Have you been following the Douglas vs. Santer bout? Do you remember the blog controversies that asked “Why did Santer stop analysis at December 1999 when Douglas ran analyses through 2004?” Have you been hoping someone would get TLT data we can compare to UAH and RSS? (Yes, I mean you VG.)
Well, Chad decided to down load PCMDI data and run the “Santer” test on 20th century runs extended using the A1B SRES using RSS and UAH observational data from 1979-August 2009, and also compare the TLT to the full satellite record. In fact, he did much more than that. But for now, I’ll focus on these two, and then let you go over to Chad’s to see the details.
The results for Chads test to see if the model trends are consistent with the trends in the tropical troposphere are shown below.
When interpreting this: If the lower part of the “model” whisker is outside the grey bands, that the hypothesis that the model mean trend is consistent with the particular observational data set illustrated should be rejected at a confidence lower than p=5%. (That is, the are very unlikely to be true.)
In fact, because the uncertainty intervals for the difference is based on the sum of squares, model means may be rejected if there is a bit of overlap between the whiskers and the grey band. Few people can do this mathematical procedure by eye. Chad did the math and reports:
The d* statistics are 3.49 and 2.01 with, again, 22 degrees of freedom and p-values of 0.002 and 0.056, respectively. At 5% significance the result is that H2 is rejected relative to UAH, but barely slips by with RSS. For H1, the two CCCMA CGCM models, GISS ER runs 4/5 and MIROC 3.2 hires run 1 rejected relative to RSS (or 17% of the model runs)
So, three individual models reject when the Santer test is applied to data through August 2009.
Chads discussion about the d* “d* statistics are 3.49 and 2.01 “ means the multi-model mean rejects– this statistics says the multi-model mean of the AOGCM simulations probably does not equal the observations. (The rejection is by a wide margin.)
Because we have individual model results, we can do an additional test. If we assume the results from independent models are uncorrelated, and each represents a sample drawn at random from an collection of all possible AOGCMs, the chances that 3 or fewer out of 22 cases would reject at p=5% is 2.2%. (You can use BINOMDIST() in excel to get the cummulative probability.)
Unless a) Chad screwed up (which appears unlikely) or b) the data are inaccurate, things look grim for the models on the “Temperature of the Lower Troposphere” debate. You know the whole Singer/Douglas/Santer etc. thing.
How about the whole troposphere?
Here’s how Chad describes the results of the test:
H2 is still rejected in both data sets with p-values of 0.000 and 0.002. The proportion of H1 rejections are 54.7% and 45.3%.
Recall: H2 rejecting means that the multi-model mean rejects at levels well below p=5%. So, the test says they are very, very, very unlikely to be correct. He’s also finding 12 models reject relative to RSS and 9 reject relative to UAH. The binomial distributions says if models are correct, the probability of 9 or fewer rejections at p=5% is 3 * 10-6%. So, if the model-means agreed with the observational sets, this would suggest the models are the difference between model projections and the trend in the troposphere is statistically significant by a wide margin.
Chad’s analys indicates that IPCC AR1 models driven by the A1B SRES are not tracking the troposphere, and not tracking the tropical troposphere since 1979– or at least they aren’t if the observational data sets are correct. There are of course, caveats. For example: The method assume residuals are “red noise” (i.e. AR1). Maybe they aren’t– if not, the method Chad applied might over or under detect rejections. There are other caveats.. but this is a blog. We can discuss in comments.
Chad has results of the mid troposphere, stratosphere etc. Go have a look here.
Ross and I submitted a comment on Santer showing that key results did not hold up using updated data in Jan 2009. This provoked pretty hysterical review comments. We re-submitted the comment in August and placed the resubmission on arxiv.org ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.2196 ). The original version is also on arxiv at http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0445 .
In that comment, we used the assumption (one said to be reasonable in the SO8 Supplementary Information) that the model trends could be extrapolated to 2000-2008. Chad’s analyses looks like it both confirms and improves those results. Chad’s work looks excellent to me and I’m going to give it some coverage as well.
The original submission provoked some over-the-top review comments. For example, one reviewer observed that we had cited the Statistical Appendix to a CCSP report as a Statistical Appendix to Chapter 5 of the CCSP report. Instead of merely noting the slight bibliographic slip, the reviewer fulminated:
Hi Steve–
I knew you’d submitted something. I thought you’d extrapolated? I guess I was mistaken. Well, your results are now independently replicated.
Yep. That sort of review happens in peer review. I’ve read odder ones.
A friend once got a 3 sentence review. The sentence thanked the editor for inviting the reviewr to read the paper. The second said the reviewer found a heresy in the third sentence of the paper. The third recommended the paper not be published.
She posted the review for everyone in the department to read.
The paper was on a topic in fluid mechanics. They type of heresy was not specified. I speculated it was the Albigensian Heresy.
She and her advisor decided to just send to another journal. (You might think that writing the editor to read the review and notice it was loopy would be the ideal notion, but everyone knew that editor basically used reviewers recommendations as yes/no. If they just sent a note that said “NO. No, no, no!” He would just take that as No, and not delve at all.)
So, give that situation, the authors figured it was more time efficient to send to another journal. On the second try it got two favorable reviews and was published expeticiously.
What Have I done wrong? (yes you VG) Just joking. I assume this justifies Douglass et al (i think R Spencer was a co-author?) re comparing actual data with all IPCC models? Extremely good work Chad thanks for your time etc…
Yes and no.
Douglass used a flawed method to test their hypothesis. However this shows that if we use upto to date data rather than ignoring data after 2000, their conclusions are correct.
Nothing. But you keep asking me to compare UAH to the multi-model mean, and I couldn’t do it because I didn’t have the monthly data. Chad computed that. So, that’s the second figure in this post is the test you wanted. Only Chad does shows the test for individual models.
“Yes and no.”
This pretty much sums up the state of Climate Science.
Andrew
vg (Comment#20634)- “i think R Spencer was a co-author?” Nope. Douglass Christy Pearson and Singer. No Roy in sight.
Incidentally, I emailed Douglass a while back trying to get info on the status of some work he was doing revising the earlier findings…still no answer, unfortunately, and the group seems to have dropped the subject.
Lucia,
I guess you can say their error “doesn’t matter”. Sorry, poor attempt at humor. 🙂
So it seems that unless both Steve M and Chad have erred in their calculations, the Santer et al 2008 conclusions are simply wrong when the entire data set is considered. Maybe Anthony should pick this up (if he has not already) to give it some broader exposure. After all, if the conclusions of Santer et al are wrong (and the RSS and UAH data are right), then the models are almost certainly wrong about tropical tropospheric amplification. Which suggests (I think) that water driven warming in the tropics must be mostly off-set by increases in net albedo from clouds… perhaps bringing a smile to the face of Richard Lindzen.
Chad ought to try to get his work published, either alone or with the help of others (Steve M?).
Chad–
Well, their mistake “matters” about as much as the decision to ignore 1/3rd of the existing data (which Santer et al. did.)
One way or another, people can’t keep ignoring the data after 2000 forever, can they? And while some can hide behind the whole “projection/prediction” issue, there is still the problem that people know that if we use AR4 model data through 2008 and apply the Santer method, the Douglas conclusion is correct.
Reviewers and editors can do their best to block this from peer reviewed literature. But that won’t change the fact that prevents people from rerunning the analyses for themselves and seeing that the tropical troposphere data is not consistent with UAH and RSS!
For what it’s worth, I found the irony a little amusing.
So it now seems to fair to say-something is amiss in the tropical troposphere. What exactly remains to be seen!
Just because Santer’s analysis purporting to show no inconsistency between models and observations doesn’t hold up doesn’t mean that the concept of tropical amplification is invalid. There are other possibilities.
The original problem was an apparent inconsistency between models and “observations” and, in my opinion, it remains a problem. One of the pre-S08 alternatives under consideration was that there were problems with the observations. People should not assume that the “observations” are engraved in stone. The “observations” have a great deal of modeling within them, not least of which is the estimation of step adjustments between different satellites.
Another possibility is that there is tropical amplification, but the surface record is biased to a warm trend.
Or combinations of both. Or something else.
The conclusion of our comment was that the discrepancy remains alive, not that the concept of tropical amplification was “wrong”. I’d encourage people not to get too far ahead of the evidence.
Steve-that would fall under my umbrella of “something is amiss”. I never suggested that the difference must be due to any particular thing.
SteveM–
Yes. Data are inaccurate is a possibility. I guess I should say “observations” are inaccurate. After all, the observations do involve a lot of post processing of data.
Re Richard Lindzen I thought that was his position all along (to be corrected if wrong)
BTW: I personally don’t believe that in our short lifetimes we could possibly ever see “climate change”. This occurs over 1000’s years. I remember, my father who was a meteorologist with the WMO (set up many weather stations in Bolivia and Paraguay, in the 70’s, used to talk about 7 year cycles and persistence of conditions that tended to prolong themselves (ie droughts etc), in our lifetime context. He was very concerned about deforrestation of the Amazon at the time though…..so maybe he did believe that it could affect “weather” more along R Pielke’s Sr position. Just surmising BTW
vg (Comment#20653)-I am confused by your statement-how do you define “seeing” and “climate” and “change”? I think that the Dust Bowl Era farmers would beg to differ.
This is unfair. Can anyone tell me in a short sentence what the Albigensian Heresy is?
Diego Cruz (Comment#20656)
The Albigensian/Cathars lived in Southern France, believed that there was a god of evil (domain the material world) equal to a god of good (domain the spiritual world) and hence denied that the god (of goodness) created the physical world, this was such a nasty idea that it gave rise to the founding of the inquisition (and the Dominican order who administered it) and an internal crusade (northern French massacring southern French). In the sense it is used here it maybe as a by-word for a heresy so vile that it must be suppressed at all costs. Sorry more than one short sentence and probably not very accurate.
Alex
Re Dust bowl was caused by overplanting etc + drought was it not over a period of 2-3 years? Of course it ceased when it started to rain again and was replanted ie: this is not “global climate change”.
backup for previous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
Diego–
It looks like Alexander Harvey gave an intro. But, I think to get a better understanding, you can also watch the youtube video celebrating the sack of Bezier, in which, I believe every single person in Bezier was killed.
More information: executed today: A discussion of the massacre.
A note of caution: while it is strictly true that the conflict between observations and models satellite data just might be due to the satellite data being wrong, this argument plays into the hands of the warmists.
If we can’t trust the observations, the field opens right up for the modellers. They are no longer constrained by the real world, and they can just come up with any predictions they like.
With the satellite data, we should trust but verify. Critically examine the data by all means, but unless someone comes up with a cogent argument why the satellite TLT trends are seriously in error, we should trust what we are getting from RSS and UAH.
