Climategate?

ConsiderThis

Malty_T wrote: »

Can you please answer my question regarding Svensmark?

As for your whole "quieten "charade, do you have any actual evidence to show that deliberate censoring/quieting was done to reputable papers. I've already explained to you that the reason Mann et Al were complaining about that paper wasn't because it challenged the AGW model there are numerous papers published that do. It was because it was a poorly researched and published paper that probably wouldn't have been accepted as an undergraduate assignment. That's how bad it was. It quite simply should never have been published. The facts were wrong and it showed a complete misunderstanding of tree rings.


If you think scientist don't always get pissed off when people get facts wrong, you should see the reactions to Carl Sagan's Cosmos and Stephen Gould's Wonderful Life. While praise was given where it was due for Sagan and Gould's inspiration to the public, criticism were dished out on any mistake they made. That's how science works : make a tiny mistake public; expect to be torn to shreds over it.

I don'tt know what Svensmark is so if you ahve questions on it I suggest you find someone who i sbetter place to asnwer questions about it.

The difference between Sagan's Cosmos and Gould's Wonderful Life, is that neither work was based on speculating about what might happen in the future. that, of course, is what Mann and Jones etc are doing.

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong."]




Even though they can't account for the lack of warming which they had predicted, the are so convinced of their own infallability that they can't concieve that their data or crystal ball (which is what their computer model seems to be more akin to) might not be right!

What hubris.

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

The difference between Sagan's Cosmos and Gould's Wonderful Life, is that neither work was based on speculating about what might happen in the future. that, of course, is what Mann and Jones etc are doing.

I was under the impression that Jones and Mann specialise in palaeoclimatology?

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Even though they can't account for the lack of warming which they had predicted...

What warming? Predicted when?

Any chance of answering my previous question?

gizmo555

ConsiderThis wrote: »

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong."]




Even though they can't account for the lack of warming which they had predicted, the are so convinced of their own infallability that they can't concieve that their data or crystal ball (which is what their computer model seems to be more akin to) might not be right!

What hubris.

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires - desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

Bertrand Russell

Turtwig

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I don'tt know what Svensmark is so if you ahve questions on it I suggest you find someone who i sbetter place to asnwer questions about it.

Svensmark is a highly regarded and respected skeptic of AGW working and publishing in the mainstream scientific community. As a "skeptic" I would have expected you to at least be aware of the few scientists that propose the alternative hypotheses.

Even though they can't account for the lack of warming which they had predicted, the are so convinced of their own infallability that they can't concieve that their data or crystal ball (which is what their computer model seems to be more akin to) might not be right!

What hubris.

Now, I assume it was just genuine error on your part that you seem to have merged quotes from two different emails.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.

I'd thought I'd quote Charles Darwin on this one, first :

Darwin wrote:

The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Scientist's have to doubt their own theory.
As always though, context is key. Creationist love to quote that bit from darwin, but they usually leave out this bit.

Darwin wrote:

The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

And as with "climate-gate" the denier tend to leave out this bit in the email that mentions:eek:

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming:but the data are surely wrong. Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of
warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not
agree with this.Our observing system is inadequate.

And just to show how weird this conspiracy actually is, Trenberth provides a link to a paper he recently published in the public forum. If it was a conspiracy, why would you let everyone know some doubts you had?

... see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt

That's a powerpoint presentation of his paper. Here's the paper he'd published that openly said this.
This was not a secret discussion, he shared his doubts with other scientists and they showed him the mistake he had made. Again you left these out this.

Tom Wigley wrote:

Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of
warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not
agree with this.

Having the full picture is always nice don't ya think?

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. "]

Here we go.
Firstly, to quote our resident professor of physics here on boards.

Professor_Fink wrote: »

I myself have simulated the quantum evolution of spin chains of 20,000+ spins (which can be done efficiently due to a very nice mathematical trick).

"Tricks" are things scientists use to make efficient computations and simulations.

This entire quote is referring to tree ring data and the false "decline" they show in temperatures that do not correspond with rises measured by almost every other method of measurement. Nothing to do with a lack of warming BS.

ConsiderThis

Malty_T wrote: »

Svensmark is a highly regarded and respected skeptic of AGW working and publishing in the mainstream scientific community. As a "skeptic" I would have expected you to at least be aware of the few scientists that propose the alternative hypotheses..

I guess what interests me more is whether or not the hypothesis that the world is warming is correct, and that that warming is caused by man is what interests me.

