgets' to inform us that the study's authors caveat the 20thC data as unreliable:

Because of the limited number of composited data series within these comparisons, the limited degrees of freedom in the correlations, and the complexities of localized conditions on decadal time scales, these results suggest that these comparisons should be interpreted cautiously

I'll stick with Nature, thanks.

Apr 20, 2016 at 2:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, you refer to HADCRUT providing data, as scientists said it did.

"HADCRUT4 Adjustments – Discovering Missing Data or Reinterpreting Existing Data? (Now Includes September Data)" is an interesting article from WUWT, and includes comments from Tim Osborne of CRU, co author of one of the articles you reference earlier with Keith Briffa, also of CRU.

It does not seem that CRU data is considered a 'reliable' source outside of the Hockey Team. Do they earn special recognition in Data Adjustment circles, to have attracted such commendations?

See slso "CRU abandons Yamal superstick" at Climate Audit, which also includes a link to the "Rockwell Turbo Encabulator", which explains some of the technical science terms, and is well worth a 2 minute laugh.

Apr 20, 2016 at 2:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Huh? I was referring to the HADCRUT station data, not paleo reconstructions, widely used outside CRU and in good agreement with other datasets.

Your faith in taking everything McIntyre writes as true on its face is touching, but disqualifies you from the title 'sceptic'.

Apr 20, 2016 at 2:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke