Gore barely passed "Natural Sciences" in undergrad...(insert el oh el here)

[IanC]

Actually you can, if you follow the complete peer-review process, unfortunately, if you really don't understand the science and the field specific and appropriate standards, you really aren't going to get much out of the professional review exchanges either. The point being, if you have concerns that processes and methods are improper or unusual then its time to do some background reading and research yourself. If you rely soley or even predominantly upon the word of someone else as to the significance of an issue you don't understand is proper or improper, then you still don't know anything except what the other person is telling you, and you have no means of verifying what they are telling you.

Start with the core science and math issues and then build into how they are integrated into climate science understandings. If you suspect something amiss or peculiar go through the texts and references, and if you are still left with questions or concerns, go to the researchers themselves. My experience has been that most researchers will respond helpfully to polite and direct requests for explanations. But keep your questions tightly focussed direct, and don't expect them to personally explain all of the background material required to explain complex issues. Ask good questions which indicate that you are seriously involved in researching and attempting to find the answers on your own, and every researcher I know will bend over backwards to try and help you acquire that understanding that you seek.

now you're just bloviating, lol. unless you have access most papers are behind paywalls and all you see are abstracts and articles about what someone thinks the paper says. even then, how often have you searched out the SI (supplimental information) to check the data, and when have you ever seen the peer review comments that are passed back and forth?

why did McIntyre get the runaround when he suspected something was amiss? he was focussed and polite and only asked for the data and clarification of the methodology. instead of cooperation he got lied to, ignored, besmirched and ostrisized. for trying to make sense of what may be the most influential paper ever published. have you ever actually read the chronology of the HS graph and the efforts to release the data and code? how can you support an anti-scientist like Mann?

I personally think climate models are a good tool for checking out ideas but I recognize the deep faults they have in dealing with poorly understood factors (and probably unknown factors as well). it is folly that they claim ~90% knowledge of how CO2 doubling will affect the temps when they have such a weak understanding of the rest of the system. they think CO2 is responsible for 9-25% of the greenhouse effect, what about the other 75-91%? huge uncertainties and they are irresponsible for claiming otherwise.

as I have said before- I am a lukewarmer. it has warmed a little since the LIA. CO2 must have some effect, but in my opinion small and compensated by the rest of the system. when you knock out the lynchpins of unprecedented warming (the hockeystick and its similarly diseased progeny) and positive climate feedbacks (faulty climate models tuned to a particular result) all you are left with is a slightly warmer world with more plant food.

 

[Trakar]

Actually you can, if you follow the complete peer-review process, unfortunately, if you really don't understand the science and the field specific and appropriate standards, you really aren't going to get much out of the professional review exchanges either. The point being, if you have concerns that processes and methods are improper or unusual then its time to do some background reading and research yourself. If you rely soley or even predominantly upon the word of someone else as to the significance of an issue you don't understand is proper or improper, then you still don't know anything except what the other person is telling you, and you have no means of verifying what they are telling you.

Start with the core science and math issues and then build into how they are integrated into climate science understandings. If you suspect something amiss or peculiar go through the texts and references, and if you are still left with questions or concerns, go to the researchers themselves. My experience has been that most researchers will respond helpfully to polite and direct requests for explanations. But keep your questions tightly focussed direct, and don't expect them to personally explain all of the background material required to explain complex issues. Ask good questions which indicate that you are seriously involved in researching and attempting to find the answers on your own, and every researcher I know will bend over backwards to try and help you acquire that understanding that you seek.

now you're just bloviating, lol. unless you have access most papers are behind paywalls and all you see are abstracts and articles about what someone thinks the paper says. even then, how often have you searched out the SI (supplimental information) to check the data, and when have you ever seen the peer review comments that are passed back and forth?

