Why was the Hockey Stick Graph so Important?

[IanC]

because it got rid of the Medieval Warm Period and to a lesser degree the Little Ice Age.

why is that so important? science couldnt explain why the MWP happened using known natural variables. if they didnt have to admit they didnt understand the reasons for that warm period then they could turn the null hypothesis on its head in the 20th century and say that known factors cant explain the present age warming so it must be CO2!

it was clear that the first and second IPCC reports understood that there were large gaps in understanding the mechanisms that control climate. since the 2001 report and Mann's graph they have not been forthcoming about their ignorance.

we know that Mann's Hockey Stick was pseudoscience and an affront to the scientific method but the damage has been done. it created a paradigm of using CO2 as the scapegoat and climate models as data.

I have no idea how we can rehabilitate the reputation of climate science but having a real investigation into Climategate would be a good start.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Hockey Stick Graph has been redone many times since the original. And, while the revisions now show a couple of periods of warming, nothing approachs the warming that we are seeing at present. The National Academy of Sciences did a study of the Mann's methods and statistical analyisis. Using their own and his data, and their own statistical methods, their graph said the same as Mann's original one. In fact, that is the case for every honest study that has been done on that graph.

Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State — time for some major media apologies and retractions « Climate Progress

 

[Oddball]

 

[IanC]

The Hockey Stick Graph has been redone many times since the original. And, while the revisions now show a couple of periods of warming, nothing approachs the warming that we are seeing at present. The National Academy of Sciences did a study of the Mann's methods and statistical analyisis. Using their own and his data, and their own statistical methods, their graph said the same as Mann's original one. In fact, that is the case for every honest study that has been done on that graph.

Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State — time for some major media apologies and retractions « Climate Progress

ah yes. the Penn St investigation. in depth and very thorough wasnt it?

Now, from Penn State’s supposed inquiry and exoneration of Michael Mann:

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.

If the above excerpt accurately reflects Mann’s testimony, both Mann’s “answer” and his peers’ acceptance of it ought to raise red flags. Penn State asked Mann and only Mann if he destroyed records or was indirectly involved in destroying records. Mann said only that he did not destroy records. And that did it. Even though Phil Jones asked Mann to instruct Wahl to do so as well.

Allow me to translate this in relevant part:

PSU: This is potentially very grave. We must know: Did you do A or B?

Mann: I did not do A.

PSU: Ah. There we go. It appears there is no evidence he did A or B.

Close enough for academia, I suppose. But spare us the “cleared” tag and the claim to have conducted an inquiry.



Read more: Penn State whitewashed ClimateGate | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

of course Mann did send the request to delete FOIA covered emails to Wahl, and Wahl did delete the emails. but Penn State didnt ask Wahl anything. why would they, lol.

as far as the later versions of the Hockey Stick, they have the same problems with hidden truncations, use of out of date data sets, use of unsuitable data (one set of cores was actually used upside down!!!), unsuitable statistical methods, and lack of validation (remember that r2 value that Mann had to calculate out to 5 decimal places just so he didnt have to say it was zero?).

if you think Mann and his work are vindicated then you have overdosed on the kool-aid

 

[skookerasbil]

The Hockey Stick Graph has been redone many times since the original. And, while the revisions now show a couple of periods of warming, nothing approachs the warming that we are seeing at present. The National Academy of Sciences did a study of the Mann's methods and statistical analyisis. Using their own and his data, and their own statistical methods, their graph said the same as Mann's original one. In fact, that is the case for every honest study that has been done on that graph.

Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State — time for some major media apologies and retractions « Climate Progress

fAiL s0n........the whole world thinks that "exoneration" is doctored.

The hockey stick myth died long ago............


The proof s0n..............oh, I know it stings!!!





Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global Warming

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Only 33% Think Most Americans Blame Humans for Global WarmingThursday, March 24, 2011

 

[wirebender]

The Hockey Stick Graph has been redone many times since the original. And, while the revisions now show a couple of periods of warming, nothing approachs the warming that we are seeing at present. The National Academy of Sciences did a study of the Mann's methods and statistical analyisis. Using their own and his data, and their own statistical methods, their graph said the same as Mann's original one. In fact, that is the case for every honest study that has been done on that graph.