Other theories are probably interesting, but this is the one which has captured the imagination of the IPCC and, hence, many others.

The term "sceptic" ( I prefer the traditional spelling rather than the american "skeptic") seems to be used as a term of abuse by many. For me, its the only sensible position to hold, as a sceptic is someone who doesn't believe something until he receives proof. ( As opposed to a cynic or a credulous person).

Malty_T wrote: »

Scientist's have to doubt their own theory.
.

We have to remember here that what the AGW proponants are saying is that they think the world will be warmer in the future. They think that because they have extracted data, and used it in computer models using many variables, and play around with the data and the variables, and then use that to predict what will happen in the future.

There are so many variables, and the computer models seem to be so incomprehensible, and so sudject to change, that it's hard to have the confidence that the people like Michael mann and prof Jones have in their own infallibility. they appear to have no doubt in their position, even when many others have questioned the basis of, for example, the famous hockey stick graph.

Interestingly, the graph is based on tree ring data ( ie its not very reliable) and the hockey stick was based on a really quite small sample of tree rings. It may well be that you have no doubt that it's accurate and that a large sample would produce the same result. McIntyre and McKitrick claim to have done larger studies of the same tree ring data and found a larger sample does not reproduce the same result. You may disagree with them, or not. According to Wiki, a 2006 report to Congress by a team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman found the criticisms of the hockey stick graph by McIntyre and McKitrick to be "valid and compelling."

What these emails seem to show is a lack of transparency towards others who want to examine their work, and a desire for secrecy, and that does not inspire confidence.

Turtwig

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I guess what interests me more is whether or not the hypothesis that the world is warming is correct, and that that warming is caused by man is what interests me.

Right except you do realise that science works by either improving an existing model (AGW) or overthrowing it completely with an alternative theory. If you have no interest in the alternative hypotheses then you can't really mount a challenge on AGW. It's like someone opposing the Standard Model, but not offerring any solution or explanation as to why it is wrong, other than the problem appearing too complex to them.

Other theories are probably interesting, but this is the one which has captured the imagination of the IPCC and, hence, many others.

This is theory that best fits all the data available, even so, the IPCC still gives mention to the alternatives.

The term "sceptic" ( I prefer the traditional spelling rather than the american "skeptic") seems to be used as a term of abuse by many. For me, its the only sensible position to hold, as a sceptic is someone who doesn't believe something until he receives proof. ( As opposed to a cynic or a credulous person).

I'll reply to this with another post I wrote.

Malty_T wrote: »

I'll echo Gurgle's sentiments to a point.
Science thrives on skepticism. However, there is skepticism and then there's amateurs who like to profess their beliefs on a subject. Distinguishing between genuine skeptics and "wannabes" is the trouble when in the comes to a politically heated topic such as AGW. In science, what a person believes, is all well and good, to them the person, but meaningless to science. Even if you are 100% correct in your asserted hypothesis, if you have no evidence to support it, then you're going to be drowned alive. Slowly but surely, as data is obtained and analysed, the good science will come to the fro and the bad science will be filtered out.

This is where the difficulty lies, currently the sum of the evidence obtained supports AGW better than other alternative. In fact, every other hypothesis that has been proposed has hit murky water time and time again. They might be right, it could just be the sun, or cosmic rays but there isn't sufficient evidence at the current time to support either of these hypothesis. Climatalogists have looked through more than one hypothesis in the course of their history. At first they weren't sure what the effect of C02 in the atmosphere actually was.(Interesting "history" on the physics of the Green House effect article here.). Slowly but surely though more and more hyopothesis were eliminated, others formed, and were subsequently eliminated. As this is pop science, I'm not going to elaborate. Needless to say though AGW wasn't just the default position. It is now, but if the climatalogists are taught like the rest of us, then they are skeptical of their own theory. Let them sort it out though, not others who think they're wrong because they believe the problem to be too complicated.

We have to remember here that what the AGW proponants are saying is that they think the world will be warmer in the future. They think that because they have extracted data, and used it in computer models using many variables, and play around with the data and the variables, and then use that to predict what will happen in the future.

It is a common misconception that climatologists only predict future climates, they also predict past climates. Peter Sinclair gives a lovely concise example of this.

There are so many variables.

So? Every science experiment in computations usually has tonnes of variables yet they still work.

that it's hard to have the confidence that the people like Michael mann and prof Jones have in their own infallibility.