“They are no longer constrained by the real world, and they can just come up with any predictions they like.”
braddles,
I think this ship has already sailed. The unbelievable lies doesn’t work so well. The believable ones we have already heard for quite a while and we will continue to hear them until the even the AGW faithful don’t really believe them anymore.
Andrew
vg (Comment#20659)- Why are you just now adding in “global”? And according to:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_history.html
The widespread drought conditions lasted 7 years, although not totally continuous. Additionally, the Dust Bowl was not, as seems to be often suggested, a result of farming practices, except to the extent that those actually changed the climate itself. The combination of the climate regimes in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (PDO and AMO) greatly favored drought at that time. The bad farming practices just allowed super dust storms to occur, but no drought would mean it wouldn’t matter.
This is a very irrelevant and offensive remark and entirely foreign to my own viewpoint (and to Lucia’s). As I observed above, there is a very considerable statistical component to the step adjustments within the satellite “observations” that people should not lose sight of. You might as well understand the point and live with it, rather than ignoring it.
Steve McIntyer,
“As I observed above, there is a very considerable statistical component to the step adjustments within the satellite “observations†that people should not lose sight of.”
Fair enough, but the RSS and UAH trends for the lower troposphere do track the ground measurements (and each other!) pretty well, and their data treatments have already been subject to quite a lot of scrutiny, do to some earlier problems with both. Your point is well taken that the satellite data treatment is not simple, but it’s complexity pales next to the complexity (and many assumptions) that go into GCM’s. Unless someone can point to some specific issues with the satellite data treatment that have not already been explored, the most likely explanation for the discrepancy would appear to be problems with the GCMs. After all, the GCM’s don’t even agree with each other very well, which should by itself cast serious doubt on their credibility.
Maybe, maybe not. I don’t consider myself in a position to venture an opinion on this at this time.
WHO DEY
Andrew
“I don’t consider myself in a position to venture an opinion on this at this time.”
Really. And why not? I’m sure you have an opinion on every other thing that ever happened.
Andrew
Steve McIntyre,
“I don’t consider myself in a position to venture an opinion on this at this time.”
OK. But what kind of information do you think needs to be in hand to have an opinion on the probability of problems with the GCMs?
I personally think that 1) the substantial divergence in predictions between the individual models, 2) the documented inverse relationship between assumed aerosol forcing history and model sensitivity (which means each model’s sensitivity is “adjusted” to match a specific assumed forcing history, or that the assumed forcing history is “adjusted” to match the model’s sensitivity), and 3) the apparent divergence between the models’ predictions and the existing measurements of ocean heat accumulation and average surface temperature are all good reasons to suppose that there are serious problems with the models.
>OK. But what kind of information do you think needs to be in hand to have an opinion on the probability of problems with the GCMs?
A working understanding of how GCMs work, with some running code.
Steve McIntyre (Comment#20646) September 26th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Thanks Steve. This is a point I have made here repeatedly. Construing this debate as one between “models” and “observations” show a misunderstanding of the provenance
of the “observations”. The “observations” are not raw data. Not for the troposphere “data” or the land surface “data” or the SST “data.” All of these “observations” are the results of the applications of computer programs. None of them are “raw.”
If people understood this they would get the logical priority
of your work. That’s not to say that examining the models is not important. But in climate science when the models don’t match the “data” you only know this: either the models are wrong; the “data” are wrong or they both are.
The story of the century (climate) is currently taking place at climate audit and WUWT. I think this time AGW has been nailed. As is observed watch RC will NOT respond its so blatantly clear.
Previous: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/#more-11229
The original basis for AGW has just collapsed. The legal implications will be mind bloggling.
see climate audit, WUWT and various other sites just popping up everywhere
vg–
What do you mean by “The original basis for AGW has just collapsed?”
Showing problems with paleo reconstructions doesn’t negate radiative physics.
I also don’t understand how one bad tree reconstruction is somehow a nail in the coffin.
Can someone explain it to me?
AGW is more than just “the properties of radiative physics.” It’s all the associated claims and projections/predictions and imaginings, wether they be true or untrue or unknowable or unreasonable.
That’s the nature of the Big Lie.
Andrew
In fact, our own esteemed hostess has stated that AGW is also arctic ice melting, and properly shaped graph lines. Others have said it means the death of polar bears, weather calamities and other visions.
Andrew
JK–
I think VG is getting a bit carried away. . .
If there are problems with paleo reconstructions it only means “we may not be able to learn much from paleo reconstructions”. It doesn’t mean “AGW is wrong”.
Tree-nometry isn’t quite like radio-carbon dating. It may be that the uncertainties in tree-mometry are such that we will not be able to learn whether the MWP warm periods truly existed or not.
The 20th century run up and what we know from radiative physics would still mean the balance of the evidence leans toward GHGs causing at least some warming.
Lucia:I Think Andrew partially answered you . My point is that the hockey stick is the original basis for supporting AGW (see Wikipedia, ect…). This new analysis has much more serious implications. Read the CA and WUWT postings and make up your own mind Cheers
“I also don’t understand how one bad tree reconstruction is somehow a nail in the coffin.” So there is now an admission that it was garbage after all! All I have to say if this is the type of garbabe being published the credibility of the whole thing will fall apart
Do not mistake me for an advocate of any position.
I am just curious as to how this falsifies any of the future projections being made, which I know are undermined by other possible arguments (feedback issues, ENSO, etc).
Is this more a PR coup? Are any projections/models based on the temperature reconstruction? I do agree that it further makes the hockey stick look stupid. But that’s PR, no? It feels good, but does it change any projection arguments?
I guess Jeff Id really put the words in my mouth thai is the reason (Yes you Lucia, Just joking again)
From Jeff Id site:
“The hockey stick temp records are often promoted by advocate global warming blogs like Tamino and Romms to show the unprecedented whatever the authors want in recent times. Proxy temp papers are often comprised of a set of sites which are published in previous papers. In Mann 08, individual tree records were combined with other types of proxies and even complete studies to find the best possible hockey stick.”
Enjoy
Also, AGW includes the claim of “unprecedented” warming.
If reconstructions that supported this were shown to be dubious…
Then that particular claim is less believable.
Andrew
vg
But the hockey stick is not the original basis for supporting AGW.
Andrew_KY– It’s true that the hockey stick is the basis for claims of ‘unprecedented” warming. But AGW can be true even if the warming is not “unprecedented”.
JK
projections/models are not based on the temperature reconstruction.
“Andrew_KY– It’s true that the hockey stick is the basis for claims of ‘unprecedented†warming. But AGW can be true even if the warming is not “unprecedentedâ€.
AGW can also be true when it’s not warming at all, right?
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
I’d say AGW could be true even if it’s not warming, to an extent. Internal variability could mask the consequences of the long term perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance. But at some point in time, the anticipated temperature change has to exceed the scale of variability. If it doesn’t, then something is seriously wrong.
That’s my feelings too, Chad. I get a bit upset when people on both sides lose the forest for the trees.
I wish more effort would be placed on investigating feedbacks (clouds et al )and internal drivers (ENSO et al) rather than polar bears vs. tree rings.
Chad – please keep up the great work tracking models. I find it immensely valuable.
One other question Chad/Lucia –
With this article (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLP228193), are they essentially building on the models you two have been tracking to date (i.e. the ones that have not been behaving too well)? Or are they talking entirely new models?
Lucia,
Whilst VG may be overstating things, I think it is important to recognise the iconic status of Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ . It was central to the 2001 IPCC Report and has been reproduced endlessly in all kinds of fora since. It is quite likely the one thing that many people can readily recall in relation to climate change.
So it wasn’t the start of concern about climate change but it has certainly changed the landscape. The fact that it was wrong is still resisted doggedly by the climate scientist fraternity. I wonder why?
JK–
They say IPCC and 2007. That’s the AR4.
In that article, they don’t say which thing are supposedly doing worse than worst case. It’s not the surface temperature! It might be nice if they were a bit more specific.
Dave Andrews–
Yes. The hockey stick is an icon. It’s the piece of evidence that says today’s temperatures are unprecedented. So, losing that as evidence takes away a very important bit of support for those pushing the more alarming scenarios.
VG is overstating. So, we really can’t let him get away with that, can we?
JK,
Looking at the Reuters article, I think they might be running a modified version of HadGEM or HadCM 3 by including the carbon cycle.
I wouldn’t neccesarily say the hockey stick is ‘wrong’, perhaps just over stated (based on the evidence it may be somewhat true…but we also have other evidence that points to possibly a higher MWP/CWP ratio.) And nor does refuting it remove AGW from consideration as a real possibility…even if we warmed naturally before, anthro GHGs could be partially or wholey responsible for the current warming trends (well, current up through the 90’s anyway). If the hockey stick is iconic, to me anyway, it is the icon of ‘confirmation bias’ and perhaps mis-stating the actual science/stats….and defending this unneccesary graph at all costs.
Lucia and Chad,
I’m not meaning this question to patronize, but could you guys tell us what the hockey stick means to you (if it ever meant anything) or it doesn’t mean anything now or it means something, just something different than before? I really want to hear your honest answer.
Andrew
Thanks Lucia and Chad –
HadGem and Had CM3 haven’t been falsified by your model runs vs. actuals to date, right? I’m trying my best to eyeball the colorshapes, but my laptop has a real small screen. 🙂
Andrew–
The hockeystick is a temperature reconstruction. If valid, the stick followed by the upturned blade would support the notion that temperatures varied little in the past and suddenly swooped upward after we started pumping loads of ghg’s into the atmosphere.
Both the flat blade suggesting little natural variability and the uptick together suggest the idea that things like the MWP did not occur, and that the current temperatures are unprecedented.
JK_-
By which metric?
In this post, we are showing satellite temperatures. If the satellite record is wrong, nothing has been falsified. 🙂
I know others disagree, but I think at least over the past 50 years, the surface temperature record is a bit more … erhmm….”robust”. Yeah, there are arguments over fiddling. But we do know how thermometers work.
Lucia,
You say, “if valid”. Do you think it’s valid?
Andrew
Lucia – either! 🙂
How have they stacked up in your analyses?
Jk–
I’d have to go look individually. I’ll actually be posting something within the next week… (Then, I’ll disappear for a while. I need to take my dad to Albequerque.)
Andrew_KY,
To me the hockey stick is a beautiful graph based on flawed statistics that if were true would be an excellent visualization of strong human influence on the climate. It never really meant much to me, like as an icon or whatever. I didn’t even know the existence of a “hockey stick” until, I don’t know, probably a year and a half or so ago. I probably had seen the graph before that point, but I didn’t have any interest in climate issues so I wasn’t really aware of it.
Thanks Lucia. I hope everything is ok with your father!
