Global warming?

[Bigfoot]

Mann's chart is dead and buried, exactly where it belongs. He's a fraud.

 

[RollingThunder]

Mann's chart is dead and buried, exactly where it belongs. He's a fraud.

That's a silly delusion that you've been bamboozled into believing but it really has nothing to do with reality. Dr. Mann is an eminent scientist, honored by his peers and the world scientific community for his work. The hockey stick graph has been independently verified many times by many other researchers using a wide variety of proxies and a number of different statistical techniques. In fact, further research has extended the graph so that now it is apparent to scientists that the current average world temperatures are not just warmer than they have ever been in the last thousand years, as the original hockey stick graph showed, current temperatures are warmer than they have been in at least the last two thousand years and there are some indications that it may be warmer now on Earth than it has been for the last 100,000 years, since a time during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age.

You've been duped into believing a lot of lies and misinformation by the propaganda campaign that the fossil fuel industry has mounted in an attempt to confuse the public and delay any effective governmental actions to limit carbon dioxide emissions (which would hurt their profits). Part of that propaganda campaign has been attempts to smear and discredit both climate science and climate scientists. You've fallen for some stupid lies that have no real basis in reality. You only think they do because you've had your head jammed into this stupid rightwingnut/denier cult/corporate-controlled-media echo-chamber*, where everyone repeats the same BS and lies endlessly until you all falsely believe that nonsense is true. It's called brainwashing and you've had it done to you. Of course, part of the brainwashing is brainwashing you into imagining that you're not brainwashed so you're not going to believe me about this point. However, there is a great deal of objective, scientific evidence about anthropogenic global warming/climate changes available from reputable sources so if you ever manage to jerk your head out of FauxNews's butthole* and honestly look at the scientific evidence for yourself, maybe you can get back in touch with reality instead of living in a fantasy world of denial. The really inconvenient truth of our situation is that we're sitting here in a rapidly warming world and we (the human race) caused it. The only good news in that is that, knowing how we've caused it, we can take steps to stop doing damage to the natural balance and do things to help the situation. Efforts in that direction are being stymied by those with a vested interest in the continued massive worldwide consumption of oil, coal and natural gas. You have been 'drafted', thru this insidious propaganda campaign, into being their "useful idiot" foot soldier and helping to spread their lies, propaganda and misinformation. Or, another possibility, you're just a paid agent of disinformation, collecting some money from some Exxon slushfund or from the Koch brothers or someone similar to push their denier cult myths and lies. I hope you're not that evil but rather just a confused and misinformed dupe.

 

[IanC]

Now Flatulance, there have been studies using proxies from coral, sea bottom sediments, ice cores from Greenland and Anarctica, as well as other glaciers from around the world, and they have all confirmed the lumpy hockey stick.

Geological Society - June 2012

ny geologists recall that Britain’s eminent climatologist, H.H. Lamb, documented a European medieval climatic optimum in which temperatures between 400 and 1200 AD were warmer than those of the 1960s to 1980’s. What they fail to recall is that Lamb also showed that China and Japan missed this warm phase (Climate, History and the Modern World, 1995, p. 171).

Michael Mann has inherited Lamb’s mantle. Mann uses proxy measurements of northern hemisphere climate extracted from tree rings, ice cores, corals and sediment cores to identify natural variations in the climate system (e.g. Nature 378, 1995, 266-270). By 1999, Mann and his team discovered from palaeoclimate analyses that the extent of medieval warming was likely about the same as it was in the mid 20th century, and much less than that since 1970. The data followed a curve reminiscent of a ‘hockey stick’. If Lamb had added his Chinese data to his UK data he might have got a similar result.

