Climate Science Doubts: Not Because of Payment, but Because the Science Is Bad

[IanC]

Ian, do you believe Mann's 'hockey stick' has been refuted, and if so, please explain whether you are referring to the MWP or the warming of the 20th century.

Mann's hockey sticks, in all version have been shown to be incorrect. In both methodology and data. His claims of error and certainty are also wrong. He is also guilty of lying. And not just in papers, books and blogs but in court and to congressional hearings.

Large-scale reconstructions validate it:

List of large-scale temperature reconstructions of the last 2 000 years - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

ralfy- you're new here. I have gone through all of this stuff before, especially Old Rocks. There are lots of interesting threads in the archives.

I told you before that people have to make up their own minds. So I clicked your link to see what you are being influenced by. An obscure name popped up that is actually familiar to me. Huang and Pollack boreholes. In 1997 they used 6000 boreholes and their graph showed a strong MWP and LIA. In 2000 they chopped it down to 600 boreholes and that is the graphic that was added to the Spaghetti graph. In 2008 they bumped up the number of boreholes to a few thousand and the MWP and LIA were back again. I am not going to guess what their intentions were in deriving the 2000 'odd man out' chart. Or why they have returned to a more realistic reconstruction. But you have to wonder why one of the studies got publicity and the other, more thorough, studies did not.

here are the three studies plotted out for the last thousand years. you can easily google the actual studies, and there are many other borehole studies available to give context to the Huang papers

That's why the list I shared contains multiple reconstructions and not just one. That's also why the NAS published a report analyzing the same.

You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. Huang97 had the most data and supported the predominant meme at the time, warmer MWP. Huang00 used a truncated dataset that supported the new meme of the flat blade of the hockeystick. Huang08 used an abbreviated dataset that brought back the MWP and LIA but at a lower baseline. It's odd how the same pile of data can say anything you want, depending on which pieces you use.

As far as the NAS report; it said McIntyre was right that Mann's methodology was wrong and bristlecone pines shouldn't be used. From the other side of its mouth it said that others had replicated the same general results, even though the same tainted proxies were used.

If you guys don't want to even acknowledge that there are serious problems in most of the areas of climate science then that is you prerogative. Truth always comes out, enen if it takes a while.

 

[Crick]

When you said "flat blade", you mispoke.

Serious problems? You know of problems that would result in no warming from the added CO2? Let's see 'em

McIntrye's correction to MBH 98 resulted in NO change to their conclusion.

 

[SSDD]

McIntrye's correction to MBH 98 resulted in NO change to their conclusion.

If you call killing the hockey stick no change, then I guess you are right. Here is the published paper.

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf

 

[Crick]

Why don't you compare the corrected paper to the original? Afraid what it'll show?

 

[ralfy]

Mann's hockey sticks, in all version have been shown to be incorrect. In both methodology and data. His claims of error and certainty are also wrong. He is also guilty of lying. And not just in papers, books and blogs but in court and to congressional hearings.

Large-scale reconstructions validate it:

List of large-scale temperature reconstructions of the last 2 000 years - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

ralfy- you're new here. I have gone through all of this stuff before, especially Old Rocks. There are lots of interesting threads in the archives.

I told you before that people have to make up their own minds. So I clicked your link to see what you are being influenced by. An obscure name popped up that is actually familiar to me. Huang and Pollack boreholes. In 1997 they used 6000 boreholes and their graph showed a strong MWP and LIA. In 2000 they chopped it down to 600 boreholes and that is the graphic that was added to the Spaghetti graph. In 2008 they bumped up the number of boreholes to a few thousand and the MWP and LIA were back again. I am not going to guess what their intentions were in deriving the 2000 'odd man out' chart. Or why they have returned to a more realistic reconstruction. But you have to wonder why one of the studies got publicity and the other, more thorough, studies did not.

here are the three studies plotted out for the last thousand years. you can easily google the actual studies, and there are many other borehole studies available to give context to the Huang papers

That's why the list I shared contains multiple reconstructions and not just one. That's also why the NAS published a report analyzing the same.

You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. Huang97 had the most data and supported the predominant meme at the time, warmer MWP. Huang00 used a truncated dataset that supported the new meme of the flat blade of the hockeystick. Huang08 used an abbreviated dataset that brought back the MWP and LIA but at a lower baseline. It's odd how the same pile of data can say anything you want, depending on which pieces you use.

