Website Full Disclosure  Do not use this website for investment advice.                                                   New Chat Rooms

THREAD RULES. BE POLITE. NO AD HOMS (trying to prove argument by attacking the integrity of the arguer. It is fine to show specific instances of incompetence etc if directly relevant). KEEP TO THE TOPIC.

Lensman challenged me on another thread, saying that it was obvious Mann suppressed information with his infamous "hockey stick graph"

The argument for this is summarised by Lensman as follows:


Lensman said:

Here is a temperature graph of the past 1000 years published in 1990. Was it from some global warming skeptic blog? No, it's from the IPCC's own official executive summary for that year:










And here is the infamous "hockey stick" graph which pretends to show the temperatures for the same period, the past 1000 years:

[Edited to remove ref to malware alert site "churchofglobalwarming"]




The suppression by Mann et al of the widespread and well-documented evidence for the Little Ice Age cannot be disputed. The evidence of the Medieval Warm Period is less well established-- current (hopefully better) data would show the maximum temperature lower than current temperatures-- but there is no legitimate reason for Mann deliberately omitting the data for the LIA.

If you deny there is clear bias shown here, if you deny that the "hockey stick" graph has been made the centerpiece of the alarmist AGW argument, and if you deny that this is a deliberate suppression of evidence of natural climate change by so-called "consensus" climate science, then it's pretty obvious just who is in denial here, Tom.

As they say: "You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts."

So let us get to the bottom of this. There are really four separate questions:

(1) Are the graphs Lensman posts, which appear to show strong disagreement, what they seem? There are lies, damned lies, statistic, and AGW-related graphs. Thre latter being the easiest to distort. So let us look at lensman's data and see what happens.

(2) is the overall Hockey Stick temperature shape correct? In other words, given the best information now, do we have a grpah looking like that?

(3) Was Mann guilty of deliberate distortion of facts etc?

(4) Is this graph the centrepiece of the AGW argumen?

I suggest we deal with (1) and (2) first. When the science on these to questions is settled we should be in a good position to tackle (3). I propose we ignore (4). It is very political - the hockey stick is a very powerful popular illustration -  but no single graph is much use at conveying the whole scientific picture. Since i am interested in the science much more than how it is presented (TP I think sometimes worries I may be giving ammunition to "the other side") I'll ignore the politics. As far as i am concerned, looking at the science, there are not two sides. Of course, in the politics there are, and internet debates which do not drill down into the detail of the science and shake it till the truth emerges can similarly polarise. I'm hoping we can avoid that sort of thing here.

Now I could post a rebuttal with a whole load of graphs, and referenced peer-reviewed papers as sources which shows in answer to (20 that Mann's Hockey Stick looks fine.

But that will not work, and would be unfair. It is necessary to post precise arguments with precise counter-arguments.

Prima facie the graph lensman posts looks damning. But is it? One thing that worries me is that it has no temperature scale. Another that we do not know over what scale it is averaged. Obviously the last bit of the hockey stick is very sharp, so if we average over 100 years or so we will suppress it.

I'll do some investigation. Perhaps Lensman can do the same.

Views: 22501

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That's just bizarre.  Of course forecasts aren't falsified the first few years, but as time passed the IPCC projections looked worse and worse.  What on earth are you talking about?   Earlier I showed the technical details of which model projections had been falsified.  Do you understand what falsified means?

If you keep this nonsense up it won't be worth replying to it.

JCatania said:

They looked very right a few years ago. Now you're saying since theres a maximum they're wrong- it dosen't work that way. There's no data to verify your claim.

I can see parallel. That's why I don't consider it bizarre. Your misinterpretation is what's bizarre. Stick with what's there and stop ad libing and posting concocted graphs. There's no denying warming trends. What on earth I'm talking about is the warming shown in the graph you posted. No matter how you interpret it it shows warming. Secondly ipcc projections seem to cover the real data for the years before the latest maximum. The data after 2012 is phony nonsense. You need to understand the difference between signal and noise. To most sentient beings those are distinct. So decadal oscillations would be noise. I can't care about superimposed noise on signal. Yes the ipcc thinks the warming signal, so does your jap friend. Do not tell me there's data you can show me that indicates there's been no warming, that earth didn't freeze up during snowball earth or ice ages, that daytime temps are the same as overnight lows because its obvious that your bucking establishment. Its hard to argue that past data is inaccurate but you've flat out stated it. Oh well. That you think predictions are inaccurate also means nothing- inaccuracy and predictions go hand in hand. You strike me as someone who has attacked science and suffered for it. Did you not see error bars on the ipcc data. You need to read their publications not push your own interpretations on others. The ipcc doesn't waste everyone's time.