The ‘hockey stick’ was anathema to those who wanted ardently to believe that late 20th century warming was not anomalous and had nothing to do with our emissions of CO2. Controversy followed from the global warming nay-saying community, not least through A W Montford’s 2010 attack on Mann in The Hockey Stick Illusion. In the meantime, several peer-reviewed scientific studies by different authors have confirmed Mann’s original ‘hockey stick’ as being in the right ballpark, strongly suggesting that grounds for his impeachment are non-existent. Indeed, he was cleared of any wrongdoing by in-depth studies of his work by expert panels from the National Academy of Sciences (North, G.R., et al., 2006, Surface temperature reconstructions for the past 2000 years; National Academies Press, Washington DC), from his own university - Penn State, and from the US National Science Foundation. Like it or not, Mann remains a pioneer in analysing proxy records of climate change covering the past 1000 years, and one of the foremost young palaeoclimatologists of our time.

you just dont get it. you are incapable of comprehending. it doesnt matter if Mann got it exactly right (but he didnt) but used incorrect methods. his methods are wrong, he distains proper scientific practise, his ethics are corrupt, and he acts like a spoiled child when he doesnt get his way.

 

[IanC]

another review of Mann's book-

1.0 out of 5 stars A Tale of Two Hockey Stick War Books, March 11, 2012
By Robert Tamaki (Vancouver, BC) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME) Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (Kindle Edition)
For those who are familiar with the various contours of the Hockey Stick debate over the past nine years, there is only one thing that needs to be said in this review: the name 'Montford' does not appear anywhere in Mann's book - not in the main body, not in the footnotes, and not in the index.

For those who haven't a clue what I am talking about, I am referring to the book by Andrew Montford, "The Hockey Stick Illusion" (HSI). Montford's work presents the alternative perspective on the so-called Hockey Stick War, a work that came out in the wake of Climategate 1. He carefully and extensively documents all of the minutiae of the hockey stick debate, including detailed, but fully readable, explanations of the controversial scientific and statistical points, the twists and turns of the publishing and peer review processes, the outcomes of the congressional hearings, the manipulations of the IPCC process, and the discoveries of undisclosed problems with successive "hockey stick" studies. Overall, the book is a damning indictment of Mann's scientific method and his maneuvers to try to cover over his errors. For Mann to completely omit any mention of this book is a telling admission that he does not want his readers to hear "the other side" of the story.

This omission is a characteristic of the book as a whole. Rather than responding in a meaningful way to the significant and documented criticisms that have been raised by many, he fills his book with a lot of bluster, hand-waving, and accusations that his opponents are simply 'corporate/industry/fossil fuel/-funded, well-organized deniers, who have been thoroughly discredited.' Of course, he provides scant evidence to substantiate these accusations, particularly with respect to his most prominent detractor, Steve McIntyre. But the rhetorical effect is very powerful, and it no doubt persuades many (as evidenced by the number of 5 star reviews here).

One hears repeatedly that Mann's work was vindicated by the NAS study - a point that Mann relies upon in his book. However, those who have actually read the NAS study, and those who have actually read or listened to the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings realize that Mann's methods were thoroughly repudiated by both Wegman AND the NAS panel. Under sworn testimony, Gerald North, chair of the NAS panel, was asked if he disputed the conclusions or the methodology of the Wegman's report. He responded, "No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report." Yet, Mann is somehow able to conclude that "In the end, the conventional wisdom was that Barton and gang fared poorly in the two days of hearings that summer" (Locations 3461-3462). This statement can only be supported if you assume that Mann is the sole possessor of "conventional wisdom."

There have been two primary criticisms (and dozens of secondary ones) leveled against Mann's hockey stick reconstruction: questionable statistical methods, e.g. incorrect PC analysis and poor validation statistics; and the reliability of tree rings as temperature proxies (bristlecones and foxtails in particular). However, Mann completely omits discussion of any criticisms of tree rings as a temperature proxy until he begins discussion of his 2008 paper. This in spite of the fact that he had just finished discussing the Loehle 2007 paper, which was explicitly conducted with a view to create a millennial scale temperature reconstruction without using tree rings. Nevertheless, he is constrained to begrudgingly address these criticisms because his 2008 paper was written ostensibly to demonstrate that the hockey stick is preserved without the use of tree rings. Nevertheless, amongst the many problems with this study (e.g., the use of upside-down contaminated sediment records, data infilling, truncated divergent series), the most striking was that the reconstruction only yielded a hockey stick if either bristlecones were included OR the contaminated, upside-down Tiljander sediment record was included. Take both of these out, and the hockey stick disappears! Mann 'forgets' to mention this part of the story, even though he eventually admits this in the Supplementary Information to the paper.