Of course, access helps greatly, but such is always the case. For journals that you don't wish to subscribe to, most major library systems and virtually all State and private university libraries have current and past editions of at least the major science journals. A great many of the published studies in full form are also attached to the lead authors' personal/university websites. Access to the peer review material is usually available in the supplemental online material, but it is handled more comprehensively in the print versions. So you can do as I do and subscribe to the main journals of interest, and then spend one day a month at your nearest major state university library reading the journals that you don't subscribe to, while looking at all the available online content, even for papers that are only featured in abstract. Its not that big a deal, and is certainly more accurate and informative than blog surfing sites that are generally tangentally oriented to the actual science and more devoted to the underlying political/ideological perspectives of the blogger(s).

why did McIntyre get the runaround when he suspected something was amiss? he was focussed and polite and only asked for the data and clarification of the methodology.

and this accounting of events comes from where?

I personally think climate models are a good tool for checking out ideas but I recognize the deep faults they have in dealing with poorly understood factors (and probably unknown factors as well). it is folly that they claim ~90% knowledge of how CO2 doubling will affect the temps when they have such a weak understanding of the rest of the system. they think CO2 is responsible for 9-25% of the greenhouse effect, what about the other 75-91%? huge uncertainties and they are irresponsible for claiming otherwise.

This sounds like a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the actual science. If you can provide a hard science source that you feel supports this understanding, we can examine it in more detail together see where these understandings are coming from.

as I have said before- I am a lukewarmer. it has warmed a little since the LIA. CO2 must have some effect, but in my opinion small and compensated by the rest of the system. when you knock out the lynchpins of unprecedented warming (the hockeystick and its similarly diseased progeny) and positive climate feedbacks (faulty climate models tuned to a particular result) all you are left with is a slightly warmer world with more plant food.

This was Arrhenius' consideration more than a hundred years ago, since then understandings and evidences seem to indicate that circumstances aren't quite that simple.

 

[The Gadfly]

Giving al gore crap for trusting the scientific fields expertice on sceintific matters is just halirious coming from a pack of cons.

Why do you people trust a handful of corporate paid scientists over the vast majority of them world wide?

Because you are partisn fools who can have your opinions bought with a little propaganda from a hand full of people.

No, it's because manmade climate change is a liberal religious doctrine intended to support a political agenda, and like religion in general, it's based more in a desperate need to believe than in facts. We ain't buying! Besides, I despise liberalism so much, that if it came down to it, I'd rather destroy the planet, than have Liberals rule it! Besides, I can survive, no matter how harsh conditions get; can you?

 

[Old Rocks]

Giving al gore crap for trusting the scientific fields expertice on sceintific matters is just halirious coming from a pack of cons.

Why do you people trust a handful of corporate paid scientists over the vast majority of them world wide?

Because you are partisn fools who can have your opinions bought with a little propaganda from a hand full of people.

No, it's because manmade climate change is a liberal religious doctrine intended to support a political agenda, and like religion in general, it's based more in a desperate need to believe than in facts.

Perhaps you would care to point out what is not fact about the current knowledge of how GHGs work? Also, how are the absorption spectra of CO2 and CH4 political?

We ain't buying!

And that changes reality, how?

Besides, I despise liberalism so much, that if it came down to it, I'd rather destroy the planet, than have Liberals rule it!

OK, so you have a nihilistic personality.

Besides, I can survive, no matter how harsh conditions get; can you?

Really? From the tenor of your post and the ignorance demonstrated there, I think that you vastly overestimate your survival ability and value.

 

[daveman]

Really? From the tenor of your post and the ignorance demonstrated there, I think that you vastly overestimate your survival ability and value.

Demanding that the government take care of you from cradle to grave isn't survival-oriented behavior, Rocks.

Just sayin'.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sayin' what, old boy?

From the lack of contact with reality your posts demonstrate, you are hardly in a position to judge anybodys survival abilities.

 

[daveman]

Sayin' what, old boy?

From the lack of contact with reality your posts demonstrate, you are hardly in a position to judge anybodys survival abilities.

It's so simple, a caveman can understand it...but Rocks can't.

You're a big government Nanny Statist. You can't take care of yourself. If the SHTF, you'd starve in a week.

 

[IanC]

Actually you can, if you follow the complete peer-review process, unfortunately, if you really don't understand the science and the field specific and appropriate standards, you really aren't going to get much out of the professional review exchanges either. The point being, if you have concerns that processes and methods are improper or unusual then its time to do some background reading and research yourself. If you rely soley or even predominantly upon the word of someone else as to the significance of an issue you don't understand is proper or improper, then you still don't know anything except what the other person is telling you, and you have no means of verifying what they are telling you.