As far as the NAS report; it said McIntyre was right that Mann's methodology was wrong and bristlecone pines shouldn't be used. From the other side of its mouth it said that others had replicated the same general results, even though the same tainted proxies were used.

If you guys don't want to even acknowledge that there are serious problems in most of the areas of climate science then that is you prerogative. Truth always comes out, enen if it takes a while.

The report validates Mann and argues that the bias in the methodology had little influence on the results.

As for McIntyre, peer-reviewed studies published as early as 2005 questioned his points.

 

[SSDD]

Why don't you compare the corrected paper to the original? Afraid what it'll show?

Clearly you didn't. Afraid?

 

[Crick]

The 'blade' of the corrected version is not only exactly as vertical, it continues higher in temperature than did the original.

Thanks.

 

[SSDD]

The 'blade' of the corrected version is not only exactly as vertical, it continues higher in temperature than did the original.

Thanks.

And it clearly shows that the temperature increase today is in no way unusual and not outside the boundaries of natural variation...The temperature spike at 1450 is just as large and abrupt as the modern spike. Natural variation is a bitch if you are a warmer....go further back with other proxy data and one sees that the holocene optimum, the minoan warm period, the roman warm period and the medieval warm period all experienced temperature changes as large and as, if not more abrupt than the modern warming which has been going on for some time now.

 

[skookerasbil]

Why don't you compare the corrected paper to the original? Afraid what it'll show?

Clearly you didn't. Afraid?

SSDD man.......where ya been???

The level of k00k in here lately has gone from the profound to the completely absurd!! I dont think even one of these nutters has their feet firmly planted on the ground.............but we've been embarrassing the shit out of them as usual. Welcome back abaord s0n!!!!

 

[IanC]

Offset centering, PC overweighting of preferred proxies, and use of gray versions, tainted, or duplicates of proxies were just a few of the problems with Mann's work.

It is important to remember that McIntyre was NOT making his own reconstruction! He was only showing what Mann should have found if some of the mistakes were corrected.

 

[jc456]

I do not recall ever charging you with rejecting all the IPCC's assessment reports. However, you'd have to identify those points or position with which you agree because I'd have a hard time identifying them myself.

The actual disagreement with Mann's hockey stick is not whether or not it shows the unprecedentedly rapid warming of the latter half of the 20th century, but whether or not it shows the medieval warm period (MWP). The idea that the presence of the MWP falsifies AGW is utter nonsense.

Unfortunately, a number of the inadequately educated members of the denier side believe that when their denier icons say the hockey stick has been refuted, that they are saying that the Earth has not experienced unprecedentedly rapid warming in the latter half of the 20th century.

all anyone on the skeptic side wanted was the raw data Mann used. he refused to supply the data. Am I wrong?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD man.......where ya been???

Been just to busy since Christmas. I sat in as lead guitar for a local blues / jazz group who lost their previous lead back around Christmas. They offered me a spot in the band as long as I cared to play. I have always enjoyed playing the blues, but jazz has never really been my thing so I have been spending a lot of time practicing. Something had to give because there are only so many hours in a day so my computer time was where I made the cut. Been at it for almost 5 months now and don't feel the need to practice as much as I did.....still have to work on it but not as much. Making pretty good money at it also which serves to convince my wife that I didn't waste all those thousands I spent on my guitar some years ago. Women just have no sense of humor with regard to our toys.

[QUOTE="skookerasbil, post: 11180657, member: 20360]"The level of k00k in here lately has gone from the profound to the completely absurd!! I dont think even one of these nutters has their feet firmly planted on the ground.............but we've been embarrassing the shit out of them as usual. Welcome back abaord s0n!!!![/QUOTE]

Death throes of a cult. Never pretty to watch. Seems that rather than get past the denial phase, they have dug in like a bunch of blood sucking ticks.

 

[Crick]

I do not recall ever charging you with rejecting all the IPCC's assessment reports. However, you'd have to identify those points or position with which you agree because I'd have a hard time identifying them myself.

The actual disagreement with Mann's hockey stick is not whether or not it shows the unprecedentedly rapid warming of the latter half of the 20th century, but whether or not it shows the medieval warm period (MWP). The idea that the presence of the MWP falsifies AGW is utter nonsense.