Where did Mann and Jones, profess their infallibility?

Interestingly, the graph is based on tree ring data ( ie its not very reliable) and the hockey stick was based on a really quite small sample of tree rings. It may well be that you have no doubt that it's accurate and that a large sample would produce the same result. McIntyre and McKitrick claim to have done larger studies of the same tree ring data and found a larger sample does not reproduce the same result. You may disagree with them, or not.

Firstly, Carbon Dating is not reliable for dating the age of entire earth, or dating objects found in certain environments. However, that doesn't mean Carbon Dating is worthless. The same goes for Tree Ring data. The email in the CRU was referring to the limitations of the tree ring data and how climatologist work around these. In fact, the email you quoted was actually discussing whether such a technique is really now necessary, given the plethora of other methods available for measuring temperatures. Tree Ring data is useful but it's limitations can be awkward.

The Hockey Stick graph, while produced rather strangely, is remarkably reliable, as reaffirmed by US. NAS. As for McIntyre and McKitrick, well their methodology was shown to be false.

What these emails seem to show is a lack of transparency towards others who want to examine their work, and that does not inspire confidence.

This works both ways. Many scientists don't like giving up their "codes" and Eigil_Friis-Christensen ,I think, is another skeptic who hasn't given up his either.

Given the quality of some of the papers submitted for online publications that "challenge" data and the wide variety of pseudoscience and "data-mining" and "strawmanning" that takes placeonline, I can't really say that I blame either Jones or Christensen in this reluctance.

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

While I don;t want to get into a cul de sac where we try to outperform each other on coming up with examples, how about, for starters, the leaked email which shows that Mann & Jones, (two scientists who you think ar victims of a witch hunt) appeared to conspire and lobby together to secure the removal of an editor of a learned journal, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes?

I’ve asked you three times to support this statement with something, but you have apparently ignored my requests. You’ve already been warned once in this thread for making unsubstantiated claims.

gizmo555

Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature has resigned as a member of the "independent" panel set up to investigate "Climategate" and the question of whether climate scientists covered up flawed data.

It emerged that Campbell gave an interview to Chinese radio last year in which he said that the scientists concerned had not hidden data - the very question he was supposed to be investigating.

This wouldn't exactly inspire confidence in the quality of investigation we can expect from this body.

More here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/climate-change-climategate-nature-global-warming

Cunsiderthis

gizmo555 wrote: »

Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature has resigned as a member of the "independent" panel set up to investigate "Climategate" and the question of whether climate scientists covered up flawed data.

It emerged that Campbell gave an interview to Chinese radio last year in which he said that the scientists concerned had not hidden data - the very question he was supposed to be investigating.

This wouldn't exactly inspire confidence in the quality of investigation we can expect from this body.

More here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/climate-change-climategate-nature-global-warming

There are those who consider that confidence is already long lost in this body, and no amount of reports are going to alter that.

In the popular tv show "yes minister", it was often said that internal enquiries were set up not to find the truth, but specifically to exonerate officials.

If it was necessary to hold an "independent" enquiry, then it was said that the most important thing was to select the chairman carefully, and to select someone who wanted something the political process could grant. ON appointment, it was crucial to let him know what conclusions were expected and then, after an appropriate lenght of time has passed since the report is deliverd, to award him him a knighthood, or lordshhip, or whatever it was he was looking for, and, in the words of Sir Humphrey, "everyone's happy".

As I never tire of saying, Michael Mann's attitude can best be summed up by his own words "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..."

What a shame he doesn't think it's about truth, because it's what so many others of us expect.

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

As I never tire of saying, Michael Mann's attitude can best be summed up by his own words "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..."

I believe this has been asked several times already on this thread, but anyway...

In the above quote, what does "this" refer to?

edanto

Welcome new user, with a familiar name.