Start with the core science and math issues and then build into how they are integrated into climate science understandings. If you suspect something amiss or peculiar go through the texts and references, and if you are still left with questions or concerns, go to the researchers themselves. My experience has been that most researchers will respond helpfully to polite and direct requests for explanations. But keep your questions tightly focussed direct, and don't expect them to personally explain all of the background material required to explain complex issues. Ask good questions which indicate that you are seriously involved in researching and attempting to find the answers on your own, and every researcher I know will bend over backwards to try and help you acquire that understanding that you seek.

now you're just bloviating, lol. unless you have access most papers are behind paywalls and all you see are abstracts and articles about what someone thinks the paper says. even then, how often have you searched out the SI (supplimental information) to check the data, and when have you ever seen the peer review comments that are passed back and forth?

Of course, access helps greatly, but such is always the case. For journals that you don't wish to subscribe to, most major library systems and virtually all State and private university libraries have current and past editions of at least the major science journals. A great many of the published studies in full form are also attached to the lead authors' personal/university websites. Access to the peer review material is usually available in the supplemental online material, but it is handled more comprehensively in the print versions. So you can do as I do and subscribe to the main journals of interest, and then spend one day a month at your nearest major state university library reading the journals that you don't subscribe to, while looking at all the available online content, even for papers that are only featured in abstract. Its not that big a deal, and is certainly more accurate and informative than blog surfing sites that are generally tangentally oriented to the actual science and more devoted to the underlying political/ideological perspectives of the blogger(s).



and this accounting of events comes from where?

I personally think climate models are a good tool for checking out ideas but I recognize the deep faults they have in dealing with poorly understood factors (and probably unknown factors as well). it is folly that they claim ~90% knowledge of how CO2 doubling will affect the temps when they have such a weak understanding of the rest of the system. they think CO2 is responsible for 9-25% of the greenhouse effect, what about the other 75-91%? huge uncertainties and they are irresponsible for claiming otherwise.

This sounds like a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the actual science. If you can provide a hard science source that you feel supports this understanding, we can examine it in more detail together see where these understandings are coming from.

as I have said before- I am a lukewarmer. it has warmed a little since the LIA. CO2 must have some effect, but in my opinion small and compensated by the rest of the system. when you knock out the lynchpins of unprecedented warming (the hockeystick and its similarly diseased progeny) and positive climate feedbacks (faulty climate models tuned to a particular result) all you are left with is a slightly warmer world with more plant food.

This was Arrhenius' consideration more than a hundred years ago, since then understandings and evidences seem to indicate that circumstances aren't quite that simple.

its obvious that you want to operate under rules that hobble the skeptic side. there is a lot of funding for projects with the right slant. the skeptic side is made up of established or retired scientists with little to lose, or amateurs outside of the loop. you say only papers published in the right journals should be acknowledged. to a certain extent it is like trying to learn current events only by reading books on current events. you lose the day-to-day ebb and flow. I went back to 2005 in Climate Audit and then followed a coupla months worth of topics. very interesting to see subjects being investigated, knowing what will happen later. I realize you think things are settled but they really arent.

btw, if you do want to follow the Mann fiasco just read the Hockey Stick Illusion by Montford, mostly written before climategate . it give the timeline and the relevent citations to all the papers and people. it would shake your faith in the integrity of the hockey team.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, the two primary 'retired' scientists in the sceptics arsenal also testified before Congress that tobacco was not that harmful. They are whores, and have proven that several times. Singer and Lindzen have not credibility at present.

 

[IanC]

Ian, the two primary 'retired' scientists in the sceptics arsenal also testified before Congress that tobacco was not that harmful. They are whores, and have proven that several times. Singer and Lindzen have not credibility at present.

ok, I'll bite. what exactly did they say?

 

[Trakar]

its obvious that you want to operate under rules that hobble the skeptic side.