Do you actually believe any of what you write or are you like one of Pavlov's dogs who simply reacts in a pre programmed fashion to any statement that you see in opposition to what you have been told? The FACT is that The National Academy did not exonerate Mann's methods. Have you ever actually read their statements regarding their findings on Mann's methods? Here, have a look:

1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

4. The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’

Combine those findings with the fact that there is, at present, data published by over 900 scientists representing over 500 research institutions from over 40 countries that support the statement that the Medieval Warm Period was both warmer than the present and global in nature and one must either pity, or laugh out loud at your continued defense of such a charlatan.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Bender, you had your say. Now why didn't you bother to post the link to the NAS site? Could it be because what you posted in no way is what the NAS report stated? Uncertainties, yes, but the NAS data fully supported Mann.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/stati...orts/reports-in-brief/Surface_Temps_final.pdf

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998,
1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in
the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented
during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion
has subsequently been supported by an
array of evidence that includes both additional
large-scale surface temperature reconstructions
and pronounced changes in a variety of local
proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and
the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in
many cases appear to be unprecedented during
at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual
proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is
unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically
diverse sites experienced exceptional
warmth during the late 20th century than during
any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.
Based on the analyses presented in the original
papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting
evidence, the committee finds it plausible that
the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the
last few decades of the 20th century than during
any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
The substantial uncertainties currently
present in the quantitative assessment of largescale
surface temperature changes prior to about
A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion
compared to the high level of confidence
we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th
century warming. Even less confidence can be
placed in the original conclusions by Mann et
al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest
decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a
millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in
temperature reconstructions for individual years
and decades are larger than those for longer time
periods, and because not all of the available proxies
record temperature information on such short
timescales.

 

[konradv]

Hockey stick, schmockey stick. The bottom line is, knowing GHGs trap infra-red radiation, warming is inevitable, if the rising trend of their concentrations, seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, continues. Argue all you want about temps and models, I have seen no attempt to show what I said to be false, just misdirection and distractions from the logic impaired. So the hockey stick graph wasn't perfect. Initial stabs at new lines of research rarely are. Over time, with more data most of those problems will clear up. What doesn't seem to ever clear up is the deniers' refusal to face the basic facts concerning the scientifically well-documented properties of GHGs!!!

 

[wirebender]

OK, Bender, you had your say. Now why didn't you bother to post the link to the NAS site? Could it be because what you posted in no way is what the NAS report stated? Uncertainties, yes, but the NAS data fully supported Mann.

Until I have more posts, I can't post to any site. That asied, the facts don't support man. As I sated, more than 900 scientists representing more than 500 research institutions from over 40 countries have published papers that overwhelmingly support the statement that the Medieval warm period was both warmer than the present and global in nature. Since mann's hockey stick doesn't reflect the observed data, it is clear that it is a fraud.

As far as your claim that the NAS vindicated mann, perhaps you are unaware of the fact that after Wegman thoroughly debunked mann and his hockey stick as no more and no less than bad math, Gerald North (chairman of the NAS panel that according to you gave mann the thumbs up on his methodology and findings) when asked whether or not the NAS agreed with Wegman's harsh findings, he said that they did.

CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: ‘the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’

You do yourself no credit trying to support a fraud.

 

[skookerasbil]

Rocks s0n......now you got even more guys in here pwning your BS!!! Wire took a gandor in here and decimated your shit.


I hear this site has an ENVIRONMENTAL forum!!!!

Jackass.com

 

[wirebender]

Hockey stick, schmockey stick. The bottom line is, knowing GHGs trap infra-red radiation, warming is inevitable, if the rising trend of their concentrations, seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, continues.

