The Return of the Hockey Stick

[Weatherman2020]

Despite years of being told that defects in prior hockey stick temperature reconstructions “don’t matter” because the Hockey Stick “doesn’t “matter”, the first figure of new IPCC Summary for Policy-Makers is a Hockey Stick.

When ordinary people hear the phrase “warmest in more than 100,000 years”, very few know that Chicago was under a mile of ice for most of that period. So when Michael Mann and IPCC zealots demand that we “Make the Climate Great Again”, people need to think whether the climate was really all that “great” in the Ice Age, when there was a mile of ice over much of America.

Thread by @ClimateAudit on Thread Reader App

@ClimateAudit: despite years of being told that defects in prior hockey stick temperature reconstructions "don't matter" because the Hockey Stick "doesn't "matter", the first figure of new IPCC Summary for Policy-Ma...…

threadreaderapp.com

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Mammoths are fucking cool, but I like warm weather so I'm conflicted. :/

 

[task0778]

There was a thread a couple of years ago about Michael Mann, where he lost a court case because he wouldn't show his data.

Global Warming "hockey stick" graph creator loses court battle after refusing to show data.

"Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely...

www.usmessageboard.com

Question: what kind of scientist won't show his data, court case or not? Answer: a fraud. What other answer is there? You want people to spend huge amounts f money but you won't even show your evidence for why they should do that? I call bullshit.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There was a thread a couple of years ago about Michael Mann, where he lost a court case because he wouldn't show his data.

Global Warming "hockey stick" graph creator loses court battle after refusing to show data.

"Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely...

www.usmessageboard.com

Question: what kind of scientist won't show his data, court case or not? Answer: a fraud. What other answer is there? You want people to spend huge amounts f money but you won't even show your evidence for why they should do that? I call bullshit.

Just remember the science of the Left: you mustn’t look at data, humans can change sex on a whim, males can give birth and breastfeed, there are +43 types of sexes, today’s climate is the optimum and must be maintained, and Biden got 80 million votes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There was a thread a couple of years ago about Michael Mann, where he lost a court case because he wouldn't show his data.

Global Warming "hockey stick" graph creator loses court battle after refusing to show data.

"Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely...

www.usmessageboard.com

Question: what kind of scientist won't show his data, court case or not? Answer: a fraud. What other answer is there? You want people to spend huge amounts f money but you won't even show your evidence for why they should do that? I call bullshit.

He lost a couple more, very recently.
He's a scammer.
But at least he's a Nobel Prize winner.

 

[task0778]

But at least he's a Nobel Prize winner.

JMO, but not every Nobel prize winner is worthy of the award. But - that's the world we live in these days, everything is politicized.

 

[Crick]

Despite years of being told that defects in prior hockey stick temperature reconstructions “don’t matter” because the Hockey Stick “doesn’t “matter”, the first figure of new IPCC Summary for Policy-Makers is a Hockey Stick.

When ordinary people hear the phrase “warmest in more than 100,000 years”, very few know that Chicago was under a mile of ice for most of that period. So when Michael Mann and IPCC zealots demand that we “Make the Climate Great Again”, people need to think whether the climate was really all that “great” in the Ice Age, when there was a mile of ice over much of America.

Thread by @ClimateAudit on Thread Reader App

@ClimateAudit: despite years of being told that defects in prior hockey stick temperature reconstructions "don't matter" because the Hockey Stick "doesn't "matter", the first figure of new IPCC Summary for Policy-Ma...…

threadreaderapp.com

The problem with the original hockey stick graph (MBH 99) was a statistical triviality that lessened the apparent size of the Medieval Warm Period but had NO impact on the data showing contemporary warming. And that problem was corrected in the next version of the graph (MBH 2000) and it, and every such graph since, have been accurate. Chicago being under ice does not refute the global temperatures displayed in MBH. No one is saying the climate of the last ice age was preferable or is attempting to return us to it. The OP here is meaningless blather.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The problem with the original hockey stick graph (MBH 99) was a statistical triviality that lessened the apparent size of the Medieval Warm Period but had NO impact on the data showing contemporary warming. And that problem was corrected in the next version of the graph (MBH 2000) and it, and every such graph since, have been accurate. Chicago being under ice does not refute the global temperatures displayed in MBH. No one is saying the climate of the last ice age was preferable or is attempting to return us to it. The OP here is meaningless blather.