The same rules apply across the board; I am not suggesting anything unusual or extraordinary. The true skeptical perspective is the one that operates and aligns with the science findings. Skeptics do not deny that which is well supported and evidenced by mainstream scientific considerations, understandings, and most importantly the empirical evidences.

Your subjective opinions and considerations, however, are shaped and controlled by more than just the science, in fact most here admit that they little understand the science, and that their decisions are predominantly guided by their political and ideological considerations. There is nothing terribly wrong with this approach so long as you keep your political and ideological considerations in accord with the realities revealed by the scientific understandings. In fact, by denying the science, those currently open to potential alternate political and ideological solutions are only shooting themselves in the foot as far as being able to compete in the arena of ideas when it comes to taking action based upon the realities mainstream science presents.

There is a lot of funding for projects with the right slant...

I know a lot of academic, government and corporate science researchers; I don’t know any who have gotten wealthy from the pursuit of their researches. By far, the best compensated for their efforts and expertise, are the corporate researchers (primarily those in pharmaceutical and medical technology). As for funding ratios in comparison to biased slant, I am not aware of any, but I would be more than happy to look at any objective and comprehensive economic analyses you care to point to which you feel lends support to your assertion.

...the skeptic side is made up of established or retired scientists with little to lose, or amateurs outside of the loop...

The science denial advocacy is primarily made up of conspiracy theory amateurs with little or no real science education and political advocates who mistakenly presume that this is primarily or predominantly a purely political issue. In addition to these, which seem to make up more than 99% of the movement, there is a sprinkling of ex-scientists who have little or no training and experience in climate relevant areas of science, or who have not been active in those relevant fields of understanding in several decades. The handful of scientists who actually have current and relevant scientific standing and disagree with parts of the full range of AGW theories are very few in number and for the most part acknowledge and agree with all of the rest of mainstream science and even climate science in general, they are merely doubtful of the timings or magnitudes of some of the AGW projections.

...you say only papers published in the right journals should be acknowledged...

No, any and all science publications should be acknowledged as representing the considerations of the people who wrote them. There is a big difference, however, between the scientific rigor and standing of publications between the levels of subjective editorialized musings on an obscure partisan blog, and the multipley vetted and compellingly supported publication in a field specific professional journal, especially after the reports have survived the much more intense and critical post-publication peer review by the other professionals within one’s field of research.

I advocate for the proper qualification, valuation and consideration of information, not the rejection or out-of hand dismissal of any information based solely upon its sourcing. As demonstrated in this thread and others, though I don’t consider blogs a valuable or even useful means of understanding science in general, when it comes to people supporting their own claims and assertions through the use of blog references, I am perfectly willing to visit the offered support and assess such based on the merits (or lack thereof) in the proffered article.

...I realize you think things are settled but they really arent.

And I realize that you seem to believe that AGW theories are radical, largely undemonstrated confusions based upon misapplied and unreliable assumptions and methods pushed by biased considerations and ulterior motivations, but they really aren’t.

 

[IanC]

there is a distinct difference in publishing papers if they conform to the climate change orthydoxy or not. Loehle 2007 was a paper that took generic previously used non-treering proxies from around the world and simply averaged them. he showed that the shape of the temp reconstruction was very close to the same no matter which proxies he removed. both sides scolded him for a few mistakes and he reworked the paper and republished in 2008, showing the same MWP and LIA as the first one, but with answers to Gavin Schmitt's (the hockey team) 5 areas of contention. the crazy part is that Mann's hockey stick and its progeny dont pass those five areas of contention! the hockey stick was accepted, promoted and then staunchly defended even though it failed the very things that are so important in papers contrary to the hockey team's view.

if you do not read the climate science blogs, how do you ever find out about Mann's tremendous blunders like using the Tiljander and Donnge proxies upside down? one of my favourite laughs was for one of the verification R2 scores for MBH 98 (maybe 99) that they carried out to five (!!!!!) decimal places just so they didnt have to admit it was zero!

do you really read these papers with enough scrutiny to be able to pick up the errors? can you discriminate between opinions not inconsistent with the data, and opinions fully supported by the data? last summer I referenced a Science article with statistically insignificant findings that would be reversed with a simple one year change in start date. even the CAGWers here agreed that it was a poor study that needed more work and more data. until the usual newspapers, magazines and prophets of doom started quoting it. then it was gospel. it came from Science, it must be true.