Chad (Comment#20718) Obviously you didn’t read the TAR! 🙂 It was quite prevalent there. Now, I’m not saying that it was ever a basis or the sole basis for belief in dangerous AGW-but it was significant iconography, nay, propaganda, in certain circles. So I kinda wonder how you could have missed it…
It appears in: AIT:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2335
A report from Lloyds of London:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1533
The Revenge of Gaia:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1237
NOAA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
BBC:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=175
A random website:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=151
A report by the Canadian Government:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=143
A scientist’s website:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=142
Swedish EPA:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=140
An influential website in usenet discussions:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=130
IGBP:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=122
The Government of New Zealand:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=101
ACIA:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=71
CCSP:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=58
Houghton:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=54
Nature’s announcement of the Moberg recon (how sneaky):
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=44
More places:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=35
USA Today:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/USAToday060602.jpg
Good god man, I could go on, but this is wearing me thin.
I was under the impression that historical texts, books and stories supported the MWP. Things like stories of sailing from Iceland to Greenland, the end of the Dark Ages etc. So I always thought that models that did not support this were probably wrong. Am I crazy?
Do we not know that the MWP occurred based on history?
“Do we not know that the MWP occurred based on history?”
akrause,
It’s Recorded History vs. A Warmer’s Imagination
Guess the predetermined outcome. 😉
Andrew
akrause–
I think the argument is over whether the MWP was global or local.
Lucia,
“But we do know how thermometers work.”
We also know what conditions the thermometer must be under to give a “robust” reading. Interestingly there is a real lack of quality metadata that might give good reasons for adjustments. Also interestingly, there appears to be site selection at a level we are not to be trusted with understanding. Unfortunately, just like with infrared sensors, we are apparently too dumb to be trusted with raw thermometer data. I confess all those little marks confuse the heck out of me. 8>)
“I think the argument is over whether the MWP was global or local.”
Yup.
I suggest http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php for your MWP vs CWP edification.
Whilst VG may be overstating things, I think it is important to recognise the iconic status of Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ . It was central to the 2001 IPCC Report and has been reproduced endlessly in all kinds of fora since. It is quite likely the one thing that many people can readily recall in relation to climate change.
It’s not ‘central’ to anything. It is part of a wide ranging ensemble of analysis, and the case for AGW can be made without it. The focus on it is purely by the denialists since it is the easiest part of the science to attack, since deducing past climate is very problematic. The ‘official’ climateaudit reconstruction is not very different to the one’s used by the IPCC. The MWP, to the extent that it existed even in their reconstruction, is only as warm as today. It is going to get much warmer than that according to the research.
The hockey stick is at best secondary evidence for AGW. At best it goes to the magnitude of “natural variability”. For warmer’s the hockey stick ( FLAT SHAFT) is evidence that the current warming cannot be “explained” as natural variability. It is evidence against LTP or long term cycles on a 1000 year scale. For ANTI-AGWers having a warmer MWP is a good thing and its even better if its global. What SteveMc has done is simply this. He has shown that the reconstructions that support FLAT SHAFTS are suspect. You can’t draw from his work the conclusion that the MWP was warmer than the present or colder. His point is an agnostic one. we don’t know with any precision whether the MWP was warmer than the present or not. There is too much uncertainty to say anything. So, if you wanted to use a cooler MWP to support a claim of “unprecedented” warming, you are out of luck. The current warming could be a fluke of natural variation. If you wanted a warmer MWP to prove that the current warming was not man caused you are also out of luck. The warmists OVERPLAYED the hockey stick significance. That doesn’t imply much except they should not try to conduct science by icon. ( see revkins article on polar ice as icon)
The warmists OVERPLAYED the hockey stick significance. That doesn’t imply much except they should not try to conduct science by icon. ( see revkins article on polar ice as icon)
I just pointed out that they haven’t, it’s the deniers who have focused on it, and claimed that it is OVERPLAYED. There is a broad range of evidence considered in the reports.
Steven #20732,
I’m glad you and Steve Mc are making this important point, which I think is exactly right. I’ve been around long enough to see the case for AGW thriving when the instrumental temperature record was not accessibly gathered, and pre-instrumental barely imagined. Folks wishing to disprove AGW should take note. I don’t think much of Steve McI’s specific technical case against MBH, but I also don’t place a lot of reliance on the current proxy evidence of temperature in past millenia.
Nick,
There are a lot of Hockey Sticks around though, they all seem to give similar results…
Here’s a new one
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n1/abs/ngeo390.html
That’s looking at 1400 years of sediments from the Galapagos. You may have to get it ou of your library – I don’t have the full text.
Moscher–Yep.
Bugs– The warmers did overplay the hockey stick.
Nick– I also have never put the paleo – evidence in the “strong evidence either way” category.
Nathan–
No. The results aren’t “similar”. They are local not global. Please read the abstract:
The results apply to “eastern tropical Pacific”, a small region. Or, we could say it applied to “El Junko Lake, Galapagos” an even smaller region.
The global vs local distinction is the important issue with “the hockey stick” debate.
“It is going to get much warmer than that according to the research.”
Yes, it’s always much warmer in the future isn’t it? We just have to be patient. Tomorrow… you’re only a day away. I cut my grass last night. Last cut?
“The warmers did overplay the hockey stick.”
Overplay as in LIE about it? 😉
Andrew
The significant aspect of Steve’s work on this to me (and to many, I suspect) is political. The hockey stick is much more a political than scientific icon, and the consequences of it’s demise will also be much more political than scientific. The political case to radically reorder the world economy to the detriment of the western world cannot be made in a democracy unless people believe it is warmer now than it has been for a long, i.e. millenial timescale. If you ask the layperson about AGW or even GW 90% or more will identify with the hockeystick, most of those with reference to Al Gores “thermometer”. If the MWP is believed to be as warm as the CWP, politicians will not be willing or able to implement the warmists’ antiwestern agenda, and the debate goes back to being a scientific one as it always should have been.
I just hope that this doesn’t derail funding for studies from all sides. It would be a shame if a battle over one graph (stupid that those responsible were so reprehensibly inept in creating it and stupid for skeptics to place so much importance on it being wrong) stopped both sides from working to better understand the climate system through both models and observational results.
Noone should crow over this.
“Noone should crow over this.”
I’m not sure any of us Denialists are “crowing.” We already were well aware of the nature of The Hockey Stick- A pretty picture employed to persuade the weak-minded.
Andrew
Anti-western agenda? That’s a big much.
Even if the MWP is as warm as the CWP, there is some reason for concern. I’d be for taking action to encourage renewables and nukes for many reasons including warming due to GHGs. So why wouldn’t politicians continue to be for this if individual voters support the measures?
Great, I write up an extensive post last night and BAM! Spam filtered. Well, Bugs is rather amusing. Yes, we agree, Hockey Stick not central to the AGW case. No, it is not true that the only people who emphasized it were “denialists”. If you think that, you haven’t read the TAR. And you’ve been living under a rock.
Lucia, any chance that my post is still in the filter?
Bugs– The warmers did overplay the hockey stick.
The only reason it has taken on such importance amongst the deniers is the importance they have attributed to it. Show me where it is ‘overplayed’ by the IPCC? I have already referred to the IPCC reports, and they provide a broad range of evidence to support their case. The ‘hockey stick’ is maybe 10% of the case for AGW.
Andrew_FL
Above a certain number of links and comments are filtered. (This is because spammers do add lots of links!)
As an aside, Lucia, in reference to the above claim about the 4c rise by the 2050s, I saw a different article that said the two primary reasons were 1) increased GHG emissions to date prompting a revised increase to above prior projected emissions scenarios and 2) “better” understanding of the carbon cycle.
So it seems like they still depend on the same feedback response and lack of other natural variations, which really are the core of everything. I wish they’d focus more on that.
I have no problem with #2, given I know nothing on the subject, but some of the GHG emission projections I’ve read have seemed a bit unreasonable, so I think they often exaggerate #1. But that’s based on news articles only, so it’s all just a guess.
Gosh bugs, the BBC (hardly a denialist news source) says
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm
I don’t know what “percent” of the evidence this represents but the finding was highlighted and trumpeted by the IPCC. There was a good reason to trumpet: If valid the finding is very important. Obviously, those who think or thought it valid would highlight it.
“Show me where it is ‘overplayed’ by the IPCC?”
The hockey stick was featured rather prominently in the IPCC TAR – no less than 6 times:
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/slide3.jpg
Lucia,
In that post, I am referring to warmist politicians, not scientists. Many of these politicians are advocating for the developed i.e. western world to do more and pay more, and allow developing i.e non western countries a free or reduced cost pass, all based upon past industrial output, and the absolute level of GHG emissions be damned. If the problem is CAGW, than this stance is illogical and indefensible because of the peril to the planet. The political agenda is much closer to repentance and reparations for past sins, than about “saving” the planet. Politicians who agitate for measures such as these use CAGW as a tool to create fear. Without fear, citizens will note vote for self flagellation.
There may well be good and salable reasons for the technologies you mention, and if so they will be sold and implemented, but so far it is 99% “we’re all gonna die!”, and 1% everything else. If CAGW alarmism were removed from the debate, hopefully intelligent arguments will again carry the day.
Bugs:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=3
Such “deniers” as Al Gore, the BBC, James Lovelock, Canadian, New Zealand, and Swedish governments, Sir John Houghton, IGBP, ACIA, have all pointed to the Hockey Stick as evidence of AGW.
AGAIN-bugs, this shouldn’t be hard to admit, really, YES the Stick isn’t the case for AGW but NO that doesn’t mean it wasn’t used extremely extensively by advocates and yes, scientists. What is so hard about conceding the point? It’s so trivial-but so well supported-that you look like a petty ignoramus by denying it.
Heh. Denier.
Peter–
What’s CAGW?
Lucia – I believe it’s catastrophic AGW
I think what has been missed here is that it may be that FXXXX occurred. It would seem also that other members of the team may be involved its no longer the tree records etc but actual temp data as well. I still maintain this will be the beginning of the end of AGW as you know it or known it to be. Question. Has anyone here noticed any change in weather or “climate” or temperatures in your locality since you were teenagers? This is what people will realize and that’s why AGW = finito. Advice: find other useful work/jobs. (just joking folks!)
vg–
It’s warmer in Illinois than when I was a teenager and in college. Absolutely, positively.
“It’s warmer in Illinois than when I was a teenager and in college. Absolutely, positively.”
You got evidence to support this conclusion? 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY
There’s the thermometer record. There are temperature across the state. It matches my personal experience.
That’s got to be better evidence than you have for the MWP.
Lucia,
Show me where I can view the temperature record you are using to substantiate your claim, so I can see it too.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Why? You don’t believe in historical records recorded by others. So, I’m not going to expend one iota of effort to find evidence you request but which you would deem unconvincing if supplied.
But, if you like, you know perfectly where you can find station data for Illinois if you want to go to the effort to find data you would then deem meaningless.