The problem with the original hockey stick graph (MBH 99) was a statistical triviality

That's one way to put it.........


Discussion

In the financial world, analysts are accustomed to supposed models/systems of the stock market that are highly tuned to historic data and which fail out of sample. With this example very much in mind, one of my very first challenges to the paleoclimate community was to demonstrate out-of-sample validity of the multiproxy reconstructions (mentioning Moberg et al 2005; Mann et al 1998-99) by bringing their inputs up-to-date. Because the Mann and other reconstructions ended in 1980, I observed that the records could be readily updated and confirm whether the linear combination of proxies in the various steps of, for example, the Mann reconstruction were valid measures of temperature out-of-sample, writing as follows at the time:

One of the first question that occurs to any civilian becoming familiar with these studies (and it was one of my first questions) is: what happens to the proxies after 1980? Given the presumed warmth of the 1990s, and especially 1998 (the “warmest year in the millennium”), you’d think that the proxy values would be off the chart. In effect, the last 25 years have provided an ideal opportunity to validate the usefulness of proxies and, especially the opportunity to test the confidence intervals of these studies, put forward with such assurance by the multiproxy proponents.

Being suspicious of over-tuning and data-snooping, I speculated at the time that the so-called proxies would not work well out of sample:

What would I expect from such studies? Drill programs are usually a surprise and maybe there’s one here. My hunch is that the classic proxies will not show anywhere near as “loud” a signal in the 1990s as is needed to make statements comparing the 1990s to the Medieval Warm Period with any confidence at all.

The new results of Salzer et al 2014 (though not candid on the topic) fully demonstrate this point in respect to Sheep Mountain. In the warm 1990s and 2000s, the proxy not only doesn’t respond linearly to higher temperatures, it actually goes the wrong way. This will result in very negative RE values for MBH-style reconstructions from its AD1000 and AD1400 networks when brought up to date, further demonstrating these networks have no real “skill” out of sample.

We’ve also heard over and over about how “divergence” is limited to high-latitude tree ring series and about how the Mann reconstruction was supposedly immune from the problem. However, these claims mostly relied on stripbark chronologies (such as Sheep Mountain) and the validity of such claims is very much in question.

As previously discussed on many occasions, stripbark chronologies have been used over and over in the canonical IPCC reconstructions, with the result that divergence problems at Sheep Mountain and other sites do not merely impact Mann et al 1998-99, but numerous other reconstructions. Even the recent PAGES2K North America reconstruction uses non-updated Graybill stripbark chronologies. It also ludicrously ends in 1974. So rather than bringing the Mann et al network up-to-date, it is even less up-to-date.

Nor can the original challenge to demonstrate proxy validity out-of-sample be met with a new reconstruction using different proxies (such as Kaufman’s muds, upside-down or not). Financial analysts are used to this sort of switch, also discussed in an early CA post here, about the interaction between data mining/snooping and spurious regression, in which I quoted Ferson et al 2003 (which is about financial instruments) but with data snooped paleoclimate reconstructions in mind:

The pattern of evidence in the instruments in the literature is similar to what is expected under a spurious mining process with an underlying persistent expected return. In this case, we would expect instruments to arise, then fail to work out of sample…
With fresh data, new instruments would arise then fail; the dividend yield rose to prominence in the 1980s, but fails to work in post-1990 data. The book-to-market ratio seems to have weakened in recent data, With fresh data, new instruments seem to work. There are two implications. First we should be concerned that these new instruments are likely to fail out of sample. Second, any stylized facts based on empirically motivated instruments and asset pricing tests based on such tests should be viewed with scepticism.

CA readers will also be aware of earlier discussions (see tag) of Ababneh’s Sheep Mountain reconstruction, which had previously failed to replicate the huge HS of the Graybill chronologies.

Alert CA readers will also recall that Jacoby distinguished between north-facing and south-facing chronologies in his original work, but focused mainly on south-facing chronologies. (CA readers are aware that Jacoby selectively reported and archived only the most “temperature sensitive” chronologies.)

