Extinction Rebellion versus brexit

[Doha]

MYTH #4: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.

 

 

This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the “Hockey Stick” is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth.

 

The second falsehood holds that there are errors in the Mann et al (1998, 1999) analyses, and that these putative errors compromise the “hockey stick” shape of hemispheric surface temperature reconstructions. Such claims seem to be based in part on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation by some individuals of a corrigendum that was published by Mann and colleagues in Nature. This corrigendum simply corrected the descriptions of supplementary information that accompanied the Mann et al article detailing precisely what data were used. As clearly stated in the corrigendum, these corrections have no influence at all on the actual analysis or any of the results shown in Mann et al (1998). Claims that the corrigendum reflects any errors at all in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely false.

 

False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction can also be traced to spurious allegations made by two individuals, McIntyre and McKitrick (McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). The false claims were first made in an article (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003) published in a non-scientific (social science) journal “Energy and Environment” and later, in a separate “Communications Arising” comment that was rejected by Nature based on negative appraisals by reviewers and editor [as a side note, we find it peculiar that the authors have argued elsewhere that their submission was rejected due to ‘lack of space’. Nature makes their policy on such submissions quite clear: “The Brief Communications editor will decide how to proceed on the basis of whether the central conclusion of the earlier paper is brought into question; of the length of time since the original publication; and of whether a comment or exchange of views is likely to seem of interest to nonspecialist readers. Because Nature receives so many comments, those that do not meet these criteria are referred to the specialist literature.” Since Nature chose to send the comment out for review in the first place, the “time since the original publication” was clearly not deemed a problematic factor. One is logically left to conclude that the grounds for rejection were the deficiencies in the authors’ arguments explicitly noted by the reviewers]. The rejected criticism has nonetheless been posted on the internet by the authors, and promoted in certain other non-peer-reviewed venues (see this nice discussion by science journalist David Appell of a scurrilous parroting of their claims by Richard Muller in an on-line opinion piece).

 

The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, which hold that the “Hockey-Stick” shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artifact of the use of series with infilled data and the convention by which certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components Analysis (“PCA”), are readily seen to be false , as detailed in a response by Mann and colleagues to their rejected Nature criticism demonstrating that (1) the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction is robust with respect to the elimination of any data that were infilled in the original analysis, (2) the main features of the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely insensitive to whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, (3) the putative ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for anomalous 15th century warmth (in contradiction to all other known reconstructions), is an artifact of the censoring by the authors of key proxy data in the original Mann et al (1998) dataset, and finally, (4) Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, the so-called ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature.

 

The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, “Journal of Climate” by Rutherford and colleagues (2004) [and by yet another paper by an independent set of authors that is currently “under review” and thus cannot yet be cited–more on this soon!]. Rutherford et al (2004) demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98, using the same proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) methodology that does not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all.

 

 

References:

Cook, E.R., J. Esper, and R.D. D’Arrigo, Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere land temperature variability over the past 1000 years, Quat. Sci. Rev., 23, 2063-2074, 2004.

Crowley, T.J., and T. Lowery, How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period?, Ambio, 29, 51-54, 2000.

Esper, J., E.R. Cook and F.H. Schweingruber, Low-frequency signals in long tree-line chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability, Science, 295, 2250-2253, 2002.

Jones, P.D., K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett and S.F.B. Tett, High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: Integration, interpretation and comparison with General Circulation Model control run temperatures, Holocene, 8, 455-471, 1998.

Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004.

Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes, Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998.

Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes, Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759-762,

1999.

Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J.T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth, Eos, 84, 256-258, 2003.

Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate, in press, 2004.

Soon, W., and S. Baliunas, Proxy climatic and environmental changes over the past 1000 years, Climate Research, 23, 89-110, 2003.

Soon, W., S. Baliunas, C, Idso, S. Idso and D.R. Legates, Reconstructing climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years, Energy and Environment, 14, 233-296, 2003.