most people defer thinking for themselves, and just decide who's opinion they will trust. most often accepting 'authority' is the easiest way to go. unfortunately climate science has gone off the track and confused opinion and models with hard data. personally I dont think either side knows what is going to happen but my BS detector goes off like a siren when past data is 'adjusted' to match present expectations. or scientific rules are twisted to benefit the cause of CAGW.

just sayin'

 

[RWatt]

there is a distinct difference in publishing papers if they conform to the climate change orthydoxy or not. Loehle 2007 was a paper that took generic previously used non-treering proxies from around the world and simply averaged them. he showed that the shape of the temp reconstruction was very close to the same no matter which proxies he removed. both sides scolded him for a few mistakes and he reworked the paper and republished in 2008, showing the same MWP and LIA as the first one, but with answers to Gavin Schmitt's (the hockey team) 5 areas of contention. the crazy part is that Mann's hockey stick and its progeny dont pass those five areas of contention! the hockey stick was accepted, promoted and then staunchly defended even though it failed the very things that are so important in papers contrary to the hockey team's view.

Mann's hockey stick was the first wade into this area of science so I am not surprised it wasn't the final word. There was no reconstruction of northern hemisphere, let alone global temperatures before Mann's paper. The IPCC report preceding that had to rely on a sketch derived from central england temperature, which of course is not global so they couldn't assign any numbers to the graph.

As a result of this vagueness there was a widespread myth (and still in in some quarters) that the globe was degrees warmer than present during the medieval warm period. I still hear people claiming it was so warm that greenland was once green and england had vineyards producing wine.

Mann's work largely eradicated belief in this myth within the scientific community, even if it undershot the MWP some. Subsequent work, including Mann '08, has slowly aligned into the same picture now (which still doesn't support said myth):

We see the medieval warm period was not degrees warmer than present as is often claimed. In fact it may have even been cooler than current temperatures.

if you do not read the climate science blogs, how do you ever find out about Mann's tremendous blunders like using the Tiljander and Donnge proxies upside down?

Specifically to this issue IIRC Mann showed the results with and without Tiljander included and it didn't change the result much at all.

But that's an irrelevant sideshow anyway. Look at the graph of reconstructions above, it's not just Mann '08, but all the recent studies are converging on the same answer and it's not one where the MWP was so warm that IPCC temperature projections for 2100 represent something that has already happened 1000 years ago.

 

[Old Rocks]

there is a distinct difference in publishing papers if they conform to the climate change orthydoxy or not. Loehle 2007 was a paper that took generic previously used non-treering proxies from around the world and simply averaged them. he showed that the shape of the temp reconstruction was very close to the same no matter which proxies he removed. both sides scolded him for a few mistakes and he reworked the paper and republished in 2008, showing the same MWP and LIA as the first one, but with answers to Gavin Schmitt's (the hockey team) 5 areas of contention. the crazy part is that Mann's hockey stick and its progeny dont pass those five areas of contention! the hockey stick was accepted, promoted and then staunchly defended even though it failed the very things that are so important in papers contrary to the hockey team's view.

if you do not read the climate science blogs, how do you ever find out about Mann's tremendous blunders like using the Tiljander and Donnge proxies upside down? one of my favourite laughs was for one of the verification R2 scores for MBH 98 (maybe 99) that they carried out to five (!!!!!) decimal places just so they didnt have to admit it was zero!

do you really read these papers with enough scrutiny to be able to pick up the errors? can you discriminate between opinions not inconsistent with the data, and opinions fully supported by the data? last summer I referenced a Science article with statistically insignificant findings that would be reversed with a simple one year change in start date. even the CAGWers here agreed that it was a poor study that needed more work and more data. until the usual newspapers, magazines and prophets of doom started quoting it. then it was gospel. it came from Science, it must be true.

most people defer thinking for themselves, and just decide who's opinion they will trust. most often accepting 'authority' is the easiest way to go. unfortunately climate science has gone off the track and confused opinion and models with hard data. personally I dont think either side knows what is going to happen but my BS detector goes off like a siren when past data is 'adjusted' to match present expectations. or scientific rules are twisted to benefit the cause of CAGW.

just sayin'

Just sayin'. Ian, that is your problem, "Just Sayin", no researchin'.