Mann's discussion of the Yamal tree ring record of Briffa is equally intriguing. This proxy series from the northern Russian peninsula of the same name was one of the dominant hockey stick-shaped series used in multiple temperature reconstructions. The raw data for this series had been withheld by Briffa until late in 2009, when he was forced by the journal Phil Trans B to archive his data (after 9 years). With the release of this data, McIntyre quickly realized that the sharp upward trend of the late 20th C was the result of a mere 10 cores in 1990, dropping to 5 in 1995. Moreover, amongst that paltry few, a single tree (YAD06) with an 8 sigma 20th C deviation was shown to be almost solely responsible for the Yamal hockey stick shape.

Of course, Mann neglects to share this tidbit of information in his discussion of Yamal. However, he does make a most remarkable statement, claiming that "Most climate reconstructions either didn't use the Yamal series in question anyway", for which he adds the end note: "This includes the hockey stick itself" (Kindle Locations 3944-3945). This is a starkly disingenuous comment. Both MBH98 and MBH99 pre-date the publishing of Yamal in Briffa 2000 and thus it was unavailable to the hockey stick. More than that, Yamal appears in no less than 10 of the so-called "independent" reconstructions that supposedly "confirm" the hockey stick, of which 5 are included in the IPCC AR4 Spaghetti graph (Mann's Figure 12.1). Most egregious, though, is that Mann himself uses Yamal in Mann and Jones 2003, Mann et al (EOS 2003) and Jones & Mann 2004. Hardly insignificant.

There are many more problems with Mann's work, which can't possibly be fully explored here. His discussion of Climategate deserves many pages of comment for the ways that he sidesteps the most troubling aspects of the whole affair. There are stories of imaginary spreadsheets, incorrect use of statistical terminology (i.e., "censored"), self-contradiction, allegations of criminal misconduct, manipulation of IPCC reviews, the Wahl & Ammann study and much more.

So if you are interested in the history of the hockey stick, do yourself a favor. By all means read Mann's story. But read the "Hockey Stick Illusion" as a companion book - and then you decide which account is more credible.

 

[RollingThunder]

another review of Mann's book-

1.0 out of 5 stars A Tale of Two Hockey Stick War Books, March 11, 2012
By Robert Tamaki (Vancouver, BC) - See all my reviews

...Mann's methods were thoroughly repudiated by both Wegman AND the NAS panel

ROTFLMAO......a review of Dr. Mann's book by a random, unknown, unqualified reader on Amazon.....LOLOLOLOLOL.....how desperate can you get???....do you have any other straws you'd like to grasp at???

A review filled, as most denier rants are, with misinformation and debunked propaganda memes.

The study he refers to by Wegman was retracted by the journal that published it and many scientists have pointed out very serious flaws in Wegman's work.

Wegman scandal rocks cornerstone of climate denial

The National Research Council of the National Academies of Science issued a report in 2006 on Dr. Mann's hockey stick graph and they did not, as this idiot claims, "repudiate" Dr. Mann's methods. Here is the link to the NRC's news release on the report and here are some excerpts from that release.

"There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900.

The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added. The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that.

The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence."​

 

[flacaltenn]

another review of Mann's book-

1.0 out of 5 stars A Tale of Two Hockey Stick War Books, March 11, 2012
By Robert Tamaki (Vancouver, BC) - See all my reviews

...Mann's methods were thoroughly repudiated by both Wegman AND the NAS panel

ROTFLMAO......a review of Dr. Mann's book by a random, unknown, unqualified reader on Amazon.....LOLOLOLOLOL.....how desperate can you get???....do you have any other straws you'd like to grasp at???

A review filled, as most denier rants are, with misinformation and debunked propaganda memes.

The study he refers to by Wegman was retracted by the journal that published it and many scientists have pointed out very serious flaws in Wegman's work.

Wegman scandal rocks cornerstone of climate denial

The National Research Council of the National Academies of Science issued a report in 2006 on Dr. Mann's hockey stick graph and they did not, as this idiot claims, "repudiate" Dr. Mann's methods. Here is the link to the NRC's news release on the report and here are some excerpts from that release.