In any case - you're giving a misleading context to that Mann quote, which is best explained by a post from a different forum. Ironically, I'm not giving context for this long quote, other than to say it's a snippet from a longer discussion.

reddit.com discussion wrote:

I'm looking at the ones specifically related to the allegations, where I was not confident that the context was sufficient for me to make a determination.
The first one has no additional context - it's clearly part of a larger discussion, but I'm not sure what it is. As part of another discussion on this topic, I looked at the RealClimate discussion on it - obviously, this would be a biased source, but we can at least see if they give an explanation of the context for that quote - which it so happens, they do:
As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Now, one can question whether they are being truthful, certainly. However, their explanation indicates that my guess for an alternative explanation may have been correct- the decline they were discussing, according to them, is a decline in correlation, not temperature. If they were discussing tree ring data, this would make perfect sense - they were talking about imperfections in a proxy record for temperature.
Is this 100% solid evidence that it is, in fact, an innocent statement? No, but it seems more likely to me than the alternative explanation; they're talking about adding the real temperatures into their graph for a certain time period, which was what made me initially suspect that it was a correlation of some sort, and their explanation elaborates on this.
The other main one in which I needed context to be certain of what was being said,
Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
was, in fact, in response to criticism of claims by Stephen McIntyre, in which they claimed that he's cherry-picking data, and, essentially, that he's making **** up, and knows it. As I suspected, the comment "As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations" was not a statement about climate research. It was in response to an e-mail saying that Stephen McIntyre is making claims he knows to be wrong, and it was agreeing with that e-mail; to wit, by commenting that everyone concerned knows that McIntyre isn't interested in the truth.
So far, these allegations of "falsification of data" have been, at best, a joke, and possibly libel. I am willing to give due consideration to any other alleged examples which are brought to my attention, but, so far, the accusations on the subject that I have seen demonstrate either a shocking level of dishonesty on the part of the accusers, or so little understanding on their part of the methodology of science, and so little knowledge of climate science, that they are clearly incompetent to discuss any scientific topic, especially one with as much popular controversy as climate science.
Still, thank you for providing sources for the allegations, I really do appreciate that you have provided me with as much of the information as possible to investigate the claims for myself.

With respect to this latest point about an 'independent' committee, how could you conceivably put together a committee of people who were expert enough in the subject matter, yet all of them were demonstrably neutral on the question being investigated?

It's a ridiculous proposition. Everyone has a bias, and if you are going to accuse the committee of not being independent then you would need to show a clear majority of bias, instead of focussing on just one person.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

I believe this has been asked several times already on this thread, but anyway...

In the above quote, what does "this" refer to?

A quick google brings up this

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/michael-mann-re.html

2. "Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post. As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations." (from me)
This refers to a particular tree-ring reconstruction of Keith Briffa’s. These tree-ring data are just one of numerous tree-ring records used to reconstruct past climate. Briffa and collaborators were criticized (unfairly in the view of many of my colleagues and me) by a contrarian climate change website based on what we felt to be a misrepresentation of their work. A further discussion can be found on the site “RealClimate.org” that I co-founded and help run. It is quite clear from the context of my comments that what I was saying was that the attacks against Briffa and colleagues were not about truth but instead about making plausibly deniable accusations against him and his colleagues.
We attempted to correct the misrepresentations of Keith's work in the "RealClimate article mentioned above, and we invited him and his co-author Tim Osborn to participate actively in responding to any issues raised in the comment thread of the article which he did.

edit: plus hundreds of "climategate" type blogs.

gizmo555

edanto wrote: »

With respect to this latest point about an 'independent' committee, how could you conceivably put together a committee of people who were expert enough in the subject matter, yet all of them were demonstrably neutral on the question being investigated?

Actually, none of the panel is a climate expert.

edanto wrote: »

It's a ridiculous proposition. Everyone has a bias, and if you are going to accuse the committee of not being independent then you would need to show a clear majority of bias, instead of focussing on just one person.

So, if you were on trial for a crime, you wouldn't mind if some of the jury was biased against you, as long as a majority wasn't?

bonkey

djpbarry wrote: »

I believe this has been asked several times already on this thread, but anyway...

In the above quote, what does "this" refer to?

Amusingly, the quote could be prophetic...the usage of the quote isn't about truth...its about plausibly deniable accusations.

People say it shows (intent to de-)fraud. This is a "plausibly deniable accusation".

Similarly, others (including the person who wrote the comment, argue that it refers to those attacking the science (e.g. McIntyre). Again, this is a "plausibly deniable accusation".

The entire debate regarding this one comment is a microcosm that uncannily mirrors the larger debate within which it is set. I have no doubt that there is any shortage of people on both sides of the issue who are convinced that their interpratation of it is the one backed by the evidence, the facts, and so forth, and that those disagreeing with tem are either misinformed, disingenuous, or wilfully engaging in deception.

Cunsiderthis

bonkey wrote: »

Amusingly, the quote could be prophetic...the usage of the quote isn't about truth...its about plausibly deniable accusations.