Lucia,
I am just asking questions that any inquisitive person could ask. You made a claim, so scientifically, I’d like to see the evidence. If you choose not to cooperate, that is your choice. No biggie.
Andrew
Andrew_KY —
I answered vg’s question.
It’s true that in science, those making data based claims must back them up. But it’s also time efficient to provide evidence the person asking claims to consider valid and not waste time providing things he considers to be non-evidence.
Given your previous explanations of what you consider evidence, if you ask for thermometer data, I won’t make any effort to get that data because you have decreed thermometer data to be non-evidence. I’m not going to expend any energy showing you thermometer data from archives because I know you don’t believe in thermometer data from any archive by anyone anywhere. I deem your request to be an attempt to waste my time.
In contrast, you have decreed personal experience is acceptable. So, my personal anecdotal experiences should be sufficient for you. That is… unless you’ve changed your mind and now believe temperature records from archives. But given your previous firm insistence otherwise, I am going to need proof that you now believe thermometer records. I’ll believe you believe in thermometer records when you go dig up temperature data for Illinois, create some graphs of average temperature somewhere in rural Lake County and tell me what you find.
Answer here
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
from your mate hansen so I hope you believe it. Its exactly the same assuming you life at O’hare airport and are 40 years old hahahah
BTW even with UHI it does not support your statement sorry
As an aside I did hear the same comment from a younger person (35) in ASuncion (working) he was absolutely convinced it was much hotter here now than when he was a teen.
look at this graph:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=308862180002&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1 in the end we agreed that perhaps its the clothes people are wearing today that makes it feel hotter?
BTW hats off to Hansen for those graphs very good and useful for my purposes this time LOL
vg–
I don’t live at O’Hare (nor does anyone I know).
Here’s aurora, the closest station to my house:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725300010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Why would O’Hare’ UHI be any warmer than it was in the 70s? It was already a huge airport then and hasn’t grown much.
The late seventies were cold in Chicago.
Here’s Pontiac:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425744600010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Here’s Urbana where I spent the 80s
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725310030&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Here’s Decator where my husbands college roommate grew up:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425745600020&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Temperature are noisy– but it’s still pretty clear it was colder during the late 70s and 80s.
Lucia,
You are misrepresenting my position (again). I don’t trust records that have been altered. If the record has been kept unchanged by a trustworthy entity, I will probably choose to trust it.
Someone needs an extra dollop of honey in their tea this afternoon. 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
In that case, I think it’s up to you to beaver away and create a temperature record that meets your standards.
Your taking proactive steps to show temperature records that meet your standards will help clarify your position. Whether or not I need honey in my tea, I’m not going to expend my time and energy to find data that meets your “bring me a rock” standards. 😉
Lucia,
Actually, its the paid/professional scientists who should be “doing it better.” I’m just an average joe blog commenter. Even a hayseed like myself can see how inadequate/unserious Climate Science is. Can you?
Andrew
On the question of whether illinois is warming, see
http://www.thezephyr.com/environ/climchangeil.html
which presents a very lukewarmist view. He says the lows are increasing but the highs arent.
Andrew_KY–
You have very idiosyncratic standards for evidence. No scientific group is going to meet them. I don’t know anyone other than you who thinks people should meet them.
I can’t answer your question “Can you” because I don’t know in what way you think Climate Sciences (and presumably all of it) is “inadequate or unserious”. Climate science is pretty adequate to creating USDA temperature graphs to help farmers.
Lucia,
Is Climate Science serious/adequate enough to not resort to making phoney Hockey Stick graphs?
Andrew
PaulM-
Yes. It was 70s and 80s winters that were excruciating. That hasn’t happened recently.
Andrew_KY–
“Climate Science” didn’t make graphs. A sub group of researchers created the various ‘hockeystick’ graphs based on their analyses. These may have been flawed, but flawed analyses are hardly unique to climate science.
And why do you use the verb “resort” rather than the more accurate “create”?
Lucia,
These researchers applied the latest and greatest climate science to produce these graphs, or so we’ve been told. Did they not do that?
resort – def 1: to have recourse (to) for help, use, etc
def 2: to go, esp. often or habitually
Not accurate enough?
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Does “climate science” habitually make such graphs? No. “Climate science” does not habitually make such graphs. This is why “create” is more accurate than “resort”.
In general, whats wrong with the act of creating or making graphs based on research?
I realize you dislike the hockey-stick graphs. But why are you suggesting that climate science as a whole habitually makes such things?
When you use inaccurate exaggerations obviously, someone is going to object. (Even more people will just ignore you. )
“In general, whats wrong with the act of creating or making graphs based on research?”
If the process of making the graphs is unproven, then the act of creating or making them is a waste of time and resources, as we have come to find out.
“But why are you suggesting that climate science as a whole habitually makes (or uses) such things?”
There is a consensus among client scientists that the Hockey Stick showing unprecedented warming is true. Or is that not right either?
Andrew
Andrew–
Who knows? I don’t.
Have you or anyone done a survey of climate scientists to discover their specific opinions of the hockey stick graph?
But no matter the answer, this has nothing to do with whether or not “climate science” (as some sort of amorphous blob) “resorts” to making hockey stick graphs, and/is is or is not “serious” or “adequate” as in your comment #20777.
Lucia,
So what is the scientific consensus of, if not supportive of the Hockey Stick? Is the consensus that non-Hockey Stick AGW is occuring?
Andrew
Wow, this thread really picked up steam.
Andrew_KY–
You are conflating many things. The consensus is more along the lines of:
The earth’s surface temperature have been rising, they are expected to continue to rise. Anthropogenic green house gases seem to be responsible for quite a bit of the observed rise.
Many other claims get bandied about but are not necessarily part of “the consensus”.
Lucia,
Wow, you are a lot more patient with Andrew_KY than I could ever be….. seems you have the patience of a saint: St. Lucia of Aurora. Has a nice ring don’t you think?
SteveF–
I live in Lisle, about 15 minutes drive from Aurora. St. Lucia of Lisle sounds even better. (The local church hasn’t made any offers though.)
Lucia,
I’m not conflating anything. I’m simply responding to what I read.
“The earth’s surface temperature have been rising, they are expected to continue to rise. Anthropogenic green house gases seem to be responsible for quite a bit of the observed rise.”
I don’t see the words ‘Hockey Stick’ anywhere in your perception of the consensus. I’ll consider it your position that the consensus specifically excludes the Hockey Stick.
Andrew
So … not to change the topic, but I was wondering if anyone knows anything about minimum temperatures?
In the link about Illinois from Paul M, it says that stable max and increasing mins are expected by climate models.
But I’ve read papers by Pielke and others saying that using min temps is a terrible measue (for various reasons – he states that greenhouse gases are only one of many causes for min temp changes). I know Pielke advocates essentially excluding them and focusing on max temp changes.
Anyone know what would support using them despite Pielke’s claims, like the Illinois article says?
“The local church hasn’t made any offers though.”
That’s ’cause they haven’t read your exchanges with Andrew_KY.
On a serious note, insisting on personal experience as the only believable data is a bit silly. I think technical folks (and I assume Andrew_KY that you are not) usually adopt a a test of internal and external consistency when evaluating the credibility of data, even if they don’t explicitly frame the evaluation that way. That is, the data is examined for internal consistency (does it contradict itself?) as well as external consistency (does the data contradict other things that I know/believe based on past experience and my understanding of how the world works). Credibility of data is not a digital switch (yes/no/0/1), but exists in a range of shades from white to dark gray, based on the level of perceived consistency.
SteveF,
I am a Computer Guy, so I am technical in that sense.
Programming is really just asking yes and no questions about data you have.
You tend to get good answers when you do it this way.
Thankfully there is no room for maybe’s and kinda’s in IT, unlike the amorphous blob of Climate Science.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
If the questions are poor, you tend to have poor outcomes.
“akrause– I think the argument is over whether the MWP was global or local”.
Okay, I get this, we don’t have history texts for all of the areas of the globe. So by logic proxies must also be from all areas of the globe or the reconstructions are also only local. Is this right?
Lucia,
If the question asked is designed for a yes or no response, it can’t be “bad.” It always provides information. That’s the reason computers “work” – because of yes/no.
Andrew
Andrew_ KY,
Framed in Computer Guy terms, most experienced scientists and engineers evaluate data the way that you evaluate the evidence for a bug in code. Say you get an crash where the error message is “array subscript out of range”. Now, if you are using arrays in the code, you probably give credibility to the message, and start looking for some error where an array index is calculated. But if you use NO arrays in your code, then you probably start thinking that some Windows routine has a problem: the message has no credibility based on your knowledge of the code. If you have encountered a Windows bug related to array subscripts in the past, but you are using arrays in the code, then your view of the credibility of the message may be more nuanced: maybe it is right, and maybe it is wrong; you will probably look for a array subscript calculation error, but always with the thought in mind that it could be a Windows bug, and you might have to devote some time to finding a work-around. (I’ve had to figure out work-arounds several times, and I don’t even program much!)
Lucia and many others (including me) find predictions of warming to be partially credible because 1) there is substantial measurement evidence of warming, and 2) the physics of infrared absorption is pretty well known, so that 3) increases in infrared absorbing gases in the atmosphere ought therefore lead to some surface warming.
That is not to say that I have no serious doubts: the predictions of warming are consistently higher than the measured values, the climate models seem to be in part a curve fit exercise that depends more on the modeler’s expectations than accurate physics, and many of the extreme predictions are so disconnected from the existent data (like several meter sea level rises in 90 years, 6C increases in average surface temperature, etc.) that they completely lack credibility.
I find Lucia’s take on climate data pretty reasonable; I think you should too.
akrause
Yes. That’s why some of the arguments about the various hockeystick analyses have to do with the distribution of the samples.
Andrew_KY
But in blog comments, you try to word questions that do not have yes/no answers as if they were yes/no. A yes or no answer to those questions does not provide information.
“Based on preliminary statewide numbers, this is the 11th coolest and 8th wettest summer since statewide record began in 1895. The average temperature for June-August was 71.4 degrees, 2.4 degrees below normal. The total precipitation for June-August was 15.2 inches, 3.6 inches above normal.
The coolest summer on record was 1915 with 69.3 degrees. In recent years, 1992 was ranked third with 70.2 degrees and 2004 was ranked fourth with 70.4 degrees. The wettest summer on record was 1993 with 18.3 inches of rain.
The statewide August average temperature was 71.0 degrees, 2.6 degrees below normal and the 15th coolest August on record. The statewide August total precipitation was 5.0 inches, 1.4 inches above normal and the 17th wettest August on record.”
http://www.isws.illinois.edu/atmos/statecli/
My own experience, Illinois has been colder than “usual”. I live in DeKalb county. Farmers have been concerned all summer that there would not be enough “heat days” to fully ripen the corn. It still has a ways to go and the temprature has been dropping. Lisle may be a UHI.
akrause–
Yes. This summer has been quite cool! Even Lisle.
