Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

The hockey stick graph was a non-issue, down to wide margins of error - multiple different independent datasets, compiled by different people, replicated very similar temperature findings - it's a non-issue among scientists, only propagandists/doubt-peddlers go on about it still.

Au Contraire. It is a major issue otherwise the propagandist Al Gore would not have used it in his movie, which an English court ruled the movie contained several inconvenient untruths.





Return of the Hockey Stick

In a recent post Marcel Crok described his initiation into the climate wars as a young science journalist and discovering that two Canadians (Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre) had proved false Michael Mann’s modern warming spike. As he says correctly:

The arguments of the critics were not difficult to refute and the work of the two Canadians stands firmly to this day. I was intrigued by the quite aggressive and also defensive reaction of the climate scientists. Up to this day the criticism of the Canadians has never been fully addressed by the climate science community or the IPCC. Wasn’t this about the progress of science?

<snip>

Conclusion:

“Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.” – John Christy, Examining the Process concerning Climate Change Assessments, Testimony 31 March 2011

source

Remember the IPCC is an international committee, it is not evidence. Argument by authority is not proof of anything except that a committee paid to find a particular result can produce a long document. It took one person to prove Mann and his cohort of scientists and the IPCC who published it were wrong.

If name calling is the best you can do? I could be an SJW Maoist or a member of the CATO institute but my opinions don’t affect ice core data or the historical temperature record. Mann and the IPCC got caught publishing shoddy work with no accountability to this day.

gozunda

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Au Contraire. It is a major issue otherwise the propagandist Al Gore would not have used it in his movie, which an English court ruled the movie contained...

Remember the IPCC is an international committee, it is not evidence. Argument by authority is not proof of anything except that a committee paid to find a particular result can produce a long document. It took one person to prove Mann and his cohort of scientists and the IPCC who published it were wrong.

Just to add to your comment- the Hockey Stick issue is indeed very relevant and shows that even the most august bodies can get their findings badly wrong

As detailed there are at least two examples where the UN has presented incorrect figures regarding greenhouse gas emissions

The issue with the 'hockey stick' data reported following a recent court case taken by another scientist

Of note the Hockey Stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001). As you detailed Al Gore variously brandished it around the place in his film - " An Inconvenient Truth".

Also the UN were left with eggs on their collective faces when it was found and later admitted significant flaws in a report on agriculture and climate change. In this report they claimed that animal agriculture emissions were greater than that of transport - this was challenged by scientists and found to be solely based on flawed data calculations.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html

Unfortunately that hasn't stopped absolute twats from repeating this piece of nonsense

No scientist worth their salt would ever insist that specific findings or research should never be challenged. Imo that type of dictate is usually the reserve of dictators and authoritarian style governments.

A quote that I think may be relevant as an analogy is "That the Camel is an Animal designed by a Committee". This analogy reminds us that an entity of many parts may on occasion, fail to make up an entirely convincing reality.

None of that denies climate change btw.

Queue some Koch type comments ....

Atlantic Dawn

I still have not seen any explanation as to how sea levels will rise if icebergs in the sea melt. If I have 4 ice cubes in my JD N'Coke and they melt the level in my glass is identical before and after they have melted, it's basic science.

tuxy

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I still have not seen any explanation as to how sea levels will rise if icebergs in the sea melt. If I have 4 ice cubes in my JD N'Coke and they melt the level in my glass is identical before and after they have melted, it's basic science.

I thought the issue was glaciers melting not icebergs. Not only because glaciers are massive compared to glaciers but they are also on land.

suicide_circus

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I still have not seen any explanation as to how sea levels will rise if icebergs in the sea melt. If I have 4 ice cubes in my JD N'Coke and they melt the level in my glass is identical before and after they have melted, it's basic science.

you nearly had it solved there

sk8erboii

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I still have not seen any explanation as to how sea levels will rise if icebergs in the sea melt. If I have 4 ice cubes in my JD N'Coke and they melt the level in my glass is identical before and after they have melted, it's basic science.

LMAO Just stop talking jesus
Its glaciers melting from land that raises sea levels. Not icebergs.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Au Contraire. It is a major issue otherwise the propagandist Al Gore would not have used it in his movie, which an English court ruled the movie contained several inconvenient untruths.


Return of the Hockey Stick


Remember the IPCC is an international committee, it is not evidence. Argument by authority is not proof of anything except that a committee paid to find a particular result can produce a long document. It took one person to prove Mann and his cohort of scientists and the IPCC who published it were wrong.

If name calling is the best you can do? I could be an SJW Maoist or a member of the CATO institute but my opinions don’t affect ice core data or the historical temperature record. Mann and the IPCC got caught publishing shoddy work with no accountability to this day.