Describe the mechanism by which you believe "greenhouse" gasses (or any other gas for that matter except for water vapor) are able to trap infrared radiation. When energy is absorbed by a gas molecule, you can see, with a spectrometer, the absorption spectrum indicating the energy absorbed. At the same instant, with another spectrometer, you can see an exact opposite emission spectrum from the molecule indicating that the same amount of energy was released. There is no trapping of energy by a gas molecule. But if you believe it happens, by all means describe the mechanism. There will probably be a Nobel in it for you, as if that still means something.


rgue all you want about temps and models, I have seen no attempt to show what I said to be false, just misdirection and distractions from the logic impaired. [/quote]

You aren't working from a position of logic. The fact that there is no mechanism by which a gas molecule can trap energy is evidence enough of that.

So the hockey stick graph wasn't perfect.

Not perfect? Are you kidding? It was a deliberate fraud fabricated for the explicit purpose of putting a scam over on you and those like you.

Initial stabs at new lines of research rarely are.

It wasn't an "initial stab" at a new line of research. That type of research is well known and well documented. Why do you think the errors were detected and brought to light so quickly?

Over time, with more data most of those problems will clear up. What doesn't seem to ever clear up is the deniers' refusal to face the basic facts concerning the scientifically well-documented properties of GHGs!!!

Once more, refer to your "experts" and explain the mechanism by which you believe a gas, other than water vapor, can "trap" energy.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hockey stick, schmockey stick. The bottom line is, knowing GHGs trap infra-red radiation, warming is inevitable, if the rising trend of their concentrations, seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, continues. Argue all you want about temps and models, I have seen no attempt to show what I said to be false, just misdirection and distractions from the logic impaired. So the hockey stick graph wasn't perfect. Initial stabs at new lines of research rarely are. Over time, with more data most of those problems will clear up. What doesn't seem to ever clear up is the deniers' refusal to face the basic facts concerning the scientifically well-documented properties of GHGs!!!

Holy shit........you should have to pass a NAIVE barometer test before you can post in here...........





Nobody ever told this dolt the tooth fairy was a fraud!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Bender, here, become less ignorant.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[percysunshine]

'Why was the Hockey Stick Graph so Important?'


If I recall, the Redwings lost that year.

 

[IanC]

Hockey stick, schmockey stick. The bottom line is, knowing GHGs trap infra-red radiation, warming is inevitable, if the rising trend of their concentrations, seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, continues. Argue all you want about temps and models, I have seen no attempt to show what I said to be false, just misdirection and distractions from the logic impaired. So the hockey stick graph wasn't perfect. Initial stabs at new lines of research rarely are. Over time, with more data most of those problems will clear up. What doesn't seem to ever clear up is the deniers' refusal to face the basic facts concerning the scientifically well-documented properties of GHGs!!!

konradv is to CO2 as Chris is to temperature records. neither understand anything but the basic premise, and are refractory to the underlying complexities. but that doesnt stop them from saying the same thing over and over and over and.......

 

[IanC]

OK, Bender, you had your say. Now why didn't you bother to post the link to the NAS site? Could it be because what you posted in no way is what the NAS report stated? Uncertainties, yes, but the NAS data fully supported Mann.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/stati...orts/reports-in-brief/Surface_Temps_final.pdf

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998,
1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in
the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented
during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion
has subsequently been supported by an
array of evidence that includes both additional
large-scale surface temperature reconstructions
and pronounced changes in a variety of local
proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and
the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in
many cases appear to be unprecedented during
at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual
proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is
unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically
diverse sites experienced exceptional
warmth during the late 20th century than during
any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.
Based on the analyses presented in the original
papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting
evidence, the committee finds it plausible that
the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the
last few decades of the 20th century than during
any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
The substantial uncertainties currently
present in the quantitative assessment of largescale
surface temperature changes prior to about
A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion
compared to the high level of confidence
we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th
century warming. Even less confidence can be
placed in the original conclusions by Mann et
al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest
decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a
millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in
temperature reconstructions for individual years
and decades are larger than those for longer time
periods, and because not all of the available proxies
record temperature information on such short
timescales.

hahaha, did you read the Report in Brief that you linked? hahahaha, it says that they are quite certain that it is warmer now than during the Little Ice Age (last four centuries) but the uncertainties for dates before that are too large to make meaningful comparisons. Mann was damned by faint praise.