But, when answering vg’s question about compared to when I was a teenager, I’m considering the last decade as opposed to the decade when I was a teenager. I’m not just considering the most recent year or so.
So, one summer just won’t off set those horrible winters in 76, 77, 78 etc.
Hmmm.. there used to be a nice yarn store with coned yarns in DeKalb. Maybe I’ll check it out and drop by Dekalb some time in November.
Other people were teenagers during different times or places. But that’s my answer for vg.
people utterly misunderstand the import of the Hockey Stick Graph and its role in the AGW debate.
It’s not about the blade, it’s about the SHAFT.
It’s not about the recent warming, its about the suppression of past warming. It’s about the levels of natural variability one can expect. I wish that people would get this. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE BLADE. dopes.
steven….
Some people said it was about the shaft..
I didn’t word it as well as you, but yes. The important part of the hockey stick is the flat shaft, not the upturn. The upturn is only important in context of the previous flatness.
After all….we know the temperatures rose during the thermometer record without the hockey stick.
steven Mosher,
“IT’S NOT ABOUT THE BLADE. dopes.”
I think most people do in fact understand the hocky-stick issue quite well, and most certainly are not dopes. Can I suggest you drink a cold beer or two?
I think there is a consensus that it is dangerous for a climate scientist to express any opinion on the hockey stick because (a) it has been heavily debunked and thus rigorous defense could make one look silly and (b) noting the deficiencies in the methodology might be grounds for charges of giving aid and comfort to the denialist enemy.
The fear of stepping off the political reservation is pervasive. For example, yesterday’s Washington Post had an article about a highly disputed theory theory that human land use had an impact on climate 5,000 years ago.
Here is what one expert had to say:
Is it more wrong because it violates political preferences? Or should I discount the evidence offered against this theory because I now reasonably suspect it may be offered more for political rather than scientific reasons?
The hockey stick saga reveals just how much politics drives climate science if for no other reason that politics prevents normal scientific criticism of politically correct findings so that the quality of the resulting science is less reliable than it could or should be.
Bugs,
““Show me where it is ‘overplayed’ by the IPCC?â€
That is disingenuous. The hockey stick has been used countless, countless times by the MSM and in populist books and media that ordinary people read and which is the main source of their information about climate change.
Wasn’t it shown prominently yet again on a BBC series about climate change last year?
George Tobin,
Whether Ruddiman’s mechanism is correct or not, his observation that the current interglacial in no way resembles the last three or four interglacials is spot on. I haven’t seen any isotope ratio data from older than the Vostok cores, but with very deep cores, dating is going to be a serious problem so a claim that an interglacial from 500,000 years or more ago resembles the current one would be hard to support.
The point about glacial/interglacial periods is that glacial has been the norm for the last two million years. Temperatures should have been going down more and more rapidly for the last 4,000 years. Milankovitch cycles are insufficient to maintain the current warmth. The question still remains, why aren’t we well on the way to another glacial period?
That is disingenuous. The hockey stick has been used countless, countless times by the MSM and in populist books and media that ordinary people read and which is the main source of their information about climate change.
Wasn’t it shown prominently yet again on a BBC series about climate change last year?
It is a part of the ensemble. Did the BBC series only show pictures of the ‘hockey stick’ for the whole of every episode?
bugs–
Part of an ensemble? In what sense? Surely not statistical. . .
bugs–
Part of an ensemble? In what sense? Surely not statistical. . .
I think I made my point clear.
“But in blog comments, you try to word questions that do not have yes/no answers as if they were yes/no. A yes or no answer to those questions does not provide information.”
You know, not all my comments are serious, if you haven’t noticed. I’ve been commenting here for at least a year, so you might have picked up on that.
Anyway, any question that is either answered yes or no correctly provides information. You then have a foundation and direction to ask further questions. You have have something that can be shown to be true or false. If you keep asking questions that have the answer ‘maybe’ or ‘I don’t know’, you aren’t going to get anywhere.
Andrew
Lucia
“Nathan–
No. The results aren’t “similarâ€. They are local not global. Please read the abstract:”
Did you read the paper? I think not…
The results ARE similar according to the authors. They are using the Galapagos because that gives a good proxy for El Nino, which does affect Global temps. Read the paper.
Lucia
Gosh bugs, the BBC (hardly a denialist news source) says
The high-profile publication of the data led to the “hockey stick†being used as a key piece of supporting evidence in the third assessment report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001, which offered a stark warning to policymakers of the urgency for action on reducing greenhouse emissions.
Yet if I read the 2001 report, I don’t see it being anything more than one piece of evidence among many. I would say that it is the easiest evidence to understand, and for the deniers to focus on, but for me, personally, it’s not that compelling, since the error bars are so big.
I look first to the physical basis, then to see how much evidence there is to support the deductions made from that physical basis. There is a good depth and breadth of support for AGW.
Directed to Andrew_KY (Comment#20818):
Just a reminder.
In science (unlike math and logic), there are NO absolute truths – only statements with implicit or explicit attached confidence intervals – based on evidence.
We may string together sentences with high and low confidence estimates as if they were true or false – but we are supposed to know better than to trust conclusions based on them as anything more than ‘possible’ – or at best, ‘highly probable or improbable’.
In fact, it’s the “maybes” that often provide the openings for new scientific discovery.
That is disingenuous. The hockey stick has been used countless, countless times by the MSM and in populist books and media that ordinary people read and which is the main source of their information about climate change.
If all you read is climateaudit and similar web sites, the hockey stick is pretty well a permanent fixture.
Len O,
“In fact, it’s the “maybes†that often provide the openings for new scientific discovery.”
But you don’t stop on “maybe” as your answer. The goal is to make the ‘maybe’ a yes or no. That is what they call “discovery.”
Andrew
“In fact, it’s the “maybes†that often provide the openings for new scientific discovery.â€
But you don’t stop on “maybe†as your answer. The goal is to make the ‘maybe’ a yes or no. That is what they call “discovery.â€
Andrew
So what do you think has been keeping them busy for the past 20 years or so? For doing so, they are accused of just lining their own pockets.
“So what do you think has been keeping them busy for the past 20 years or so? For doing so, they are accused of just lining their own pockets.”
Who is the ‘they’ exactly? and I don’t see where I made any accusations about someone lining pockets.
Andrew
OH. MY. GOD. Bugs, get it through your thick skull, we are NOT saying it was “the” piece of evidence. Do you actually intend to keep idiotically denying that was prominently featured???
DeWitt Payne #20807.
“… Milankovitch cycles are insufficient to maintain the current warmth. The question still remains, why aren’t we well on the way to another glacial period? …”
We are still about 1,000 years away from the period when the dominant Milankovitch cycle, the changing axial tilt and the ice-albedo-feedback that results from it, will begin to assert its affects.
Temps in the polar regions have to stay below -1.0C or -2.0C in the summer for the feedbacks to really start affecting us. The temp trendlines and the insolation trendlines say that is about 1,000 years away yet. There will be a slow cooling in the meantime, but the sea ice in the polar regions has to become permanent in the summer and allow glaciers on land to start re-building before the ice-albedo-feedback starts to hit really hard. Then, it is downhill really fast.
I’d like to send you something on this in about week or two. Have an email?
OH. MY. GOD. Bugs, get it through your thick skull, we are NOT saying it was “the†piece of evidence. Do you actually intend to keep idiotically denying that was prominently featured???
I don’t recall it ever being so.
Nathan
So? Affecting global temperature is not being global temperatures. Also, El Nino is not global temperature.
What you have is a paper with a regional effect.
Bugs
Maybe you don’t get out enough.
http://www.nature.com/climate/timeline/icp/index.html
(Go to the 2001 IPCC link)
Or maybe this is photoshop?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JohnHoughtonHighWycombe20050226_CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg
(That’s Sir John Houghton, AGW believer par excellence)
The crosses are a nice touch.
Bugs,
“I don’t recall it ever being so.”
I guess you never saw “An Inconvenient Truth” either, nor any of the rushes that also showed it?? (Your bud Hansen IS Gore’s main man!!) Or any of the numerous tedious presentations in most schools around the US, and probably Europe that prominently pointed to the “STICK.”
You also never read TAR as pointe out by Neils??
Basically you are saying that you have no idea what happened in the last 15 years!! I guess if you put it that way we just have to accept it!! The bird Ostrich comes to mind.
Of course, if that is true, where did you get the idea that there was some kind of disagreement over the climate??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Re Nathan’s reference…
Overpeck, Overpeck, hmmmm, where have I heard that before?
Something about “getting rid of the MWP” I believe…
I thought more of this site will not be posting here again
David–
Quite honestly, I don’t believe you can remove the volcanic effect for the purpose of computing SD. The difficulty is that any errors in removing a particular volcano may either fail to take out enough noise or…. oddly… introduce noise.
Imagine your estimate gets the location of the maximum dip off by 6 months compared to what real physics does. On the one hand, you might take out part of the real volcano dip, but on the other hand you add an “undip” at the wrong place. If you are off by enough, the computed SD will be higher as a result of “correcting”!
When computing long trend, the effect isn’t so bad, but when estimating the SD it’s a killer. (You could run monte carlo adding a volcano dip and then “correcting” incorrect and see. It will be very, very bad!)
Lucia,
But if the SD goes up, that simply means that it is not the minimum, which is what you are looking for in the data series in order to find an SD to put in a model.
However, you may be right. But in that case how would you determine whether a particular model has a reasonable SD in it for a non-volcanic period if you want to look at a real period without volcanos – ie, the last little while?
Lucia,
Did you read the paper?
It does not seem so.
The author’s clearly indicate that this has global implications.
Heck you can dismiss it out of hand if you like…
“So? Affecting global temperature is not being global temperatures. Also, El Nino is not global temperature.”
This is a bit of a pointless statement, though isn’t it. As the locations of proxy data for any reconstruction have never been global in extent. And you also seem to be suggesting that the world isn’t warmer during El Nino…
Read the paper, before you decide what you think. This out of hand dismissal is quite uncalled for. And attempting to argue my conclusions from the paper is similarly pointless. Read the paper if you want to debate it.
“So, one summer just won’t off set those horrible winters in 76, 77, 78 etc” Roger that, I was just relaying the local farmer’s weather talk. You sent me off searching for what “corn yarn” is. I never imagined, thanks!
David
I don’t know. I’ve actually been trying to look at that the past few days. I can look at thing like “sd of residuals to a fit” and “lag-1 autocorrelation” etc. to create samples. But I can’t really look at “sd of 8 year trends” because there just isn’t enough to check.
Nathan–
If you think the authors had a case, why don’t you post some quotes and figures?
What are you talking about? The hockey sticks with impact claimed to use proxies distributed over the earth, not from one isolated location. So, no, this isn’t pointless.