Oh look, two more people with connections to Koch oil-oligarch funded think-tanks, disputing climate science!

Neither of them climate scientists - they've economics degrees ffs... - neither of them taken seriously by the climate science community - neither of their controversies being present (settled more than a decade ago).

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

Oh look, two more people with connections to Koch oil-oligarch funded think-tanks, disputing climate science!

Neither of them climate scientists - they've economics degrees ffs... - neither of them taken seriously by the climate science community - neither of their controversies being present (settled more than a decade ago).

Do you believe that the hockey stick graph as presented in the Al Gore film is accurate?

weldoninhio

sk8erboii wrote: »

LMAO Just stop talking jesus
Its glaciers melting from land that raises sea levels. Not icebergs.

So why the constant drama about ice sheets the size of “insert country” breaking off in the arctic?? If it’s not going to make a difference to anything?? More unneeded alarmism from the Greens??

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

Do you believe that the hockey stick graph as presented in the Al Gore film is accurate?

My post is referring to the two economists challenging the IPCC, not Al Gore's film. In general, whenever the hockey stick graph is referred to, it should include the margins of error in the data, not just a simple line graph - that pretty much erases any controversy.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

My post is referring to the two economists challenging the IPCC, not Al Gore's film. In general, whenever the hockey stick graph is referred to, it should include the margins of error in the data, not just a simple line graph - that pretty much erases any controversy.

And yet it remains that Michael Mann refused to submit the data and calculations behind the famous hocky stick graph in a recent court case. He refused to produce this information despite the fact that he was ordered to produce them by a given a deadline. He lost the case and the authority to stand behind his hocky stick graph.

Even at the time when the graph was being proposed for inclusion in the then upcoming IPCC report. A series of leaked emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit in correspondence with one of the IPCC lead scientists shows that there were significant rows about whether the graph, should be used at all given that a number of other scientists research was in varience with Manns findings.

So no the inclusions of some added margins of error is not going to erase the issues which this case has brought to the surface.

Science requires open access to data, so that other scientists can verify that the data is sound and findings are reproducible. This test has not been met.

Tuisceanch

I don’t get it. What’s the problem with climate change, ice bergs melting and the sea level rising?
I mean the excess water just flows down the edge of the Earth.

weldoninhio

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I don’t get it. What’s the problem with climate change, ice bergs melting and the sea level rising?
I mean the excess water just flows down the edge of the Earth.

Hold on, someone about 5 posts back has stated that icebergs melting has no effect on sea level, that it is glaciers melting that effects it. Which is it?

Tuisceanch

Jimmy Garlic

gozunda wrote: »

I think Tmh is bizarrely referencing Rosa Parks who helped highlight and bring an end to discrimination and segregation during the civil rights era in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

Quite hilarious that a wealthy kid from a privileged background could be held in comparison. We know greta thinks her childhood was stolen by all the adults but seriously?

They are trying to insinuate that anyone who questions the motives behind Greta and co is also a racist. Much like the start of this thread when it was insinuated that those who questions Greta must be paedophiles. Smear tactics.

sk8erboii

weldoninhio wrote: »

Hold on, someone about 5 posts back has stated that icebergs melting has no effect on sea level, that it is glaciers melting that effects it. Which is it?

It takes 2 seconds to google. And if you dont know you probably shouldnt have an opinion on climate change either.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

And yet it remains that Michael Mann refused to submit the data and calculations behind the famous hocky stick graph in a recent court case. He refused to produce this information despite the fact that he was ordered to produce them by a given a deadline. He lost the case and the authority to stand behind his hocky stick graph.

Even at the time when the graph was being proposed for inclusion in the then upcoming IPCC report. A series of leaked emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit in correspondence with one of the IPCC lead scientists shows that there were significant rows about whether the graph, should be used at all given that a number of other scientists research was in varience with Manns findings.

So no the inclusions of some added margins of error is not going to erase the issues which this case has brought to the surface.

Science requires open access to data, so that other scientists can verify that the data is sound and findings are reproducible. This test has not been met.

Except there are multiple data sets and studies other than Mann's replicating the hockey stick graph, with differing margins of error - yet the same general trend of warming.

The hockey stick graph certainly doesn't depend on any one persons work - neither does it fall on it...

That's why it's a complete non-issue.

Gaoth Laidir

weldoninhio wrote: »

So why the constant drama about ice sheets the size of “insert country” breaking off in the arctic?? If it’s not going to make a difference to anything?? More unneeded alarmism from the Greens??