[Doha]

Got anymore youtube videos you can blow me away with? Ones where the speaker you laud actually agrees with you unlike that last video :laugh:

 

Professor Richard Muller formed the Berkeley Earth Science Temperature (BEST) project to investigate accusations that Earth surface temperature data was unreliable, and didn't provide an accurate record of how the planet's temperature was changing.This week BEST released the latest in a series of papers, confirming the project's announcement last year that the Earth has warmed at the rate that previous studies suggested. This time BEST went further, also concluding that warming is most likely due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

Professor Muller's phone hasn't stopped ringing since his op-ed in the New York Times over the weekend, where he stated that BEST's new research has answered his own doubts about whether humans are causing global warming. His self-described conversion to the mainstream scientific view linking human activity to climate change has captured the imagination of a media often wary of reporting on climate change.

 

 

 

 

And don't embarrass yourself by trying to post William Happer again. The absolute cheek to talk about misinformation dissemination!

 

Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

[Paul6754]

If you were capable of reading you would see this was addressed in my previous post and is false.

 

I will post again, for your convenience.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

 

Doha, I hope you are aware the author, Michael Le Page, of the New Scientist article also has his critics about the stuff he writes on climate change, hence there are different opinions everywhere.

 

It surprises me that in one breath you talk about only citing articles from Nature or similar journals but then in the next breath quote from New Scientist which most Scientists only look at for the jobs section in the rear.

 

You come over as very angry and frustrated but whatever level of your anger you have to accept there are as many man made CO2 induced global warming skeptics as there are believers and more are becoming skeptical. It is science to challenge theory and dogma after all.

 

You attempt to intimidate and bully with your name calling, anger and undoubted and prolific copy and pasting skills, pasting articles that I doubt you've read or could understand even if you had. However, you've simply picked on the wrong guy to bully.

 

Just accept there are different opinions, time will tell which side is correct

 

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

 

Here is more recent correspondence from your precious Yale professor who realised he was talking b0ll0cks and now admits Anthropogenic climate change is real!

 

The data wasn't improved it was manipulated, why did they refuse to release the raw data when asked etc, etc, etc.

 

As for your repeated asinine co2 question. Have a google of radiation forcing and linear molecule energy absorption levels. Toyah will assist, molecular energy levels, the Boltzmann constant and the permanent dipole moment of molecules like C02 and hydrocarbons is his bread and butter. Fortunately for us, N and O, 90% of the atmosphere, don't absorb any of the IR photons bounced off the surface, they get scattered into space. Unfortunately for us, linear C02 does. Surface IR flux is about 390w/m2. Only about 240w/m2 radiates out, the rest is absorbed in the troposphere.

 

If the question is so asinine why don't you or Toyah provide an answer, it's a very pertinent question. I look forward to Toyah's answer, hopefully he won't Google for a reply.

 

You just paste information that you clearly don't understand and you're making a fool of yourself. Just for the record at normal atmospheric temp. and pressure CO2 or hydrocarbons don't have a dipole moment, carbon monoxide does as does water and water vapor. This is probably taught and explained in primary school these days.

[Paul6754]

MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.

 

There are just as many articles that say the opposite. Please stop pasting articles that you've neither read or understand even if you had.......

[Paul6754]

MYTH #4: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.

 

There are just as many articles that say the opposite. Please stop pasting articles that you've neither read or understand even if you had.......

[Paul6754]

Got anymore youtube videos you can blow me away with? Ones where the speaker you laud actually agrees with you unlike that last video :laugh:

 

I think that is the video I posted 'cause Muller does support the notion of Climate Change but he also says that man induced CO2 is only one of the possible causations or something of the like. As I've said before there is a huge difference between the doom and gloom merchants who predict the Hudson River will be half way up the Empire State building by 2050 and scientists who are trying to understand the natural variation in the Earth's climate.

 

]

And don't embarrass yourself by trying to post William Happer again. The absolute cheek to talk about misinformation dissemination!