I am currently reading a text on global warming from Cambridge. The data is two years old, as are the predictions. Publish date is 2010. In the chapter on precipitation, it shows two very big areas where they predicted very low precipitation compared to historical averages. The northern areas of the mid-Canadian provinces, and the American southwest. It is early June, and both are experiancing historically huge wild fires as we post.

In the meantime, nearly every major river system in the lower 48 is at flood stage or higher. Weather extremes are becoming the norm.

 

[rightwinger]

I guess it proves that to Republicans, you are incapable of learning anything past the age of 18

 

[IanC]

there is a distinct difference in publishing papers if they conform to the climate change orthydoxy or not. Loehle 2007 was a paper that took generic previously used non-treering proxies from around the world and simply averaged them. he showed that the shape of the temp reconstruction was very close to the same no matter which proxies he removed. both sides scolded him for a few mistakes and he reworked the paper and republished in 2008, showing the same MWP and LIA as the first one, but with answers to Gavin Schmitt's (the hockey team) 5 areas of contention. the crazy part is that Mann's hockey stick and its progeny dont pass those five areas of contention! the hockey stick was accepted, promoted and then staunchly defended even though it failed the very things that are so important in papers contrary to the hockey team's view.

Mann's hockey stick was the first wade into this area of science so I am not surprised it wasn't the final word. There was no reconstruction of northern hemisphere, let alone global temperatures before Mann's paper. The IPCC report preceding that had to rely on a sketch derived from central england temperature, which of course is not global so they couldn't assign any numbers to the graph.

As a result of this vagueness there was a widespread myth (and still in in some quarters) that the globe was degrees warmer than present during the medieval warm period. I still hear people claiming it was so warm that greenland was once green and england had vineyards producing wine.

Mann's work largely eradicated belief in this myth within the scientific community, even if it undershot the MWP some. Subsequent work, including Mann '08, has slowly aligned into the same picture now (which still doesn't support said myth):

We see the medieval warm period was not degrees warmer than present as is often claimed. In fact it may have even been cooler than current temperatures.

if you do not read the climate science blogs, how do you ever find out about Mann's tremendous blunders like using the Tiljander and Donnge proxies upside down?

Specifically to this issue IIRC Mann showed the results with and without Tiljander included and it didn't change the result much at all.

But that's an irrelevant sideshow anyway. Look at the graph of reconstructions above, it's not just Mann '08, but all the recent studies are converging on the same answer and it's not one where the MWP was so warm that IPCC temperature projections for 2100 represent something that has already happened 1000 years ago.

only in climate science can you use proxies upside down (because they agree better! lol what does that say about their usefulness!) and have people defend you? the author of the Tiljander cores specifically stated why they shouldnt be used as temp proxy and yet Mann used them anyways and turned them over because they fit better. and you have the gall to say it doesnt matter? and peer review missed it? and climate science doesnt demand that it be fixed? why didnt he just admit his mistake and fix it? why does climate science still use stripbark bristlecones? why doesnt climate science bring in stat experts to bring their methodologies into line? why do they still rebuff FOI requests?

anybody who is sure we should spend trillions of dollars on CO2 control should actually look at the proxies being used to shape our understanding of the temps for the last few thousand years. it may be the best we have but that's not saying much.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, Ian, what you are stating is that all the scientists who have done studies that confirm Mann, often using completely differant proxies, are purposely making fraudulent claims? Scientists from many differant countries and political systems. Now that is one hell of a conspriracy theory!

The science is basic and has been understood for nearly two hundred years. GHGs retain heat that would otherwise be reflected or radiated away from the Earth. We increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, we increase the amount of heat that is retained. That fact has been confirmed, both by ground mounted detectors, and by satellites measuring the outgoing heat.

We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, the CH4 by 150%, and emitted chemical compounds that have no natural analog, some of which are 10,000 to 20,000 times as effective of GHG as CO2. And you state that this has no effect?