 

[wirebender]

OK, Bender, here, become less ignorant.

Nice. 19th century misunderstanding as modern science, and you call me ignorant. I asked you to describe the mechanism by which a gas (other than water vapor) can trap energy of any sort. It is beyond credible deniability that when energy strikes a gas we see an absorption spectrum and in the same instant an equal and opposite emission spectrum which proves that no energy is being trapped by the gas.

If the absorption and emission spectra happen almost instantaneously and confirm that the precise amount of energy is emitted as was absorbed, then you must be claiming that some "extra" energy is created in that instant. You are claiming excess energy with no work being done. You are claiming perpetual motion. Explain how you believe it happens.

By the way, are you unable to discuss the topic on your own? So far, all I have seen from you is short comments and links to other materials. If you are unable to discuss the subject on your own due to lack of understanding, how exactly, do you know that the materials you post are correct?

As to your quaint 19th century science, are you aware that a greenhouse works because the glass prevents convection with the outside atmosphere? No such effect exists within the open system that is our atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Bender, here, become less ignorant.

Nice. 19th century misunderstanding as modern science, and you call me ignorant. I asked you to describe the mechanism by which a gas (other than water vapor) can trap energy of any sort. It is beyond credible deniability that when energy strikes a gas we see an absorption spectrum and in the same instant an equal and opposite emission spectrum which proves that no energy is being trapped by the gas.

If the absorption and emission spectra happen almost instantaneously and confirm that the precise amount of energy is emitted as was absorbed, then you must be claiming that some "extra" energy is created in that instant. You are claiming excess energy with no work being done. You are claiming perpetual motion. Explain how you believe it happens.

By the way, are you unable to discuss the topic on your own? So far, all I have seen from you is short comments and links to other materials. If you are unable to discuss the subject on your own due to lack of understanding, how exactly, do you know that the materials you post are correct?

As to your quaint 19th century science, are you aware that a greenhouse works because the glass prevents convection with the outside atmosphere? No such effect exists within the open system that is our atmosphere.

Quaint 19th century science? You obviously read one paragraph, and no more. At this point I am quite sure you haven't the faintest idea of what the AIP is.

As to why I use links and post what the real scientists say, why re-invent the wheel? Yes, I can discuss the subject on my own. But I am just an ananomous poster on a message board, the same as you. Without referance to the source of data, and evidence, anything I state is meaningless yap-yap, same as you.

Thus far, you come across as just another dumb ass mindlessly repeating political talking points without the faintest knowledge of science.

Your Questions: Carbon Power : NPR

When solar radiation strikes Earth, the atmosphere reflects some of it back into space. The rest is absorbed by the atmosphere or penetrates through to the surface, where it is absorbed by land and water. Think of how a paved parking lot or puddle of water warms on a sunny day.

Then — and this is key — the Earth beams part of that heat back up to space — in the form of infrared energy. But while the transparent gases in the atmosphere let incoming sunlight pass through (that's where the name "transparent" comes from) they absorb or trap some of the infrared radiation sent up by the Earth. This infrared energy heats up the gas molecules, which then release some of that heat, helping warm the Earth. (In a real greenhouse, this "re-radiation" doesn't play a big role — the glass simply traps the warm air in the greenhouse.)

Also, it turns out that different atmospheric gases have different abilities to trap and radiate heat. The four major warming gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

Overall, water vapor plays the most important role in keeping the planet warm, but humans have little influence over how much water vapor is in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most important warming gas that we do influence, because we create it by burning fossil fuels, cutting or burning forests, and draining wetlands. We also help produce vast amounts of methane and nitrous oxide through farming and industrial practices

 

[skookerasbil]

I think it is important to point out to intrested parties that the global warming religion people ( on this forum like Old Rocks and Chris ) totally dismiss MWP out of hand.......like it never occurred.