Land-based ice (glaciers, Antarctic ice sheet) melting will contribute to sea-level-rise as it's now water in the ocean that was not previously there. However, in Antarctica even this is turning out to not be as fast as previously thought.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170502084037.htm

Sea ice doesn't contribute to sea-level rise but it does affect albedo (reflectivity). Less ice means more exposed sea to absorb solar heat. Oh, and remember the poor polar bears.

The Arctic sea ice trend is always used as a primary battering ram by the climate brigade, but they seem to be ignoring the recent flatlining (which has lasted for the last 25% of the total satellite era). They will only show the overall 40-year linear trendline, not the more indicative 5-year running mean. That would be an inconvenient truth.

Tuisceanch

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Except there are multiple data sets and studies other than Mann's replicating the hockey stick graph, with differing margins of error - yet the same general trend of warming.

The hockey stick graph certainly doesn't depend on any one persons work - neither does it fall on it...

That's why it's a complete non-issue.

It’s well-established that various proxies can be used to reconstruct rough approximations of past temperatures.

The problem occurs when they splice instrumental temperatures onto the end of proxy reconstructions. In the private sector, this is called "fraud." In government and academic climate "science" this is called Mike’s Nature Trick, "nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."


It was Mann who first devised the "trick" of splicing in the thermometer record, which was eagerly copied by Phil Jones of the university of east Anglia climate research unit. And as Jones admits, it was very much a "trick" designed to fool governments, the media and the people.

From: Phil Jones

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
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.
Cheers
Phil

source

The intent was to hide the decline in proxy derived temperatures, where they overlapped the instrumental temperature records, during 20 year and 40 year periods when the real temperatures were rising but the proxy derived temperatures were falling. The problem for them being that if they did not hide the declines in the proxies, it would have shown that their tree ring-based temperature reconstruction methodology was unreliable, spoiled the hockeystick shape of the graph, and undermined the narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dul_hYde0nk

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Except there are multiple data sets and studies other than Mann's replicating the hockey stick graph, with differing margins of error - yet the same general trend of warming.The hockey stick graph certainly doesn't depend on any one persons work - neither does it fall on it...
That's why it's a complete non-issue.

Wrong . You fail to acknowledge it was Manns hocky stick graph (ie most extreme of the projections considered) which was used by the IPCC and touted by Al Gore as an absolute. That data can no longer be relied on.

Leaked emails from the University of East Anglia detail that there was considerable concern as to the overt nature of Manns findings. That was over 10 years ago and only now are we seeing published concerns regarding his work.

It is an important issue for the very reason that all scientific research requires ongoing rigorous evaluation - something that some here are bizarrely suggesting is not required.

You suggest that all the scientists were in agreement with regard to the hocky stick graph. They were not. Ray Bradley, the co-author with Mann on the hockey stick study attempted to dissociated himself from Mike Mann's views on the the primacy of his data over other scientists work prior to the IPCC using it in the published IPCC report.

Two scientists namely Phil Jones and Keith Briffa wrote that

It should not be taken as read that Mike's (Mann) series is "the correct one" ... "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data', but in reality the situation is not quite so simple... For the record, I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago."

So no - there is no nice tidy picture with ribbons which wraps this particular debacle up. That questions are being asked is the correct approach. Suggesting 'there is nothing to see here' is certainly not.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

It’s well-established that various proxies can be used to reconstruct rough approximations of past temperatures.

The problem occurs when they splice instrumental temperatures onto the end of proxy reconstructions. In the private sector, this is called "fraud." In government and academic climate "science" this is called Mike’s Nature Trick, "nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."


It was Mann who first devised the "trick" of splicing in the thermometer record, which was eagerly copied by Phil Jones of the university of east Anglia climate research unit. And as Jones admits, it was very much a "trick" designed to fool governments, the media and the people.




The intent was to hide the decline in proxy derived temperatures, where they overlapped the instrumental temperature records, during 20 year and 40 year periods when the real temperatures were rising but the proxy derived temperatures were falling. The problem for them being that if they did not hide the declines in the proxies, it would have shown that their tree ring-based temperature reconstruction methodology was unreliable, spoiled the hockeystick shape of the graph, and undermined the narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

TLDR: The temperature data from the past has a higher margin of error, and the instrumental/thermometer temperature recordings in more modern times, have less margin of error.

Zero problems splicing them together, so long as you include the margin of error - as can be seen visually, right here:


Even when you consider the worst case of the margin of error being biased towards past warming (i.e. trace the top of the blue outline to the present), it still shows a distinct/immediate warming in the present.

This is a complete non-issue among climate scientists.

gozunda

Hockey Stick Science - The Unintended Consequences ...

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Wrong . You fail to acknowledge it was Manns hocky stick graph (ie most extreme of the projections considered) which was used by the IPCC and touted by Al Gore as an absolute. That data can no longer be relied on.