People say it shows (intent to de-)fraud. This is a "plausibly deniable accusation".

Similarly, others (including the person who wrote the comment, argue that it refers to those attacking the science (e.g. McIntyre). Again, this is a "plausibly deniable accusation".

The entire debate regarding this one comment is a microcosm that uncannily mirrors the larger debate within which it is set. I have no doubt that there is any shortage of people on both sides of the issue who are convinced that their interpratation of it is the one backed by the evidence, the facts, and so forth, and that those disagreeing with tem are either misinformed, disingenuous, or wilfully engaging in deception.

Of course we can all find what we want in any quote, all the while it conveniently serves the purpose of diverting our attention away from the real issue.

Climate change seems to have become like so many other issues, in that it is very easy to accept one "side" or other of the argument, and the danger is that then one searches for reasons why one is right, and avoids any evidence which might question ones stance.

So, some who have opted for the polarised view whereby they believe that climate change is the fault of man can't seem to accept any criticism of the science behind that, or criticism of the people who promote it, and those who choose not to believe it refuse to believe science, even when it seems to be good science.

While climategate, and similar recent stories, have dented the credibility of the IPCC, and some of the office holders in the IPCC, that doesn't mean that the underlying message is necessarily incorrect. I'd say that the response to those stories arguable does more damage than any particular story itself, and it remains to be seen how much damage will be done to their credibility, and their arguments, in the medium to long term.

Sandvich

If only the "skeptics" were intelligent enough to;

1) Actually read the emails; and extrapolate what they were actually talking about;
2) Realise that the CRU is not the only center resource collecting this data, and the vast majority of centers are in a consensus on the matter

There were thousands of email with meaty proof as to what exactly is happening, which conveniently get ignored You find 3 or 4 emails that look a bit dodgy, and even then you have to take stuff out of context?

Great work, lads.

Climate Change skepticism is the most intellectually dishonest skepticism since Creationism.

Really getting tired of this bull**** now.

Sandvich

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I don'tt know what Svensmark is so if you ahve questions on it I suggest you find someone who i sbetter place to asnwer questions about it.

The difference between Sagan's Cosmos and Gould's Wonderful Life, is that neither work was based on speculating about what might happen in the future. that, of course, is what Mann and Jones etc are doing.

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong."]




Even though they can't account for the lack of warming which they had predicted, the are so convinced of their own infallability that they can't concieve that their data or crystal ball (which is what their computer model seems to be more akin to) might not be right!

What hubris.

Are you serious? Do you even know what "Decline" they're talking about?

This quote has been explained all over the internet. You like to think you're smarter than scientists who put in hundreds of hours of research; but you can't even Google a quote to make sure it's not taken out of context?

Shameful.

Sandvich

Also, poking holes in AGW doesn't disprove it. There are mountains of evidence out there. Being mistaken in recent reports doesn't disprove anything - science is wrong in the short term all the time.

I can't think of any other science that's been subjected to this much bull****. I feel sorry for Climatologists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails.

The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA's press office.

Quite a searching Q&A session, unlike previous interviews.

One of the quotes from the above interview.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

This "divergence" is well known in the tree-ring literature and "trick" did not refer to any intention to deceive - but rather "a convenient way of achieving something", in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.

I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time - an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.

I feel now that this "trick" has caused a serious fudging of the whole train of records, for a true trend you really need to stay with the same indicatiors.

What would the graphs look like if tree-ring data (or other proxies) was used exclusivly.

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

What would the graphs look like if tree-ring data (or other proxies) was used exclusivly.

What a complete and utter strawman. The least you could have done is read the emails.

No climatalogist uses the tree ring data exclusively, because they're an unreliable proxy during some durations. Jones even debates throughout the course of emails whether we should be using proxies at all now that we've got better temperature measurement records.

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

What a complete and strawman. The least you could have done is read the emails.

No climatalogist uses the tree ring data exclusively, because they're an unreliable proxy during some durations. Jones even debates throughout the course of emails whether we should be using proxies in the future now that we better temperature measurement records.

I posed the question "What would the graphs look like if tree-ring data (or other proxies) was used exclusivly?" not the resultant data when conbined with other data.

It's not a strawman at all, it would provide a continous line of "same type" source data, unlike the agregate data used which has several different data streams that needs to be be merged in.