"There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900.

The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added. The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that.

The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence."​

Lemme see.. Do I believe NBC news or Dr. Muller the lead investigator on the BEST study?

Hmmmm..


This is stolen from Daveman on another thread that he posted yesterday..

Really?

In a 2004 Technology Review article,[9] Muller supported the findings of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in which they criticized the research, led by Michael E. Mann, which produced the so-called "hockey stick graph" of global temperatures over the past millennium, on the grounds that it did not do proper principal component analysis (PCA).[10] In the article, Richard Muller stated:

McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called "Monte Carlo" analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?[9]​

He went on to state "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions."Muller's statements were widely quoted on skeptical blogs, and his status as a believer in global warming made his criticism of the "hockey stick" particularly damaging. In response, Mann criticized Muller on his blog RealClimate.[11] Marcel Crok, a reporter for the Dutch popular science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, later did a story on the incident.[12]​

Now tell us the AGW believer didn't say what he said.

You're not following along or your sources are too juvenile.. Which is it?

 

[flacaltenn]

The topic of the thread is 'global warming', you crazy nitwit. Of course, the OP is garbage based on another denier cultist's stupidity and inability to comprehend the science but that is common to most threads started by deniers.



Hard to respond to confused and idiotic twaddle like that. Except to once again remind you that you a confused and clueless retard filled with propaganda, lies and misinformation.


LOLOLOL....too bad you're obviously too freaking stupid to understand the debate, no matter how hard you "work" at it.

Did you even READ the OP???

The OP was two lines of idiotic denier cult drivel, moron. Of course I read the article the OP linked to and it was about some studies of tree rings from some trees in Finland, right on the Arctic Circle. Since the Arctic regions tend to get warmer than the rest of the Northern Hemisphere during warm periods, as is being demonstrated now with Arctic temperatures rising faster and further than the rest of the world, it is not too surprising that tree ring data from that very localized region might show higher temperatures than what all of the other studies of many kinds of proxies, not just tree rings, have shown to be the generally slightly higher temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during the MWP. So what? It clearly does not mean what the denier cultists at the Mail claimed it meant in their fraudulent headline. Nor does it mean what the overly ambitious lead researcher seems to want to believe it means. Results from one little area of Finland do not overturn or contradict the results of all of the other research done on temperature variations during the MWP.

Strange -- because THIS STUDY FOUND the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age -- which were noticeably MISSING in the Mann-Briffa fabrication.. And this newer study finds a very slight COOLING trend in those trees you think were warming.

Now realize -- I weighed in on this topic by ridiculing tree ring studies.. But I don't DISMISS significant new studies like this one just because I don't like the results like some princesses do.


It is only because you are such a clueless retard who can't understand plain English that you would ask that. The "stupid denier cultists" I was clearly referring to are firstly, the reporter at the Mail who spun up that article and then secondly, you and that cretin, HereIGoMakingAFoolOutOfMyself, who started the thread - plus, of course, the walleyedretard and the kookster and all of the other denier cult retards who buy into this nonsense and propaganda without actually understanding anything about the scientific research that has been done..

You don't play nicely do you? Were you in special classes princess?

OK, little retard, if you read the OP's linked article, how it that you missed the part about the research being based only on some tree ring samples from Finland?

The OP is about CORRECTING (as best as possible with the evidence) the tree ring studies that were RIGGED to leave out the MWPeriod. Need some help with that concept?

Total nonsense. The article the OP links to is a spun up piece of idiotic propaganda, purporting with its fraudulent headline to mean something it doesn't. It is about a very limited study of some tree ring data from one small, small area of far northern Europe and it actually has no new data about world wide temperatures during the MWP.

Here's a quiz for you genius. What is the ratio of the number of data points in the Mann/Briffa Hockey Stick for 400 years prior to the 20th century compared to the number of data points plotted for the 20th Century? Don't run off -- just tell me.
How much TREE RING DATA made up those 400 years of data FROM ONE FOREST IN SIBERIA !!!!! Think those were SMARTER TREES MORON?

You didn't answer a SINGLE question of mine.. So I'll take that as another NO -- you're not here to debate or discuss. Just to mug people and call names..