The fact that using multi-proxies from various regions in the globe is different from using a regional proxy is the precise reason that the paper you site is not “similar” to the hockey stick in impact.
Bugs, climateaudit never made their own temperature reconstruction. At best they tried to fix the methods of MBH.
The hockey stick chart shows up six times in the TAR.
Lucia
I said originally I didn’t have the text.
Do some reading is all I can suggest, otherwise you are fighting nothing.
I should say, I have the actual Journal copy, it’s an electronic copy.
“The fact that using multi-proxies from various regions in the globe is different from using a regional proxy is the precise reason that the paper you site is not “similar†to the hockey stick in impact.”
You have no idea what you are talking about becuase you haven’t read the paper. You are just making stuff up. You are debating some imaginary aspect that has no context.
Bugs, climateaudit never made their own temperature reconstruction. At best they tried to fix the methods of MBH.
Loehle got the McIntyre tick of approval. It is not that different to the IPCC version, and is no different if the error bounds are used to compare them.
I guess you never saw “An Inconvenient Truth†either,
Never seen it.
Bugs
Maybe you don’t get out enough.
http://www.nature.com/climate/…..index.html
(Go to the 2001 IPCC link)
Or maybe this is photoshop?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..hsuTai.jpg
(That’s Sir John Houghton, AGW believer par excellence)
The crosses are a nice touch.
You have just proven my point. The ‘hockety stick’ is a part of the case for AGW. One slide in a presentation by Houghton, or the only slide. Nature lists a complex history of AGW, and you have to point out which one of about 30 entries to look up.
Bill Illis (Comment#20841) September 29th, 2009 at 8:14 pm,
You’re missing the point. Milankovitch cycles don’t trigger glaciations, IMO. If they are in fact the cause, they trigger the cascade that causes an interglacial. That cascade way overshoots the mark and immediately begins to decay back to a glacial. Look at the Vostok records. It looks like the response of an over-damped oscillator to an impulse. Temperature rises rapidly, peaks sharply and then decays slowly. There are intermediate peaks during the glacial periods where the impulse wasn’t sufficient to go all the way to an interglacial. The current interglacial is very different. The peak (Vostok record) has been very flat for 11,000 years. The Eemian interglacial, by contrast, dropped 3 degrees in less than 10,000 years after reaching its peak.
I also don’t understand why the concentration on insolation at 65N. If the Vostok dating is anywhere near correct, the SH warmed first and the Antarctic Cold Reversal preceded the Younger Dryas episode in the NH. I think it’s NH chauvinism. Yes the temperature swings are bigger in the NH, but it’s likely for the same reason that annual temperature swings are bigger in the NH, more land less ocean.
You can send me stuff at payne dot dewitt at google dot com.
Nathan:
“There are a lot of Hockey Sticks around though, they all seem to give similar results…”
Bull. Should we start a link war with hockey stick proxies vs. non-hockey stick proxies? You’ll quickly find that the non-hockey stick proxies are the most common (which is why the multi-proxy reconstructions have to datamine).
You’re 1 proxy paper is nice and all, but its not necessarily better than any other proxy reconstruction.
Here’s a fun blink comparator of some proxies in Mann 2008:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3512
Nathan
In other words a) You don’t know what the paper says and b) for some reason, you believe they did something that contradicts what the abstract says?
According to the abstract, they used a local proxy and their results are for regional warming. Because they used a local proxy, their results can only be regional. No matter how the authors might have tried to dress this up in a body of the paper or press release, the results are regional.
What are you talking about? They used a regional proxy. Their results are regional. Even if a full paper reported 2+3=4, I would still know that 2+3=5. I don’t have to read the paper to know this.
Lubos Motl has informally accused Briffa et al of fraud.
Let the games begin!
Nathan (Comment#20737)
I would be a lot more impressed by that study if I hadn’t actually visited Junco Lake. During the period when this “unprecedented” change in the diatom flora happened there has been a *really* unprecedented change in the surrounding area, i e the natural vegetation has been completely destroyed. Might possibly affect the pollen and diatoms in the lake, no?
There are some crater lakes on Galapagos that are much more undisturbed (mostly on Isabela), however they are rather hard to get at. Junco lake on the other hand is a half-hour drive and a ten minute walk from the Capital and main airport of Galapagos.
tty–
And of course, it is one lake.
Your questions would question whether the results are even valid for the area near Junco lake. Nathan is missing that the temperature at one lake is not the temperature of the entire planet (no matter what he imagines the authors claim.)
As I understand it, the impact of different temperature reconstructions would be on attribution. This viewpoint paper by Esper at the Swiss Federal Research Institute examines the amplitude of temperature variations reported for the earth’s temperature during the past millennium.
Climate: past ranges and future changes
Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (2005) 2164–2166
http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper/publications/QSR_Esper_2005.pdf
They write that:
“Comparison of large-scale temperature reconstructions over the past millennium reveals agreement on major climatic episodes, but substantial divergence in the reconstructed (absolute) temperature amplitude. We here detail several research priorities to overcome this ‘amplitude desideratum’, and discuss the relevance of this effort for the prediction of future temperature changes and the meaning of the Kyoto Protocol….
“So, what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberg et al., 2005) or smaller (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role on natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact on anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios. If that turns out to be the case, agreements such as the Kyoto protocol that intend to reduce emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would be less effective than thought.”
bugs (Comment#20880)
Bugs, Bugs, Bugs,
Nice try, but once again, you have either misinterpreted the written word or are being deliberately obtuse. The vast majority of posters on this thread have not argued that the hockey stick is the only argument for AGW. Indeed, a lot of commenters noted that such an argument is an overstatement.
You originally weighed in on this thread complaining that the Hockey Stick was being called “iconic”. You then claimed that it wasn’t the “centerpiece” of the 2001 IPCC report.
Look up the word “iconic”, and then go read the Summary for Policymakers form this 2001 report.
http://www1.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/20january2001-spm.pdf
And take a look at this “keynote” address. (Guess what Figure 4b might be.)
http://www1.ipcc.ch/graphics/speeches/robert-watson-july-2001.pdf
That list of “key” events on AGW from Nature has the hockey stick there in 2001 precisely because it was the centerpiece to the third IPCC report, which was issued in….2001.
Do I need to give you more and more links to the “iconic” hockey stick?
Honestly, you remind me of those squabbling married couples where one says “I never did that, just give me one example where I did that”, and the other responds “How about when etc., etc”, and the first responds, “Alright, give me another.”
Lucia
I have the text, in hardcopy
Here is an excerpt…
“The eastern equitorial Pacific (EEP) lies under the descending limb of the atmospheric Walker Cell (6), an area where southeasterly trade winds push warm surface waters to the west, allowingcolder subsruface water to rise to the surface. During an El Nino event, EEP sea surface temperatures (SST) warms as trade winds salcken, upwelling weakens and a deeper mixed layer replaces the shallow thermocline…”
And on it goes.
Why is it so hard for you to actually find something and read it? Why are you arguing with me about this when I presented the link for Nick? Why are you pretending? Why don’t youjust read the paper?
Lucia
You have decided that a Hockey Stick is about a temp reconstruction for the entire planet.
That was you choice. It had nothing to do with what I talking.
This particular reconstruction has im[plications for the whole planet though, whoch for some reason in your head means it is not a Hockey Stick.
Truly, you are ridiculing something that is in your head, and are showing that you are not really interested in this science, but rather are pursuing a political agenda.
“And of course, it is one lake.”
I mean SERIOUSLY, is this the best you can do?
Hmmmm
I tried to edit the text in my earlier post. It didn’t work.
Anyway, that text excerpt was from the paper before the one I had linked to. Here is the correct text:
“The eastern equitorial Pacific (EEP) lies under the descending limb of the atmospheric Walker Cell (6), an area where southeasterly trade winds push warm surface waters to the west, allowingcolder subsruface water to rise to the surface. During an El Nino event, EEP sea surface temperatures warm as trade winds slacken, upwelling weakens and a deeper mixed layer replaces the shallow thermocline. This thermal anomaly produces atmospheric teleconnections that influence climate across the globe”
Lucia
“In other words a) You don’t know what the paper says and b) for some reason, you believe they did something that contradicts what the abstract says?”
Both these statements are completely and utterly false.
I have the paper next to me. It in no way conttradicts the abstract. This is something you made up because you have your own definition of a Hockey Stick. Again, you are debating a point that is in your head and with no context.
Nathan–
The quotes you post confirm that this is a regional proxy. The authors suggest it is an important one–but it’s still regional. Why do you have trouble understanding this?
Yes. That’s what I told you. The hockey stick is a reconstruction for the entire planet. You provided a regional reconstruction and suggested these were “similar”. I pointed out that the paper you are talking about has nothing to do with the hockey stick.
It’s nice to read that you have come around to realizing the two are fundamentally different types of things.
This is something you made up because you have your own definition of a Hockey Stick.
My definition of “the hockey stick”? The “hockey stick” is used to describe a finding that is not regional.
I’m not surprised to see the paper does not contradict the abstract. That was my expectation. And indeed, based on the contents you post, I was correct: The paper has nothing to do with the hockey stick. That’s what I said in the first place– contradicting you assertion that these findings are “similar”.
I pointed out that “the hockey stick” is a term that refers to a result that applied to global temperatures; your paper discusses a regional finding. These are different things.
Thanks for confirming that I was correct about this.
Lucia
Read the paper.
That is all I can suggest, it is not me who is mistaken.
“This thermal anomaly produces atmospheric teleconnections that influence climate across the globe”
Fig one shows (1a) Map of correlation coefficients of annual SST (ref 11) near San Cristobel Island (0.9S, 89.5W) with Global SST (ref 11).
“The hockey stick is a reconstruction for the entire planet.”
There are many ‘hockey Sticks’ which one are you claiming is THE hockey stick? Does that mean no other hockey stick shaped graphs that are proxy reconstructions AREN’T Hockey Sticks?
It is truly bizarre that you continue this debate without actually reading the paper.
The movie version of the original hockey stick by Mann did puport to represent global temps.
Since then, the Manniacs have been finding hockey sticks everywhere, form Antarctica to the Atlantic hurricane basin, to the Arctic.
All of them seem to suffer form similar problems and dramatic short comings.
Nathan–
Read it to learn what?
* The abstract of the paper describes a regional proxy.
* Every single quote you are posting reinforces that it is a regional proxy.
* I said the paper you linked discussed a regional proxy.
You keep suggesting I read the paper. But what point do you think will be revealed when I read the paper. I said it’s a regional proxy and so differs from a global proxy. You’ve admitted that point.
Do you think that some action on my part will magically transform the paper into one discussing a multi-proxy, global reconstruction? And that the contents will suddenly, magically contradict the abstract which says it discusses a regional proxy?