 

Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

 

On the contrary, Happer is a distinguished scientist who challenges the dogma on CO2 and climate change and served as director of the Department of Energy's Office of Science in George W Bush administration.

 

A Guardian article entitled, "Greenpeace exposes skeptics hired to cast doubt on climate science" should cause questions like, "What is the agenda of Greenpeace, what is their motivation, what are they trying to promote" and then you may be able to better understand and see the article in a better context.

 

The usual tactic of the pro-CO2/Climate Change activists is to claim the skeptics are paid by the coal or gas industry and that doesn't usually have any merit either.

[Valiant62]

It seems Macron has suddenly become interested in ecology and look what's happened in France this weekend?

Is this down to all the Lefties?

 

For me the mainly peaceful demonstrations in Paris (violently hijacked by a minority) need tobe accounted for in a discussion about what to do. The identity politics calling people or views far left/ right seems like more of a way of closing down thoughtful discussion than a mesningful contribution. The consequences of all this for “normal people” is given somediscussion in this article: https://neweconomics.org/2018/11/working-together-for-a-just-transition

[Paul6754]

I'm not trying to provoke anyone on OVF or point score. However, because the subject of Global Warming/Climate Change/Extreme Weather events, call it what you may, is so important and controversial that it is imperative to be aware of both sides of the debate to become better informed and make up your own mind or at the very least realize that the "experts" don't agree on either whether it's happening or on any cause.

 

Below is a Youtube video which shows experts from the man made global warming camp and two experts from the skeptic side present their views and evidence.

 

The two experts from the pro-man made global warming camp are Michael Mann, a Brit who published the Hockey Stick Graph and David Titley a lecturer from Penn State Univ. On the skeptic side are Judith Curry an academic formerly from Georgia Tech before she was drummed out from for having a different view and Patrick Moore (Not the Sky at Night person) who was one of the founders of Greenpeace who resigned because the organization became taken over by activists and politicians.

 

Mann can be seen from 30 secs on, Titley from 15min 30secs, Curry from 28mins and Moore from 41mins frollowed by a Q&A session and then summaries from 1hr 24mins.

 

Yes this is a Youtube video not the actual scientific papers that these people have published, their opinions will have been formed from their own work and that of others. A simple Google search of their names will direct you to their original papers or abstracts which anyone can read if you have days and months to spare.

 

There are some very thought provoking points from both sides.

 

[Valiant62]

https://neweconomics.org/2018/11/making-the-climate-visible?mc_cid=127a1e8e0b&mc_eid=24b9a8621d

[Paul6754]

The recent events in Paris are showing what many French people think about hiking taxes on fuel prices to curb/combat "Climate Change". There may be additional stuff stoking the violence but IMHO Macron needs to have a rethink.

[Valiant62]

I think there’s an urgent need to work out how to transition and protect people’s well being.

[For Us All]

The recent events in Paris are showing what many French people think about hiking taxes on fuel prices to curb/combat "Climate Change". There may be additional stuff stoking the violence but IMHO Macron needs to have a rethink.

 

I understand that he has but it doesn't seem to have made much difference,they have put 89,000 police officers on duty across France this weekend including armoured vehicles in Paris.

[bugsnoffer]

Paul, It is my thinking we believe what we want to believe, but when politicians call for a carbon tax I get a tad suspicious the 'climate change discussion' becomes nothing more than a great opportunity for the respective governments to rake in the cash.

 

There was no carbon tax, it was a price put carbon emissions of polluters. By now our electricity would have been cheaper and our emissions lower. I personally would have been much happy with that.

[Valiant62]

Tax the polluters, give it to the people...https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/04/how-to-make-a-carbon-tax-popular-give-the-profits-to-the-people?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Paul6754]

But carbon Dioxide isn't a pollutant V62, it's food for plants which is food for animals.

 

I'm all for phasing out/limiting the use of diesel burning engines as they produce far more fine particulate carbon matter than petrol engines, limiting the use of plastics etc and looking after the planet and environment in general.