As you seem unable to grasp the meaning of what I have written, it is not worth my time to continue debating you.

Changing the subject, although I just posted a graph of global temperature anomalies, it is worth remembering that the actual temperature may change in the opposite direction.   This graph from John Kehr shows why.

JCatania said:

This is not a CT thread. CT was not instrumental in this matter. Your stated position is you are sour on IPCC. I'm perfectly content. So I must laugh at your inability to convince any IPCC member or serve in the capacity you profess is your chosen calling.


Are you off your meds? I don't know any IPCC member, and I rather doubt the IPCC in general needs to be convinced of the importance of Chaos math in analyzing weather and climate! I would think that most or all climate scientists are already more aware of its usefulness in analyzing and forecasting weather and climate than I am.


See, for example, at the RealClimate website: Chaos and Climate. Obviously written by someone who understands Chaos theory, and how it relates to climate analysis, better than I do.


Saying "this is not a Chaos theory thread" is about as meaningful as saying "this is not a mathematics thread." The actual given topic of this thread is about one particular attempt to use (or misuse) math to analyze the available data on historical global/hemispherical climate warming and cooling trends. Math is a useful tool, and like all tools, can be used properly or improperly. Chaos theory is one branch of math which is particularly useful in attempts to analyze and predict phenomena such as weather and climate.


If you think the climate changes which the "hockey stick" graph should show have nothing to do with Chaos theory, then again you're just revealing your ignorance of Chaos theory.

Again this is not a CT thread. We are not discussing CT or its usefulness in case you hadn't noticed. Are you under the impression that normal human function requires medicine? ...And the Great God Lens spoke: "In the beginning there were the meds, then I created Adam and forced the meds into his system!" And the townspeople replied, "But then, Great Lens, there was a moment when Adam was not on meds." As for you rather irrational comment that you don't know any ipcc member... up your dosage!.

Figure SPM.5

Figure SPM.5. Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980–1999) for the scenarios A2, A1B and B1, shown as continuations of the 20th century simulations. Shading denotes the ±1 standard deviation range of individual model annual averages. The orange line is for the experiment where concentrations were held constant at year 2000 values. The grey bars at right indicate the best estimate (solid line within each bar) and the likely range assessed for the six SRES marker scenarios. The assessment of the best estimate and likely ranges in the grey bars includes the AOGCMs in the left part of the figure, as well as results from a hierarchy of independent models and observational constraints. {Figures 10.4 and 10.29}

As the reader can see parallel has been using concocted data. As well, the jap guys projection seems to be a "no additional GHG projection", not a "GHG's don't exist or exert any effect projection."


"the jap guy"  

is the Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), serving in that position from the center's establishment in 1998 until January 2007. Previously he had been director of the university's Geophysical Institute from 1986. Akasofu has been a professor of geophysics at UAF since 1964.

What is your claim to fame?

Hmmm? I take it you think Akasofu claimed a professorship for because it would make him famous? Study his graph again and tell me what his assuptions were?

BTW, this graph shows a warming in line with ipcc over last 30-35 years. Feb 2013 is still above baseline by 0.2C. If you measure peak-to peak or trough to trough you get ~1.2-1.5 C/ century.


Robert Rhode (BEST) makes the following comment on the piece you linked.

Because the analysis method and sparse data used in this study will tend to blur out most century-scale changes, we can’t use the analysis of Marcott et al. to draw any firm conclusions about how unique the rapid changes of the twentieth century are compared to the previous 10,000 years. The 20th century may have had uniquely rapid warming, but we would need higher resolution data to draw that conclusion with any certainty. Similarly, one should be careful in comparing recent decades to early parts of their reconstruction, as one can easily fall into the trap of comparing a single year or decade to what is essentially an average of centuries. To their credit Marcott et al. do recognize and address the issue of suppressed high frequency variability at a number of places in their paper.

But what are the assumptions?

For those, like JCatania, that weren't following the first time.

Reply to Discussion



© 2014   Created by B.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service