Micheal Mann vs. The truth

[polarbear]

He won from an objective basis. That almost always happens when you put science up against pseudo-science; facts against bullshit.

Which of the bullshit is a fact ?
Is it a fact that the planet is okay at 288 deg K but doomed at 289, only a fraction of a % higher ?
And after nothing happened it`ll be at 290, then 291 and so on by which time these "scientists" who said so will be 6 feet under, but not under water either but buried by their own bullshit.

 

[mamooth]

So many failed predictions by the AGW cult crowd, only mammoth loves to cherry pick.

No, the predictions have been very good. That's why the science has such credibility. 40 years of success will do that.

We did a thread on this before. You put forth a bunch of predictions from people that weren't climate scientists, and pretended they were. Are you going try that deception again?

Other options for you are to post predictions that were never made, predictions that came true, and predictions for the far future that can't be judged at the moment. You've got multiple ways to be dishonest here.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So many failed predictions by the AGW cult crowd, only mammoth loves to cherry pick.

No, the predictions have been very good. That's why the science has such credibility. 40 years of success will do that.

We did a thread on this before. You put forth a bunch of predictions from people that weren't climate scientists, and pretended they were. Are you going try that deception again?

Other options for you are to post predictions that were never made, predictions that came true, and predictions for the far future that can't be judged at the moment. You've got multiple ways to be dishonest here.

Yes and again that's why the main stream media was running with the story of the coming Ice Age in the 1970s , it was based on the milankovitch cycles and it's was observed at the time the Northern hemisphere was cooling...



BTW it is amusing how you and old rocks can't agree on that, you say deniers planted those story's yet it came from milankovitch research himself that old rocks like throwing his name around.



.

 

[Old Rocks]

The "Hockey Stick" graph, a simple plot representing temperature over time, led to the center of the larger debate on climate change, and skewed the trajectory of at least one researcher, according to Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology, Penn State.

"The "Hockey Stick" graph became a central icon in the climate wars," Mann told attendees today (Feb. 11) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "The graph took on a life of its own."

Mann and his coauthors, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K Hughes, created the graph for a paper, "Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations" which appeared in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a version of the graph in its report, pushing the hockey stick depiction of temperature trends to the forefront of the climate change discussion.

"There have been dozens of other climate reconstructions, all very similar to ours," said Mann. "They are based on different data and different approaches, and of course everyone thinks their approach is best, but they all imply that the modern warming spike is unique. And still the Hockey Stick remains the iconic graph."

The original paper and the IPCC report demonstrated that temperature had risen with the increase in industrialization and use of fossil fuels. The researchers' conclusion was that worldwide human activity since the industrial age had raised carbon dioxide levels, trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and warming the planet.

But the iconic graph engendered attacks, including calls for into the validity and veracity of the research. Subsequent investigations by the National Academy of Sciences, The National Science Foundation and Penn State all found the research both honest and solid.



Read more at: Iconic graph at center of climate debate

What real scientists have to say.

More about the testimony


Professor Michael Mann destroys the case for action on climate change


Mann destroys his own case
Most of the first 11 pages of Mann’s testimony concerns squabbles between activists and skeptics, mostly about the degree of past warming (about which there is a strong consensus among climate scientists). None of which is of much relevance to the public policy questions of interest to Congress.

Then he skips to the question of climate science of most importance to public policy: how accurate and reliable are climate models? Mann gives a confident answer.

“While we’re at it, let me address another favorite talking point of the critics, the claim that climate models we use to project future climate change are unreliable and untested. The reality is that the models have been tested vigorously and rigorously in numerous ways, and have passed a number of impressive tests in the past, such as James Hansen’s famous successful predictions from the 1980s and 1990s.

“Let me take the opportunity to bring your attention to one particular analysis that appears in the latest issue of Nature Climate Change. Back in 1989, legendary climate scientists Ron Stouffer (a graduate of our program at Penn State I’m proud to say) and Suki Manabe made a prediction not just of the average warming of the globe, but of the precise global pattern of that warming. That pattern matches the observed pattern of warming that has ensued remarkably well.”

He gives two citations to support this massive claim. The first is a blog post: “Hansen’s 1988 projections” by Gavin Schmidt, 15 May 2007. It discusses “Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model” by Hansen et el in Journal of Geophysical Research, 20 August 1988. But if the evidence for this prediction was strong, why has Hansen — or somebody — not published peer-reviewed confirmation. It would be headline news.

The second citation Mann gives is peer-reviewed: “Assessing temperature pattern projections made in 1989” by Ronald J. Stouffer and Syukuro Manabe in Nature Climate Change, March 2017. Mann materially misrepresents the findings. The paper says that limitations in their model cause …

“problems in comparing models to observations and makes the comparisons shown here qualitative in nature. It is one of the reasons why we focus our attention on the geographical distribution of surface temperature change rather than the magnitude of change in this study.”

These are the two strongest citations Mann finds to support models’ forecasts, on the basis which we are supposed to restructure the world economy

Real fucking dumb. Here is Dr. Hansen's predictions from 1981;

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

At that time, the denialists were stating that nothing at all was happening. The Northwest Passage opened up in 2007. Last summer a 1000 passenger luxury liner transited the Passage.

