Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

Posts Tagged ‘Hockey Stick’

Hockey Stick Killed by Fire, Is It Enough?

Posted by greg2213 on May 30, 2011

Like Jason, in Friday the 13th, the Hockey stick refuses to die. Destroyed time and time again it still returns, wagging a festering finger at us, warning us to mend our ways or The Wrath will descend upon our unworthy heads.

So Willis E., on WUWT, takes another shot at burning the monster down:

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

The discussion of the 1998 Mann “Hockeystick” seems like it will never die. (The “Hockeystick” was Dr. Michael Mann’s famous graph showing flatline historical temperatures followed by a huge modern rise.)

Claims of the Hockeystick’s veracity continue apace, with people doggedly wanting to believe that the results are “robust”. I thought I’d revisit something I first posted and then expanded on at ClimateAudit a few years ago, which are the proxies in Michael Mann et al.’s 2008 paper, “Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia” (M2008).

This was another salvo in Mann’s unending attempt to revive his fatally flawed 1998 “Hockeystick” paper. I used what is called “Cluster Analysis” to look at the proxies. Cluster analysis creates a tree-shaped structure called a “dendrogram” that shows the similarity between the individual datasets involved…

Here’s the rest: Kill It With Fire

As a reminder, here’s how the climate math works in the CAGW division. Then, of course, one can argue that the hockey stick and its resurrections actually damaged the AGW case.

Advertisements

Posted in AGW Hypothesis | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Alarming Definitions, Proxies, Mann, and a Question

Posted by greg2213 on May 23, 2010

Jeff ID at The Air Vent remarks:

Honestly there are times when I feel sorry for Mann, his role in history will not be a good one in the long term but it was brought about by an initial mistake in his early papers.  After the accolades he received for his 98, 99 work the censored directory was created with a corrected PCA reconstruction.  What should he do, phone the UN — um world, I screwed up a little…..His reaction, of course, has been the opposite.  He doubled down, creating one reconstruction after another using math which is actually worse than the original.

So here’s the question,

Where would the IPCC be without the proxy based reconstructions?

It’s a scary question because if the climatologists were to excise the bad paleo stuff, IMHO the AGW story is strengthened rather than damaged.

Lots of good discussion regarding that on his site and I’ll add my 1 cent worth here.

The AGW story isn’t strengthened, but that depends on what you mean by AGW.

AGW = Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming. If you’re talking to one person it means one thing, if you’re talking to Al Gore, Dr. Hansen, or various extremists it means something entirely different.

And that’s the problem.

Mann’s (and Gore’s) hockey stick was never about the .6C of warming that we’ve had over the last 120 years or so. It was, and always has been about the catastrophe. The impending DOOM caused by the actions of loutish humans (and then Gore buys mansions with the energy usage of a small country…)

Two entirely separate issues.

So let’s set some definitions:

  • GW = Global Warming and is simply the state of the world warming, by whatever cause.
  • AGW = Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming. People done it. It also implies that the warming is a bad thing and that people are bad for doing it.
  • CAGW = Catastrophic AGW. This is what we saw with Gore’s fantasy-horror flick, An Inconvenient Truth. Also this is what’s typical of alarmist/extremist remarks regarding GW. WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE UNLESS WE SHAPE UP NOW!!!!
  • Alarmist = one who buys into the CAGW argument
  • Extremist/hysteric = one who buys into the extreme CAGW remarks, such as this one.
  • Denier/denialist = one who denies the reality of CAGW, but it is used and intended as an insult along the lines of one who denies reality, such as denying the existence of the Holocaust.
  • Sceptic = someone who wants a little proof supporting the concept.

There is good evidence that the world has warmed a bit, even without the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects, however there is zero evidence …

  1. that there is an impending catastrophe,
  2. that there is a tipping point (unless it’s to tip down to the next ice age,)
  3. that anything about the current, slight, warming is unprecedented.

There is solid evidence that some warming is a good thing.

So is the case for AGW stengthened in Mann’s “science” disappeared? Well…

  • GW – yes, only because the hockey stick is a major distraction from reality
  • AGW – no, but energy use to debunk bad science could be used to look for what’s real regarding human effects, if any, on climate.
  • CAGW – definitely weakened, since the major support for CAGW is the hockey stick. With that gone there’s nothing left but wishful thinking on the part of the alarmist/extremist crowd.

Posted in AGW Hypothesis | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Books On Climategate and the Hockey Stick

Posted by greg2213 on January 21, 2010

Looking for some good reading?

On Amazon UK: The Hockey Stick Illusion;Climategate and the Corruption of Science

The Hockey Stick Illusion, on Amazon.co.uk

Amazon UK says: Part scientific history and part detective story, The Hockey Stick Illusion tells the extraordinary tale of the iconic global warming graph (created by the US climatologist Michael Mann), the global panic about climate change that it has helped to feed, and the tireless efforts of a lone amateur researcher, Steve McIntyre, that have comprehensively discredited it.

Amazon US has Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Volume 1)

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters

Amazon’s description says: The Climategate scandal covered from beginning to end–from ‘Hide the Decline’ to the current day. Written by two authors who were on the scene–Steven Mosher and Tom Fuller–Climategate takes you behind that scene and shows what happened and why. For those who have heard that the emails were taken out of context–we provide that context and show it is worse when context is provided. For those who have heard that this is a tempest in a teacup–we show why it will swamp the conventional wisdom on climate change. And for those who have heard that this scandal is just ‘boys being boys’–well, boy. It’s as seamy as what happened on Wall Street.

Posted in Books, Climategate | Tagged: | 1 Comment »