Why?

Because it blows their scam to smithereens!!!!!


Why do you think Al Gore NEVER has debated anybody on the science? Because if he did, the scam would be busted wide open..........he'd have to confront the reality of the MWP. Gore and the k00ks only want you looking at graphs from 1900 on!!!!









winning

 

[wirebender]

When solar radiation strikes Earth, the atmosphere reflects some of it back into space. The rest is absorbed by the atmosphere or penetrates through to the surface, where it is absorbed by land and water. Think of how a paved parking lot or puddle of water warms on a sunny day.

Well, radiation does come from space and some of it is reflected back into space and some of it continues on. You at least got that right. As to the atmosphere "absorbing" IR, once more, you run into a problem with the fact that there is no mechanism by which a gas can "absorb" and retain energy. I am still waiting for you to explain away the emission spectra which is equal and opposite to the absorption spectra. Till you overcome that bit of physics, I am afraid that you are stymied.

Then — and this is key — the Earth beams part of that heat back up to space — in the form of infrared energy. But while the transparent gases in the atmosphere let incoming sunlight pass through (that's where the name "transparent" comes from) they absorb or trap some of the infrared radiation sent up by the Earth. This infrared energy heats up the gas molecules, which then release some of that heat, helping warm the Earth. (In a real greenhouse, this "re-radiation" doesn't play a big role — the glass simply traps the warm air in the greenhouse.)

Here is where your entire idea falls apart. There is X amount of energy coming through the atmosphere. Some reflects back into space, and the rest is absorbed by the earth which in turn radiates it back into the atmosphere. According to you, greenhouse gasses then somehow radiate that energy back to the earth further warming it beyond the warmth provided by the sun. Free energy. Perpetual motion. Here is a newsflash for you. The earth warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere does not warm the earth.

The second law of thermodynamics states quite clearly that heat flows from warm to cold, not from cold to warm without the input of work. According to your hypothesis, I should be able to put an electric heater in my home with an output of 1000 watts per square meter and put a reflecting surface in front of it and boost the output of my heater to some amount of output beyond 1000 watts per square meter. What you are talking about is perpetual motion. Creation of free energy by simple reflection. Sorry guy, you are living in a dream world.

Also, it turns out that different atmospheric gases have different abilities to trap and radiate heat. The four major warming gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

No gas other than water vapor can trap energy. If you believe it can happen, by all means describe the mechanism by which it happens. The emission spectra which is exactly the opposite of the absorption spectra proves that energy is not retained by the gas. If the gas were actually absorbing and retaining the energy by some means, the emission spectra would be different from the absorption spectra. Sorry, but it isn't.

Overall, water vapor plays the most important role in keeping the planet warm, but humans have little influence over how much water vapor is in the atmosphere.

That is because water vapor actually has the capacity to absorb and retain energy. It has to do with water's ability to change phases. You can prove this to yourself by doing a simple experiment. Freeze a thermometer in a block of ice and then put it in a pot on the surface of your stove. Turn on the heat and watch the thermometer. Clearly the ice is absorbing heat from the stove, but its temperature will remain at 32 degrees until such time as it has all turned to liquid water.

At that point, the water will warm until such time as it reaches 212 degrees. Clearly the water is absorbing heat from the eye of your stove, but it's temperature does will not increase untill it has all turned to steam. If you could somehow trap the steam you would see that the steam could then be "superheated" beyond 212 degrees.

Gas can't do this trick because it has no mechanism by which to absorb energy.

Carbon dioxide is the most important warming gas that we do influence, because we create it by burning fossil fuels, cutting or burning forests, and draining wetlands. We also help produce vast amounts of methane and nitrous oxide through farming and industrial practices

CO2 is demonized because greens hate capitalism. Take a block of air any size. That air consists of one million parts. How reactive do you suppose CO2 might have to be in order for the 380 parts that are present to actually effect the other 999,620 parts. Now, again, describe the mechanism by which CO2 absorbs and compounds energy to the point that it can further warm its source of energy.