I'm not here to answer your questions, nitwit. I'm here to debunk your BS, which I have done pretty consistently whenever we have debated. Your moronic "questions" just reflect your ignorance and total misunderstanding of this issue.

As always, the disingenuous and contradictory claims of the confused denier cultists are amusing to watch. Most of the deniers will claim that the world has been warming up since the end of the last ice age and that's why temperatures are still going up but this article in the OP specifically states that the evidence that the researchers uncovered shows that generally the "world has been cooling for 2,000 years". Denier cultists can embrace both concepts at the same time without any cognitive dissonance only because they are such retards with little pea brains. LOLOLOL.

Actually Princess the only thing you've won in this forum is that fake tiera on your head which for some odd reason you proudly wear..
MAYBE IT DOES take a "denier cultist" to figure out that when you go from a MWP to an ICE AGE that there COULD be a "general cooling trend" between the two events because you obviously can't cope with that. And the rest of the minute cooling is harder to believe when we're dealing ONLY with tree rings. But the couple hundred data points that MANN used were MOSTLY cherry-picked tree rings also. Doesn't matter, because you could put random numbers into his modeling and come out with a hockey stick.

Yep -- I'm not excited about tree rings either. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna let you impugn my understanding of the debate or just sit back and let you wand me with your princess curses.

 

[skookerasbil]

The environment problem of global warming is inevitable, we just should take actions to solve it to save ourselves.

Another naive newbie Somehow, this forum has become a gigantic magnet for the hopelessly duped!!!


Coal's future is undimmed - latimes.com

 

[westwall]

The environment problem of global warming is inevitable, we just should take actions to solve it to save ourselves.

Yes, I agree. Plant growth will be exceptional. Animal life will flourish and if history repeats itself wars will diminish. Man will enjoy a boom in culture (just like during the Roman and Medieval Warming periods) and hopefully we can get the technological boom to get us off of this single planet.

 

[flacaltenn]

The environment problem of global warming is inevitable, we just should take actions to solve it to save ourselves.

Yes, I agree. Plant growth will be exceptional. Animal life will flourish and if history repeats itself wars will diminish. Man will enjoy a boom in culture (just like during the Roman and Medieval Warming periods) and hopefully we can get the technological boom to get us off of this single planet. << before the Methane outgassing in the Arctic blows the planet to smithereens. >>

There -- I fix your rant..

 

[Old Rocks]

The environment problem of global warming is inevitable, we just should take actions to solve it to save ourselves.

Yes, I agree. Plant growth will be exceptional. Animal life will flourish and if history repeats itself wars will diminish. Man will enjoy a boom in culture (just like during the Roman and Medieval Warming periods) and hopefully we can get the technological boom to get us off of this single planet.

Surely, surely,just look st the Mid-West at present to see proof of that.

 

[skookerasbil]

The environment problem of global warming is inevitable, we just should take actions to solve it to save ourselves.

Yes, I agree. Plant growth will be exceptional. Animal life will flourish and if history repeats itself wars will diminish. Man will enjoy a boom in culture (just like during the Roman and Medieval Warming periods) and hopefully we can get the technological boom to get us off of this single planet.

Surely, surely,just look st the Mid-West at present to see proof of that.

C'mon Ray..........you make it seem like we are seeing the first drought in America. They've been happening for time and eternity.

Causes of Droughts - Droughts - Forces of Nature

 

[skookerasbil]

The k00kiness of alarmism..............from todays RealClearScience..................been predicting catastrophy for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

Environmental Alarmism, Then and Now | Foreign Affairs

 

[westwall]

The environment problem of global warming is inevitable, we just should take actions to solve it to save ourselves.

Yes, I agree. Plant growth will be exceptional. Animal life will flourish and if history repeats itself wars will diminish. Man will enjoy a boom in culture (just like during the Roman and Medieval Warming periods) and hopefully we can get the technological boom to get us off of this single planet.

Surely, surely,just look st the Mid-West at present to see proof of that.

You're mypoic....like a bat. One year is nothing. How long did the RWP last? How long did the MWP last? Were the years allways warm or were there years where it was cooler within the bounds of the two era's?