Yes. There is a “THE” hockey stick. It’s the one that is supposed to represent a global phenomenon. That’s the one that is being discussed.
Lucia
Ok
So we have your case that there is only one true Hockey stick.
So this argument is pointless.
You have decide there is one Hockey Stick. Fine.
I however, am open to the notion that there have been a multitude of studies (some of which have been alluded to by others), all of which produce similar sorts of “Hockey Stick” shaped graphs. These Hockey Sticks may be regional or global. The one I was poiting out takes a proxy from one region and makes a reconstruction. This reconstruction has implications for Global temps, which they discuss in the paper. This may be too subtle for you, but life is often complicated.
” I said it’s a regional proxy and so differs from a global proxy. You’ve admitted that point.”
This is nonsense. All proxies are regional. I’d like to know what “global proxy” was used in you hockey Stick. I think you’ll find they used a bunch of regional ones. The reconstruction is used to make inferences about Global climate. You would get this if you read the paper.
“Do you think that some action on my part will magically transform the paper into one discussing a multi-proxy, global reconstruction? And that the contents will suddenly, magically contradict the abstract which says it discusses a regional proxy?”
Of course not. And I see here you give up your notion of a global proxy, thankfully.
This is a really stupid debate. You have your own definition of a Hockey Stick. It doesn’t matter whether you think the paper I linked to is similar to the Hockey Stick or not. Your definition is your definition. According to my understanding of what constitutes a Hockey Stick, this paper has a Hockey Stick.
Why don’t you have a post on what constitutes a Hockey Stick?
Nathan–
There is something that people call “THE hockey stick”. This is a fact. It’s not just me. “THE” hockey stick is the one that is global.
You can find “a” hockey stick in many places, including your garage. But “THE hockey stick” is a multi-proxy reconstruction of global temperatures. That’s the term of art.
Yes. But “THE” hockey stick is a multi-proxy reconstruction using proxies from a variety of region. One is supposed to pick them to get good coverage for the entire globe.
Nathan, the discussion above was about “the” hockey stick not “a” hockey stick. You are a technical editor. You should understand that use of definite vs. indefinite articles connote different meanings. You should also understand the existence of terms of art and so understand that “a” hockey stick is not necessarily “the” hockeystick.
Lucia
Again
This is simply becuase you don’t accept the existence of other Hockey Sticks, whereas I do. I never said it was THE hockey Stick. I sadi there were a lot of Hockey Sticks, and the one I posted was similar.
Here is my original post.
“Nick,
There are a lot of Hockey Sticks around though, they all seem to give similar results…
Here’s a new one
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou…..eo390.html
That’s looking at 1400 years of sediments from the Galapagos. You may have to get it ou of your library – I don’t have the full text.”
Quite clearly I indicate straight away that I see the existence of many types of Hockey Sticks. Then you start telling me that there can be only one. I disagree. This comes down to our choice of definitions of what is a Hockey Stick.
Nathan–
I accept the existence of “other” hockey sticks. But they aren’t what people were discussing when you interjected your example. Other people were discussing “THE” hockey stick which a multi-proxy reconstructions intended to provide an estimate of the history of global temperatures.
Not all paleo-reconstructions of regional climate give hockey shaped sticks. If they did, there would be zero argument about what “THE” hockey stick shows.
No. I am telling you that you are changing the subject from “THE” hockeystick under discussion– which is global– to a discussion of reconstructions of local temperatures.
Once again: “a” and “the” are not the same word.
If you want to try to cause confusion by introducing red herrings, I guess you will. But you shouldn’t be surprised when people point out that you are discussing a different topic.
Either you are confused and truly don’t understand the difference between people discussing regional vs. global reconstructions (and the difference between the indefinite article “a” and the definite article “the”) or you are intentionally trying to introduce a red herring for some reason of your own.
Lucia
“But they aren’t what people were discussing when you interjected your example”
This makes no sense. People were discussing the original Hockey Stick, I said there were lots (which there are) and they basically showed the same thing, then presented a very up to date version (which according to your definition possibly isn’t a Hockey Stick, but according to mine is a Hockey Stick). I was continuing the discussion.
“No. I am telling you that you are changing the subject from “THE†hockeystick under discussion– which is global– to a discussion of reconstructions of local temperatures. ”
I wasn’t changing the discussion. I was simply indicating there are more studies than THE hockey Stick.
“If you want to try to cause confusion by introducing red herrings, I guess you will. But you shouldn’t be surprised when people point out that you are discussing a different topic.”
What? I submitted a proxy based reconstruction of temperature and ENSO that is indicative of global temps (and that has a Hockey Stick shape), this is not a red herring.
This is beyond madness now.
Do a post about what constitutes a Hockey Stick (yes I used the word ‘a’). I bet you won’t get agreement
Nathan–
Your example is dissimilar to what you call the original hockey stick because yours example is regional. The original i.e. “THE” hockey stick is global. This is a very important distinction in the discussion. That’s what I told you. Read my comment.
Your example is dissimilar to what you call the original hockey stick because yours example is regional. The original i.e. “THE†hockey stick is global. This is a very important distinction in the discussion. That’s what I told you. Read my comment.”
And I disagree. I don’t see it as an important distinction in this case, and I don’t understand why you claim it is when you haven’t even read the paper.
Nathan,
“What? I submitted a proxy based reconstruction of temperature and ENSO that is indicative of global temps (and that has a Hockey Stick shape), this is not a red herring.”
Keep trying. We will let you know when you actually do what you claim to have done.
Nathan–
ENSO is not the global temperature. It’s just not.
I never said it was global temps. But this proxy based reconstruction is certainly INDICATIVE of global temps.
“I submitted a proxy based reconstruction of temperature and ENSO that is indicative of global temps”
So you don’t think that ENSO affects global temps? Fine, believe what you like.
The authors say this:
“This thermal anomaly produces atmospheric teleconnections that inluence climate across the globe”
I know this is subtle. But… ENSO affects climate globally… Well, that’s what they say anyway.
Point of order.
MBH98 et. seq.. are temperature reconstructions for the Northern Hemisphere, not the planet. It doesn’t change lucia’s point, though.
Nathan–
ENSO is not global temperature. This isn’t a subtle issue.
You changed the subject from multi-proxy global reconstructions to a single proxy regional reconstruction.
Influencing the temperature across the globe is not the same as being the temperature across the globe. Different words.
Here’s a 2000 year reconstruction from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool that shows temperatures in the MWP could be as warm as they are today:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827131832.htm
It’s newer than yours Nathan, does this mean I win?
DeWitt
“MBH98 et. seq.. are temperature reconstructions for the Northern Hemisphere, not the planet.”
Lucia
“The original i.e. “THE†hockey stick is global. This is a very important distinction in the discussion.”
DeWitt
“It doesn’t change lucia’s point, though.”
No, but apparently it is a very important distinction.
To be honest I am sure everyone is quite bored with this.
If people are interested they can read the paper, I found it interesting.
If people don’t think it constitutes a Hockey Stick by whatever convention they use, that’s fine.
>the temperature at one lake is not the temperature of the entire planet
But the temperature at Baydaratskaya Bay is.
MikeN–
Thanks. I didn’t realize it was only Northern. Still… multi-proxy. The goal was to not be local.
Joel–
Yep. Not withstanding Nathan’s authors explaining that ENSO is important, ENSO is not global. So, some regional proxies look different from ENSO proxies. That’s because… well… ENSO is not global temperature.
Lucia
“ENSO is not global temperature. This isn’t a subtle issue.
You changed the subject from multi-proxy global reconstructions to a single proxy regional reconstruction.
Influencing the temperature across the globe is not the same as being the temperature across the globe. Different words.”
I didn’t say it was Global Temp, and neither do the authors.
The last statement is so trivial… I don’t even know why you wrote it.
Lucia
“The goal was to not be local.”
Good grief…
Oh Lucia
What a lame discussion we had. Perhaps next time you cant start with your definitions, that way we can all know that when you say Global temps you actually mean Northern Hemisphere.
MikeN–
And look. The IPWP “indicative” of global temperatures too! So, this must contradict Nathan’s linked study since it indicates a different history, right? 😉
Authors always explain how their work fits into larger work. Different regions can have different temperature trends. That was the whole point of “THE” hockey stick.
Joel, that looks intesting. I wish it linked to the paper so I could read it. In the paper I linked to they had a mixed response from the MWP, it was up and down, but cooler than the present day. So the shaft of the stick would be more wobbly than THE Hockey Stick.
Lucia
And look you don’t even have to read the actual paper to come to conclusions! Whoopee this is how we all do Thience!
But seriously “That was the whole point of “THE†hockey stick.” Is that the Global one?
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=441&cid=92918&ct=61&article=59106
Tee hee, not a Hockey Stick apparently…
2,000-year-long temperature and hydrology
reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific warm pool:
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/oppo_etal_2009.pdf
Nathan–
I don’t need to read the paper to know what the abstract says. The abstract describes a single proxy reconstruction. The parts you quoted confirm it’s a single proxy reconstruction. So, evidently, I made the correct conclusion based on reading the abstract.
I don’t know what other conclusion you are concerned about. I haven’t made any other conclusions about the paper.
THE hockey stick is not a single proxy regional reconstruction. I mistook NH for global– but it’s not single proxy reconstruction. If it were only a single proxy reconstruction, it would not have become iconic and would not have been highlighted so frequently by the IPCC and others.
Lucia, I think you misunderstood what I said, because I have no idea what you are talking about.
The Bay I said is the one next to Yamal.
Caption “A comparison of records showing NAO variability on a multi-decadal (20+ year average) scale: The sea surface temperature reconstruction from the Bermuda brain coral is represented in red. Terrestrial reconstruction data (primarily from tree ring chronologies and ice cores) is shown in light blue, while instrumental records (historical climate data) are represented in dark blue. ”
From http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=441&cid=85378&ct=61&article=54686
Once again: Regional reconstruction.
MikeN
D’oh!
That’s the one highlighted in Steve’s post? I’ll need to memorize all these proxy names some day. . .
“THE hockey stick is not a single proxy regional reconstruction. I mistook NH for global– but it’s not single proxy reconstruction. If it were only a single proxy reconstruction, it would not have become iconic and would not have been highlighted so frequently by the IPCC and others.”
Lucia we already agreed that we have different definitions over what is a Hockey Stick. You don’t need to keep flogging the single proxy issue. This is a matter of semantics.
Thanks Joel, I did see their figure showing how warm it was in the MWP. Interesting. It doesn’t look like that area changed temp much from 600 to 1200 AD. This would suggest the MWP was much longer. It also shows that it is warmer than today, but as they say it’s within error.
Nathan–
We did not agree.
“THE” hockey stick is not simply “a” hockey stick. You changed the subject from one to the other — which was both a red herring. You are also resorting to equivocation.