It's likely that the tree-ring data from the late 20th century will show increased growth due to the increase in CO2 rather than the increase in temperatures.

Cunsiderthis

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the quotes from the above interview.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm



I feel now that this "trick" has caused a serious fudging of the whole train of records, for a true trend you really need to stay with the same indicatiors.

What would the graphs look like if tree-ring data (or other proxies) was used exclusivly.

You are not alone and there is a considerable body of opinion which does not accept the datd on which mann based his hockey stick graph.

"...The National Research Council Report on the hockey stick was released in June 2006. They accepted our argument that Mann's method is biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped PCs, that uncertainties have been underestimated and that the bristlecone data, on which the famous hockey stick shape depends, should not have been used. They also express very little confidence in the IPCC's claim about the 1990s being the warmest decade in the millennium. But you have to read the report closely to pick all these things up--they bury it in a lot of genteel and deferential prose..."

"...A major investigation into the hockey stick, the Wegman Panel Report, was headed by Edward Wegman of George Mason University, also past Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics. The Wegman panel not only fully endorsed our findings, but also presented a wide-ranging critique of the insularity of the paleoclimate community, their isolation from mainstream statistics, and their hostility towards external review and replication work. Wegman makes a good recommendations about the need for higher standards of disclosure and review scientific research is used in public policy..."

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Turtwig

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

You are not alone and there is a considerable body of opinion which does not accept the datd on which mann based his hockey stick graph.

"...The National Research Council Report on the hockey stick was released in June 2006. They accepted our argument that Mann's method is biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped PCs, that uncertainties have been underestimated and that the bristlecone data, on which the famous hockey stick shape depends, should not have been used. They also express very little confidence in the IPCC's claim about the 1990s being the warmest decade in the millennium. But you have to read the report closely to pick all these things up--they bury it in a lot of genteel and deferential prose..."

"...A major investigation into the hockey stick, the Wegman Panel Report, was headed by Edward Wegman of George Mason University, also past Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics. The Wegman panel not only fully endorsed our findings, but also presented a wide-ranging critique of the insularity of the paleoclimate community, their isolation from mainstream statistics, and their hostility towards external review and replication work. Wegman makes a good recommendations about the need for higher standards of disclosure and review scientific research is used in public policy..."

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Actually there isn't.

The Wegman report only investigated whether McIntyre's method of statistical analysis used was correct. It was not required to check whether the errors McIntyre's pointed out actually altered the temperature record and as it turns out they didn't. Sure as hell didn't stop those who opposed AGW with trying to give everyone the impression that the graph's map of temperature was completely wrong.

As for the NRC relenting on the fact with a gentile prose :

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 large-scale 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

Left in the full paragraph for context, but bold bit is all that's necessary. They state so quite clearly.

Cunsiderthis

I see that professor Jones has now said that there has, in fact, been no warming after all, since 1995.

Does that me we can all stop worrying about it all now?

Just wait the fun is about to start, latest news it that we are likely to be entering a "Dalton minimum" solar phase.


Two hours of video of this session can be accessed here.

Lets see all the environmentalists trying to explain the continuing fall in temperatures ofer the next couple of decades while CO2 is still rising.

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I see that professor Jones has now said that there has, in fact, been no warming after all, since 1995.

Does that me we can all stop worrying about it all now?

So 15 years is now a reasonable time period over which to measure a change (or lack thereof) in climate?

Deleted User wrote: »

Just wait the fun is about to start, latest news it that we are likely to be entering a "Dalton minimum" solar phase.

I thought you were a subscriber to the ‘climate change = variation in solar activity’ theory? Does it not seem reasonable that an increase/decrease in solar activity would have some bearing on temperatures here on Earth?

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

I thought you were a subscriber to the ‘climate change = variation in solar activity’ theory? Does it not seem reasonable that an increase/decrease in solar activity would have some bearing on temperatures here on Earth?

I am A decade or three of reduced solar activity is likely to result in a reduction in global temperatures.
Tha last time there was such a reduction, it contributed to crop failures in places like Ireland.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

I am A decade or three of reduced solar activity is likely to result in a reduction in global temperatures.

Ok, but (correct me if I'm wrong) you seem to be mocking 'The Environmentalists' for suggesting same?

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, but (correct me if I'm wrong) you seem to be mocking 'The Environmentalists' for suggesting same?

Only those that believed that global warming was the only show in town and that carbon taxation was the main solution.