Salzer has not yet archived data for this article. He’s got a pretty good record of archiving and I anticipate that it will be archived, but the unavailability of data at the time of publication is a pernicious practice.

Sheep Mountain Update

 

[Weatherman2020]

The problem with the original hockey stick graph (MBH 99) was a statistical triviality that lessened the apparent size of the Medieval Warm Period but had NO impact on the data showing contemporary warming. And that problem was corrected in the next version of the graph (MBH 2000) and it, and every such graph since, have been accurate. Chicago being under ice does not refute the global temperatures displayed in MBH. No one is saying the climate of the last ice age was preferable or is attempting to return us to it. The OP here is meaningless blather.

What data? Mann refuses to show his data.

 

[Crick]

From What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.

Stalagmites (or speleothems) are formed from groundwater within underground caverns. As they're annually banded, the thickness of the layers can be used as climate proxies. A reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature from stalagmites shows that while the uncertainty range (grey area) is significant, the temperature in the latter 20th Century exceeds the maximum estimate over the past 500 years (Smith 2006).

Historical records of glacier length can be used as a proxy for temperature. As the number of monitored glaciers diminishes in the past, the uncertainty grows accordingly. Nevertheless, temperatures in recent decades exceed the uncertainty range over the past 400 years (Oerlemans 2005).

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover the Medieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

As to his data:
From Behind the Hockey Stick
More recently, Mann battled back in a 2004 corrigendum in the journal Nature, in which he clarified the presentation of his data. He has also shown how errors on the part of his attackers led to their specific results. For instance, skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the hockey stick, yet these extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena. "From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there's no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever," Mann says. "But they're very skilled at deducing what sorts of disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the public that doesn't know better."

and here is a link to the corrigendum itself which includes a full listing of his data, sixteen years ago. Amazing how long a lie can live.

Correction: Corrigendum: Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries - Nature

Nature 392, 779–787 (1998). It has been drawn to our attention (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick) that the listing of the ‘proxy’ data set in the Supplementary Information published with this Article contained several errors. In Table 1 we provide a list of the records that were either mistakenly...

www.nature.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.

Stalagmites (or speleothems) are formed from groundwater within underground caverns. As they're annually banded, the thickness of the layers can be used as climate proxies. A reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature from stalagmites shows that while the uncertainty range (grey area) is significant, the temperature in the latter 20th Century exceeds the maximum estimate over the past 500 years (Smith 2006).

Historical records of glacier length can be used as a proxy for temperature. As the number of monitored glaciers diminishes in the past, the uncertainty grows accordingly. Nevertheless, temperatures in recent decades exceed the uncertainty range over the past 400 years (Oerlemans 2005).

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover the Medieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

As to his data:
From Behind the Hockey Stick
More recently, Mann battled back in a 2004 corrigendum in the journal Nature, in which he clarified the presentation of his data. He has also shown how errors on the part of his attackers led to their specific results. For instance, skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the hockey stick, yet these extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena. "From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there's no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever," Mann says. "But they're very skilled at deducing what sorts of disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the public that doesn't know better."

and here is a link to the corrigendum itself which includes a full listing of his data, sixteen years ago. Amazing how long a lie can live.

Correction: Corrigendum: Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries - Nature

Nature 392, 779–787 (1998). It has been drawn to our attention (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick) that the listing of the ‘proxy’ data set in the Supplementary Information published with this Article contained several errors. In Table 1 we provide a list of the records that were either mistakenly...

www.nature.com

Was his Nature Trick mentioned?
Or using the Tiljander proxies data upside down?

 

[Weatherman2020]

From What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.

Stalagmites (or speleothems) are formed from groundwater within underground caverns. As they're annually banded, the thickness of the layers can be used as climate proxies. A reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature from stalagmites shows that while the uncertainty range (grey area) is significant, the temperature in the latter 20th Century exceeds the maximum estimate over the past 500 years (Smith 2006).

Historical records of glacier length can be used as a proxy for temperature. As the number of monitored glaciers diminishes in the past, the uncertainty grows accordingly. Nevertheless, temperatures in recent decades exceed the uncertainty range over the past 400 years (Oerlemans 2005).