Unfortunately, a number of the inadequately educated members of the denier side believe that when their denier icons say the hockey stick has been refuted, that they are saying that the Earth has not experienced unprecedentedly rapid warming in the latter half of the 20th century.

all anyone on the skeptic side wanted was the raw data Mann used. he refused to supply the data. Am I wrong?

As far as I have been able to tell, you are always wrong.

And are you under the impression that Michael Mann owns all the climate data ever recorded?

 

[jc456]

H

I do not recall ever charging you with rejecting all the IPCC's assessment reports. However, you'd have to identify those points or position with which you agree because I'd have a hard time identifying them myself.

The actual disagreement with Mann's hockey stick is not whether or not it shows the unprecedentedly rapid warming of the latter half of the 20th century, but whether or not it shows the medieval warm period (MWP). The idea that the presence of the MWP falsifies AGW is utter nonsense.

Unfortunately, a number of the inadequately educated members of the denier side believe that when their denier icons say the hockey stick has been refuted, that they are saying that the Earth has not experienced unprecedentedly rapid warming in the latter half of the 20th century.

all anyone on the skeptic side wanted was the raw data Mann used. he refused to supply the data. Am I wrong?

As far as I have been able to tell, you are always wrong.

And are you under the impression that Michael Mann owns all the climate data ever recorded?

He had the data that made his graph. Your point?

 

[ralfy]

Offset centering, PC overweighting of preferred proxies, and use of gray versions, tainted, or duplicates of proxies were just a few of the problems with Mann's work.

It is important to remember that McIntyre was NOT making his own reconstruction! He was only showing what Mann should have found if some of the mistakes were corrected.

More details here:

RealClimate National Academies Synthesis Report

Thus, there are uncertainties for earlier periods, but the key findings are substantiated.

Finally, the third and fourth points are notable, as they involve looking at multiple studies and not just one. And yet you keep insisting on focusing on only one study.

Given that, and the fact that I am explaining to you an issue that took place almost a decade ago, shows that I am wasting my time discussing this point with you. And that's why I am now adding you to my ignore list.

 

[IanC]

Offset centering, PC overweighting of preferred proxies, and use of gray versions, tainted, or duplicates of proxies were just a few of the problems with Mann's work.

It is important to remember that McIntyre was NOT making his own reconstruction! He was only showing what Mann should have found if some of the mistakes were corrected.

More details here:

RealClimate National Academies Synthesis Report

Thus, there are uncertainties for earlier periods, but the key findings are substantiated.

Finally, the third and fourth points are notable, as they involve looking at multiple studies and not just one. And yet you keep insisting on focusing on only one study.

Given that, and the fact that I am explaining to you an issue that took place almost a decade ago, shows that I am wasting my time discussing this point with you. And that's why I am now adding you to my ignore list.

hahahahahaha. by all means put me on ignore! you have ignored everything I have said anyways.

I only bring up Mann because you warmist fanatics cannot bring yourselves to admit he screwed up in 1998, and every paper since. I have yet to hear one of you guys admit that the upsidedown Tiljander cores were a mistake! let alone join in the call for them to be corrected. I have posted threads on other incorrect paleoreconstructions, like PAGES2K, where obvious mistakes were made, and the results were changed considerably when at least some of the mistakes were corrected. if the skeptics were wrong why was Gergis12 withdrawn? I could go on, and on, and on. but what is the point? someone like you who only reads one side of the issue cannot fathom that there really are many facets to the climate science problems. I tell you I am a liberal and came to the skeptical side of the issue because of the weakness in the science and you turn around and accuse me of being funded by big oil! hahahahahahaha. please, please put me on ignore. at least until you get some big boy pants and are actually willing to debate the issues.

 

[Crick]

Do you deny the observed warming of the 20th century?

You keep saying that you believe CO2 causes warming but not as much as mainstream science believes. What, then, caused the rest of it?

 

[SSDD]

Do you deny the observed warming of the 20th century?

You keep saying that you believe CO2 causes warming but not as much as mainstream science believes. What, then, caused the rest of it?

How much of that warming is real and how much is the product of adjustments to the data?...and is it in any way unprecedented?

 

[IanC]

Do you deny the observed warming of the 20th century?

You keep saying that you believe CO2 causes warming but not as much as mainstream science believes. What, then, caused the rest of it?

0.7C ? now apparently adjusted up to 0.8C ? I think natural variation can easily account for it all, but I am willing to portion some of it out to CO2.

 

[Crick]

WHAT natural variation are you talking about? Events require causes.