If you don’t want to flog this by repeating mistatements then just stop doing that.
Lucia
““THE†hockey stick is not simply “a†hockey stick.”
Ok, so it’s a super special Hockey Stick, so what?
You claimed that for something to be similar to THE Hockey Stick it had to be a global reconstruction of proxy temps. But then that changed to NH.
I, in my original post, implied that I thought there were many Hockey Stocks (of which THE Hockey Stick was one, and is special as it was the first), and then I gave an link to a paper I had in hard copy (sadly just the abstract) of one I had seen recently and posted it for Nick (He was saying how he didn’t like proxy reconstructions or some such).
Then you tell me it isn’t similar to THE Hockey Stick, becuase it isn’t a multi-proxy NH reconstruction.
So I said it didn’t matter becuase they make claims about Global temps and indicate what periods were hotter.
Now you can claim that I was trying to disrupt or whatever, but really if you hadn’t tried to tell me it wasn’t like THE Hockey Stick (without even reading the paper), none of this debate would exist. This whole debate is solely about what constitutes a Hockey Stick – or what is similar to THE Hockey Stick (regardless of the specialness of THE Hockey Stick, which is holy)
Nathan–
I didn’t say disrupt. I didn’t say THE hockey stick was holy. I said THE hockey stick was the subject of the conversation.
Good night. Sleep tight. Don’t let the bedbugs bite.
I said THE Hockey Stick was holy… Because it is.
Steven Mosher,
“IT’S NOT ABOUT THE BLADE. dopes.”
TCH, TCH,TCH.
If you haven’t already, see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/agu-presentation-backs-up-mcintyres-findings-that-there-is-no-hockey-stick-in-yamal/#more-11328
Not to demean your point about the shaft, but, it is ALSO about the blade!!!
The records for the Yamal Peninsula would appear to NOT show any kind of Hockey Stick locally to Calibrate against!!!!!
Unless you want to go with the global teleconnection bit, the calibration used by Briffa is spurious.
NOTHING about this Hockey Stick would appear to be supportable in relation to the temperature record!!!!!
Nathan–
Wrong. Why do you persist with equivocating word games?
And if you go back to my first comment, it is easy to see that what constitutes a hockey stick was never my point, and has never been my point in any comment I have posted.
The discussion is about what features are required to make a reconstruction similar to THE hockey stick. A single proxy reconstruction lacks the feature that makes THE hockey stick important. Only multi-proxy reconstructions can be similar to THE hockey stick because the essential feature of THE hockey stick is a large extent, and not being limited to a region.
Lucia
“The discussion is about what features are required to make a reconstruction similar to THE hockey stick. A single proxy reconstruction lacks the feature that makes THE hockey stick important. Only multi-proxy reconstructions can be similar to THE hockey stick because the essential feature of THE hockey stick is a large extent, and not being limited to a region.”
This is still all just your opinion, yes? You have made a decsion that these are the features that you see as important in deciding what constitutes similarity to THE hockey stick. I outlined what I thought was important was that it should be a proxy-based reconstruction of temperatures that has a hockey-stick shape. Your definition doesn’t even consider the shape of the curve (though I assume you would put that into any formal definition).
This is why it is important to outline what constitutes being similar to THE hockey stick. Currently your definition (though I am sure it will change) includes things that aren’t Hockey Stick shaped.
Now, I have repeatedly told you that the authors of that paper make conclusions that are more than just regional. You can’t say that what I posted was simply local. You haven’t even read it.
To be honest I don’t see much difference between these two statements:
Me
“This whole debate is solely about what constitutes a Hockey Stick”
You
“The discussion is about what features are required to make a reconstruction similar to THE hockey stick.”
Just substitute “features” for “constitutes” and “a Hockey Stick” for “reconstruction similar to THE hockey stick”
They are the same argument.
Yea, it was a joke about Yamal representing the temperature of the world.
One note is that THE hockey stick is not refuted by Steve’s post, nor is Mann 08.
Nathan its a local proxy, get over it. Until the evidence is corroborated the authors theories on global teleconnections are unsupported. The other Nature article directly contradicts the Galapagos results. Doesn’t that show how weak this single study is?
A theory exists that the MWP was a regional phenomenon. A multi-proxy study can attempt to figure this out. A single proxy study can not.
Showing that a significant number of tropical or sub-tropical proxies show a hockey-stick shape is the holy grail. Showing a single tropical proxy with a hockey-stick is interesting but subject to a lot of uncertainty.
On its own this study will not make it into an IPCC spaghetti graph. This is certain.
This is what started this whole argument. I think we can agree that its a poorly worded sentence. All hockey sticks give similar results?!? How so? Because they’re all shaped like hockey sticks!?! The sentence should have been:
This sentence is obviously false.
Joel, did you read the paper I linked to?
“The other Nature article directly contradicts the Galapagos results. Doesn’t that show how weak this single study is?”
Not really, no. The paper I linked to was in Nature Geoscience. They may be in disagreement, which is fine, both are aiding in our understanding. That other study takes proxies from two sites… Hmmm I think you are over enthusiastic in your support of the Woods Hole study. Which is fine.
” Until the evidence is corroborated the authors theories on global teleconnections are unsupported.”
Are you suggesting that El Nino conditions don’t lead to a higher GMT? Or that typically El Nino conditions result in higher GMT than Non El Nino conditions?
I think you’re being quick to dismiss it.
“On its own this study will not make it into an IPCC spaghetti graph. This is certain.”
Wow, and you can predict the future too!
“This is what started this whole argument.”
No, you are bringing it up now. And yes perhaps the sentence could have been worded better.
No. I’m sure its a fine paper but I have no intention of tracking it down to read it. What is with your fixation? You’ve barraged this thread with over 15 “read the paper” comments. No one cares. Most people aren’t going to read it because it doesn’t carry enough weight in the AGW debate. The reason for this is simple. With all the uncertainties that exist, ensembles matter. Model ensembles, proxy ensembles, temperature record ensembles, etc.
If the Galapagos are so teleconnected to global temperatures, we can just track global warming from thermometers located there, right? Does this sound like a good idea?
If you think this study has any chance of making an AR5 spaghetti graph on its own, then it speaks volumes about your reasoning skills. This paper doesn’t have the significance of a Mann, Moberg, or Briffa paper, and you don’t have to read it to come to this conclusion.
I thought of another necessary condition that I think is needed to be “like THE hockey stick”. It must be a reconstruction that lasts from at least just prior to the MWP and extend well into the 20th Century, so perhaps from around 900 AD to 1980 AD.
Nathan,
You are making a poor spectacle of yourself.
Everyone knows that *the* hockey stick is the original Manniac graph that claims to show the Earth is warming, and is the one that Gore uses in his movie.
And you are being a boor to our hostess, as well as to everyone reading this over extended thread.
You are being trollish in your apparently deliberate, trollish obtuse behavior.
Joel
I kept telling Lucia to read it because she refused to accept my take on what they were saying. So I told her she should read it, that way we wouldn;t have to argue about what I wrote about (in reference to the paper), but rather the substance of the paper.
“Most people aren’t going to read it because it doesn’t carry enough weight in the AGW debate. The reason for this is simple. With all the uncertainties that exist, ensembles matter. Model ensembles, proxy ensembles, temperature record ensembles, etc.”
Well, fair enough, but why engage in an argument about it?
I didn’t make a big deal of it when I first posted, but this paper is one of the rare instances where one proxy stretches way back to pre-MWP times. The other reconstructions use each proxy for parts of the reconstruction – or am I wrong… Not sure, but I think i’s rare for a single proxy to stretch that far back.
akrause- ‘Do we not know if the MWP occurred based on history’ Apart from scientific evidence, the effects of the MWP are recorded in the Canterbury Tales. On his pilgrimage to Canterbury,Chaucer tells of the burnt crops, dried up rivers and starving population. Don’t try and read it in the original though!
1) I don’t think Nathan understands the correct definitions of “regional” and “global”.
Any result (even if, for example, derived from cherry-picking 12 trees in one location out of hundreds of trees in multiple locations) that can be made to present a pattern consistent with the AGW hypothesis can be said to confirm the inference of global patterns and is thus “global” in nature.
In contrast, any study that does not confirm the flat handle of a hockey stick and which is instead consistent with a significant MWP (for example, the 300 to 350 proxy studies listed at the Idso brothers’ site) is “regional” and has no significance with respect to global climate.
2) To rant about linguistic precision regarding “a” versus “the” hockey sticks is utterly disingenuous. “The†hockey stick was unambiguously presented as global and that is why any result that differs is merely “regional.†There is no reason that “denialists†must now assume some new burden of disproving each hockey stick (now somehow regional) in lieu of pointing out the collapse of “the†hockey stick.
We are a point where ANY study (i.e., “a” hockey stick) that purports to confirm the work of Mann and Briffa is presumptively flawed and about as convincing as a second skull of Piltdown Man.
3) The paper cited by Nathan: â€Unprecedented recent warming of surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean†is unconvincing because
(a) the use of the term “unprecedented†in the title is AGW media-bait and makes me suspect the authors are unduly in need of attention;
(b) Lake El Junco is small and has experienced major changes in surrounding land use on a small island that experienced big population and economic growth over the same period that “unprecedented†warming took place. Within that that same recent time frame some clown introduced tilapia to the lake (which never had fish before) which was not discovered until fairly recently. So the biology and chemistry of the lake is more likely to have been changed than to have remained similar to earlier periods. The notion that this is a pristine lab for recent Pacific climate history is suspect at best; and
(c) the sampling I did of diatom proxy studies (admittedly, all in the Northern hemisphere) with longer durations have almost uniformly confirmed the MWP and Little ice Age without finding “a†hockey blade.
(d) in the abstract the authors of the Galapagos lake study openly state a belief that their results confirm AGW which is not regional by definition. Therefore, even they do not regard their work as “a†hockey stick but part of “the†hockey stick–yet another reason to discount their conclusions.
>Bugs, climateaudit never made their own temperature reconstruction. At best they tried to fix the methods of MBH.
>>Loehle got the McIntyre tick of approval.
So now any study McIntyre approves of is a ClimateAudit reconstruction?
Indeed Loehle is fairly similar to Moberg 05, with a high medieval warm period.
Chris W (Comment#20967)
I agree on the readability of the original Canterbury Tales and that climate clues are contained in written history. Lucia indicated that this is local(European) not global evidence and I agree with that too. What bothers me is aggregating regional proxies from a number of different areas on the globe. How many points are needed (argument of the beard)? Does Siberia indicate anything except the climate in Siberia? Will one tree do? I can probably find a range of temperatures in measuring places on the globe from the bottom of the ocean to the top of Everest. How do the studies pick the locations and how many to include? I find the science part fascinating. The Blackboard and other climate sites are an Illuminating read. They have their own clues like just Chaucer.