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover the Medieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

As to his data:
From Behind the Hockey Stick
More recently, Mann battled back in a 2004 corrigendum in the journal Nature, in which he clarified the presentation of his data. He has also shown how errors on the part of his attackers led to their specific results. For instance, skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the hockey stick, yet these extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena. "From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there's no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever," Mann says. "But they're very skilled at deducing what sorts of disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the public that doesn't know better."

and here is a link to the corrigendum itself which includes a full listing of his data, sixteen years ago. Amazing how long a lie can live.

Correction: Corrigendum: Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries - Nature

Nature 392, 779–787 (1998). It has been drawn to our attention (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick) that the listing of the ‘proxy’ data set in the Supplementary Information published with this Article contained several errors. In Table 1 we provide a list of the records that were either mistakenly...

www.nature.com

Must be why Kerry flies his private jets and Drives 3 SUVs and Obama bought a $12M mansion on the beach.

They know it’s all bullshit for the unscientific Left who also think humans can change sex on a whim.

 

[Weatherman2020]

From What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.

Stalagmites (or speleothems) are formed from groundwater within underground caverns. As they're annually banded, the thickness of the layers can be used as climate proxies. A reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature from stalagmites shows that while the uncertainty range (grey area) is significant, the temperature in the latter 20th Century exceeds the maximum estimate over the past 500 years (Smith 2006).

Historical records of glacier length can be used as a proxy for temperature. As the number of monitored glaciers diminishes in the past, the uncertainty grows accordingly. Nevertheless, temperatures in recent decades exceed the uncertainty range over the past 400 years (Oerlemans 2005).

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover the Medieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

As to his data:
From Behind the Hockey Stick
More recently, Mann battled back in a 2004 corrigendum in the journal Nature, in which he clarified the presentation of his data. He has also shown how errors on the part of his attackers led to their specific results. For instance, skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the hockey stick, yet these extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena. "From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there's no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever," Mann says. "But they're very skilled at deducing what sorts of disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the public that doesn't know better."

and here is a link to the corrigendum itself which includes a full listing of his data, sixteen years ago. Amazing how long a lie can live.

Correction: Corrigendum: Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries - Nature

Nature 392, 779–787 (1998). It has been drawn to our attention (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick) that the listing of the ‘proxy’ data set in the Supplementary Information published with this Article contained several errors. In Table 1 we provide a list of the records that were either mistakenly...

www.nature.com

Fraud for gullible sheeples like you.

Michael Mann, creator of the infamous global warming ‘hockey stick,’ loses lawsuit against climate skeptic, ordered to pay defendant’s costs​

Michael Mann, creator of the infamous global warming ‘hockey stick,’ loses lawsuit against climate skeptic, ordered to pay defendant’s costs

Updated and bumped. See updates below. Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University, is the creator of the

www.americanthinker.com

 

[Crick]

Fraud for gullible sheeples like you.

Michael Mann, creator of the infamous global warming ‘hockey stick,’ loses lawsuit against climate skeptic, ordered to pay defendant’s costs​

Michael Mann, creator of the infamous global warming ‘hockey stick,’ loses lawsuit against climate skeptic, ordered to pay defendant’s costs

Updated and bumped. See updates below. Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University, is the creator of the

www.americanthinker.com

So, again (and again and again) you are forced to resort to ad hominem attacks because you have no facts or evidence supporting the position you've chosen to take. I hope you don't think anyone is impressed by such ignorant childishness.

 

[mamooth]

What data? Mann refuses to show his data.

After all, you saw it on a cult website, so it must be true!

Sucker.

 

[mamooth]

Was his Nature Trick mentioned?
Or using the Tiljander proxies data upside down?

If I was as pathetic a troll as you are, I'd off myself out of shame.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If I was as pathetic a troll as you are, I'd off myself out of shame.

You poor girl, there there.

 

[fncceo]

very few know that Chicago was under a mile of ice for most of that period.

It frequently still is ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It frequently still is ...

View attachment 530792

Get off my lawn!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The global warming evidence is right here under my pinkie.

Crick: we have consensus! The science is settled!