 

[Old Rocks]

So many failed predictions by the AGW cult crowd, only mammoth loves to cherry pick.

No, the predictions have been very good. That's why the science has such credibility. 40 years of success will do that.

We did a thread on this before. You put forth a bunch of predictions from people that weren't climate scientists, and pretended they were. Are you going try that deception again?

Other options for you are to post predictions that were never made, predictions that came true, and predictions for the far future that can't be judged at the moment. You've got multiple ways to be dishonest here.

Yes and again that's why the main stream media was running with the story of the coming Ice Age in the 1970s , it was based on the milankovitch cycles and it's was observed at the time the Northern hemisphere was cooling...



BTW it is amusing how you and old rocks can't agree on that, you say deniers planted those story's yet it came from milankovitch research himself that old rocks like throwing his name around.



.

Yes, the main stream media, not the scientists.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Peer-Reviewed Literature
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

By the Milankovic Cycles, we should be in a gradual cooling. As we were for the prior 1000 years, actually, since the peak of the interglacial about 8000 years ago. But, with the addition of GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels, mankind's forcing has become much greater than the forcing of the Milankovic Cycles.

 

[ScienceRocks]

There's at least a dozen studies backing up Mann...Funny, I can't find any of the past 25 years that back you up that are global.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, the main stream media, not the scientists.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Can you provide any examples of climate scientists stepping up to deny the ice age scare of the 70's...silence implies consent...

For that matter, can you provide examples of climate scientists stepping up to correct the mainstream media on all the failed wacko predictions associated with warming? Again, if they aren't correcting the errors, then they are promoting them.

 

[Old Rocks]

What 1970s science said about global cooling

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.
What 1970s science said about global cooling

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/131047.pdf
When U.S. President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 asked the members of his President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) to report on the potential problems of environmental pollution, climate change was not on the national agenda. The polluting effects of detergents and municipal sewage, the chronic problems associated with urban air pollution, and risks associated with pesticides dominated public discourse about humanity’s impact on the environment. But in a 23-page appendix that today appears prescient, the Committee’s Environmental Pollution Panel laid out a stark scenario: emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels could rapidly reshape Earth’s climate (PSAC) 1965).

The Panel’s members had two new tools at their disposal that had not been available just a few years before. The first up to date global temperature reconstructions had recently become available, allowing them to consider the 20th century’s somewhat confusing temperature trends (Somerville et al. 2007). More importantly, they had access to carbon dioxide data Charles Keeling and his colleagues had been collecting since 1957 on Mauna Loa and in Antarctica (Pales and Keeling 1965, Brown and Keeling 1965). The data showed − “clearly and conclusively”, in the Panel’s words − that atmospheric carbon dioxide was rising as a result of fossil fuel burning. Human activities, the Panel concluded, were sufficient in scale to impact not just the immediate vicinity where those activities were taking place. Industrial activities had become a global, geophysical force to be recognized and reckoned with. With estimated recoverable fossil fuel reserves sufficient to triple atmospheric carbon dioxide, the Panel wrote, “Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment.” With the emission of just a fraction of that, emissions by the year 2000 could be sufficient to cause “measurable and perhaps marked” climate change, the Panel concluded (PSAC 1965).

There you go, scientists were predicting as early as 1965 that the massive infusion of GHGs created by mankind into the atmosphere would result in a significant climate change. And they even put a date on it. And sure enough, we saw the first super El Nino in 1998, then the nine of the ten warmest years on record were after 2000. And 2014, 2015, and 2016 all set records, each higher temperatures than the last.

Indeed, the hockey stick is still going straight up.

 

[SSDD]

So the answer is no...you can't provide any examples of the climate pseudoscience community stepping up to correct the mainstream media's stories of imminent climate catastrophe.

 

[Crick]

Are you blind or do you just choose to lie about everything with which you disagree?

 

[SSDD]

Are you blind or do you just choose to lie about everything with which you disagree?

I see that you can't provide any either...that is because climate science has become a propaganda machine and nothing more.

 

[Crick]

There are thousands of peer reviewed studies published in refereed journals that show you to be either abysmally ignorant, a pathological liar or both. I've gone with the latter for you long ago.

 

[SSDD]

There are thousands of peer reviewed studies published in refereed journals that show you to be either abysmally ignorant, a pathological liar or both. I've gone with the latter for you long ago.

We both know that you are the pathological liar crick...and stupid as well...I mean, no one with any intelligence at all would claim to be an engineer when he can't make heads or tails of even the simplest graph...and interestingly enough, the number of published papers questioning the "consensus" on climate change is rapidly growing...in fact, about 150 have been published in 2017 alone...and more than 650 since the beginning of 2016...the pseudoscience is becoming untennable. Look for far more papers to be published questioning the consensus than supporting it as the years move on...especially when the cooling begins as a result of that big fireball in the sky which climate wackos claim doesn't effect the climate begins its quiet period in earnest.

 

[Crick]

You are one fucking stupid liar.