 

[IanC]

So, Ian, what you are stating is that all the scientists who have done studies that confirm Mann, often using completely differant proxies, are purposely making fraudulent claims? Scientists from many differant countries and political systems. Now that is one hell of a conspriracy theory!

The science is basic and has been understood for nearly two hundred years. GHGs retain heat that would otherwise be reflected or radiated away from the Earth. We increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, we increase the amount of heat that is retained. That fact has been confirmed, both by ground mounted detectors, and by satellites measuring the outgoing heat.

We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, the CH4 by 150%, and emitted chemical compounds that have no natural analog, some of which are 10,000 to 20,000 times as effective of GHG as CO2. And you state that this has no effect?

I have repeatedly stated that I believe there has been warming and that CO2 has a small influence. what does that have to do with the double standard of climate science when it comes to mistakes, misjudgements, misdirections and mishandling of data and methodologies by high visibility scientists like Mann, Jones and the resr of the Hockey Team?

warming and CO2 increase does not justify claiming wildly exaggerated projections of doom. neither do faulty climate models and weather.

 

[IanC]

there is a distinct difference in publishing papers if they conform to the climate change orthydoxy or not. Loehle 2007 was a paper that took generic previously used non-treering proxies from around the world and simply averaged them. he showed that the shape of the temp reconstruction was very close to the same no matter which proxies he removed. both sides scolded him for a few mistakes and he reworked the paper and republished in 2008, showing the same MWP and LIA as the first one, but with answers to Gavin Schmitt's (the hockey team) 5 areas of contention. the crazy part is that Mann's hockey stick and its progeny dont pass those five areas of contention! the hockey stick was accepted, promoted and then staunchly defended even though it failed the very things that are so important in papers contrary to the hockey team's view.

Mann's hockey stick was the first wade into this area of science so I am not surprised it wasn't the final word. There was no reconstruction of northern hemisphere, let alone global temperatures before Mann's paper. The IPCC report preceding that had to rely on a sketch derived from central england temperature, which of course is not global so they couldn't assign any numbers to the graph.

As a result of this vagueness there was a widespread myth (and still in in some quarters) that the globe was degrees warmer than present during the medieval warm period. I still hear people claiming it was so warm that greenland was once green and england had vineyards producing wine.

Mann's work largely eradicated belief in this myth within the scientific community, even if it undershot the MWP some. Subsequent work, including Mann '08, has slowly aligned into the same picture now (which still doesn't support said myth):

We see the medieval warm period was not degrees warmer than present as is often claimed. In fact it may have even been cooler than current temperatures.

if you do not read the climate science blogs, how do you ever find out about Mann's tremendous blunders like using the Tiljander and Donnge proxies upside down?

Specifically to this issue IIRC Mann showed the results with and without Tiljander included and it didn't change the result much at all.

But that's an irrelevant sideshow anyway. Look at the graph of reconstructions above, it's not just Mann '08, but all the recent studies are converging on the same answer and it's not one where the MWP was so warm that IPCC temperature projections for 2100 represent something that has already happened 1000 years ago.

sorry, my longer post yesterday apparently didnt go through.

Kill It With Fire | Watts Up With That?

here is a graphic showing the various types of proxies in Mann08. the Tiljander proxy is obviously contaminated and should have been picked up in peer review. there are two main hockey stick proxies, the bristlecones and Tiljander, either of which when left in will produce a hockey stick due to Mann's methodology of heavily weighting outlier results. Mann should have owned up to his mistake and corrected it. Mann, and many of the other temperature reconstructions also use heavily weighted bristlecone proxies which are known to be unreliable.

I fished around for the crosstable showing which proxies were used in which temp reconstructions but I havent relocated it yet. but it shows that most of the reconstructions use many of the same proxies, even though they claim independence.

 

[Trakar]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/m2008-correlogram-plus-graphs.jpg?w=640&h=954[/IMG]Kill It With Fire | Watts Up With That?

here is a graphic showing the various types of proxies in Mann08...

Do you have a peer-reviewed, scientific source that supports your assertions?