Leaked emails from the University of East Anglia detail that there was considerable concern as to the overt nature of Manns findings. That was over 10 years ago and only now are we seeing published concerns regarding his work.

It is an important issue for the very reason that all scientific research requires ongoing rigorous evaluation - something that some here are bizarrely suggesting is not required.

You suggest that all the scientists were in agreement with regard to the hocky stick graph. They were not. Ray Bradley, the co-author with Mann on the hockey stick study attempted to dissociated himself from Mike Mann's views on the the primacy of his data over other scientists work prior to the IPCC using it in the published IPCC report.

Two scientists namely Phil Jones and Keith Briffa wrote that


So no - there is no nice tidy picture with ribbons which wraps this particular debacle up. That questions are being asked is the correct approach. Suggesting 'there is nothing to see here' is certainly not.

You're ignoring what I said: The hockey stick graph has been replicated independently of Mann's work - it is completely uncontroversial within the climate science community.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Datasets won't help you when you don't know the underlying assumptions behind them and whether they are linked to the reality or not. If you are genuinely interested start with a skeptical position on the matter and ask lots of questions of the people looking for your money, otherwise how can you tell you getting value for money? Remember it is your sweat and capital that are ultimately up for grabs.


If you want a starting position use the Skeptics handbook - part I and part II. They will not give you all the answers you are looking for but it will give you a compass to navigate the debate.

Oh look, another person affiliated with Koch oil-oligarch funded think tanks, producing propaganda material!

Tip: 'Skeptic' is key word for Denialist. Google authors for links to oil industry funded think tanks.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

You're ignoring what I said: The hockey stick graph has been replicated independently of Mann's work - it is completely uncontroversial within the climate science community.

Nope. I'm simply pointing out what you are saying is incorrect. The Hockey Stick debacle remains a significant issue which has been going on amongst scientists for well over a decade. Why you ask? Here are some scientists who can explain the issues (in addition to those already detailed with Manns work) and how other studies using the same methodology are equally problematic...

Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records...

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions...

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one–if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

A scientist an an academic and not a 'skeptic' or climate denier in sight ...

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

KyussB

They are not climate scientists. They are economists with ties to oil-oligarch Koch funded think tanks...

The debate on the hockey stick graph is done and dusted among climate scientists. It is confirmed.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Oh look, another person affiliated with Koch oil-oligarch funded think tanks, producing propaganda material!

Tip: 'Skeptic' is key word for Denialist. Google authors for links to oil industry funded think tanks.

You have sunk to name calling and repeating public relations agency derived nonsense. The public relations agency objective is to denigrate people by creating favourable interpretations to the following questions.

• Were these climate skeptics qualified?
• Were they doing any research in the climate change field?
• Were they accepting money, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry?

This doesn’t answer skeptics questions about the science and as they acknowledge themselves, are about public relations in the climategate emails.

I'm a DeSmogBlog writer [Richard LIttlemore] (I got your email from Kevin Grandia) and I am trying to fend off the latest announcement that global warming has not actually occurred in the 20th century.

It looks to me like Gerd Burger is trying to deny climate change by “smoothing,” “correcting” or otherwise rounding off the temperatures that we know for a flat fact have been recorded since the 1970s, but I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we're all about PR here, not much about science) so I wonder if you guys have done anything or are going to do anything with Burger's intervention in Science.

source

The other connection this PR agency has is with David Suzuki a Canadian activist whose daughter was the original Greta.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

They are not climate scientists. They are economists with ties to oil-oligarch Koch funded think tanks...

The debate on the hockey stick graph is done and dusted among climate scientists. It is confirmed.

Everyone with whom you dont agee with a KOCH OIL OLIGARCH? :rolleyes:

The lack of basic comprehension in your comments regarding how scientific research works is quite astounding. Just to let you know that not every scientist needs to be 'climate scientist' btw. These scientists are qualified to review the methodology used by Mann and it was they who found his methodology deeply flawed. The writer of the article is yet another scientist who is neither a climate denier or a skeptic. He simply cautions others to learn from those mistakes (whether deliberate or otherwise). Here is the quote again- in case you are in doubt.

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions...

It's a shame that by repetition - you identify the real denier and skeptic of those very basic facts. Truely Bizarre.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

They are not climate scientists. They are economists with ties to oil-oligarch Koch funded think tanks...

The debate on the hockey stick graph is done and dusted among climate scientists. It is confirmed.

Perhaps people who are interested might like to listen to Steve McIntryes opinion on the matter about how it was whitewashed. Start 2 minutes and 15 seconds in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqzcA7SsqSA