Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 Next
Comments 67301 to 67350:
-
muoncounter at 14:04 PM on 2 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
ChrisG#17: "the take-away is muddled." No, its straight-forward. The section around 4 minutes in deals with a multiple range of possible outcomes: what science does is try to winnow out the relative probabilities of possible outcomes, if you try to cover it as a yes or no you are distorting and yes, we get a little mad about that. There's the key message. One who gets distracted by '5 ft of sea level rise' or 'catastrophic change' or 'end of the world' is missing the point. And isn't that the ultimate goal of propaganda? To manipulate your thought process so that you miss the point? Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself or one's group. So we hear about 'balance,' we hear an endless succession of false equivalences and a blizzard of 'it can't be true' spin stories. Schneider is very clear on this point: Feeding people the yes/no message when there are a range of alternatives is still propaganda. Hyping the supposed 'uncertainty' when there are factors that are well-understood is still propaganda. -
Paul Magnus at 13:40 PM on 2 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
Tom @15. Thanks for cheering me up a bit.... -
dawsonjg at 13:35 PM on 2 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Thanks michael Mann responds by deleting problematic sets from his 2008 paper one at a time, not by deleting them all at once. I'd like to know where he deletes both bristlecone and Tiljander sets at the same time. You have a very malleable definition of a hockey stick. No one anymore defends a millenium graph with a straight handle and 20th century blade such as appeared in the IPCC's 2001 report to (-Snip-). Why can't you just admit that Mann and the IPCC got it wrong?Response:[DB] perhaps you missed this warning about needed compliance with the Comments Policy. This site is about the science of climate change, not about scoring rhetorical points.
Inflammatory rhetoric snipped.
-
michael sweet at 12:59 PM on 2 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Dawsonjg: Please see my response on the tree ring thread linked above. -
michael sweet at 12:57 PM on 2 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Dawsonjg, Who says including those data sets was in error? Mann uses specific criteria to exclude problematic data sets. Deniers then add data sets they like and claim Mann is in error for including ones that they do not like. Mann responds by showing that deleting the supposed problematic sets does not affect the result. You are confusing unsupported blog criticism with actual peer reviewed criticism. Keep in mind that the Mann hockey stick has been reproduced by numerous other peer reviewed studies. Can you provide a reference to a peer reviewed study that does not show a hockey stick? If everyone gets a hockey stick, how can you claim that Mann is in error? -
dawsonjg at 12:45 PM on 2 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
(-Pointlessly off-topic snipped-)Response:[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
dawsonjg at 12:33 PM on 2 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Thanks caerbannog. I confess that running those scenarios is beyond my capacities. But I would be interested if you can point me to where anyone has done that exercise. I believe that Mann and co have excluded Tiljander and bristlecone proxies one at a time to claim that they don't matter, but has anyone eliminated both at once and checked that result?Response:[DB] Anyone responding to this please do so on the Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960 thread or other, more appropriate, thread; follow that up with a placeholder with a redirect link from here. Thanks!
-
Nick Palmer at 12:24 PM on 2 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
If I adopted the same mind set as those who crafted your twisted disinformation - that means they wrote it to deceive, not to enlighten, I would describe the supermodel Cindy Crawford as having a foul pestilential precancerous eruption on her face and highlight it microscopically to try to convince gullible people that not only was she ugly, but that all her family and relatives were ugly too. Other more rational people might see just a facial mole. Some might even call it a "beauty spot". -
dawsonjg at 12:11 PM on 2 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Thanks Nick, I'll take that as a no he didn't make those errors. Thanks Philippe, glade to amuse. But I made no accusation that Mann made those errors purposely to deceive - I agree that its unlikely he's that stupid. That, however, doesn't answer my questions. I'll take your answer to mean: he might have made those errors but they dont matter.Response:[DB] This fixation you have on Mann is useful only as an affirmation of the title of the OP. You were earlier directed to place such specific questions on more specific threads on Mann, his research and the "hockey stick" (many exist; use the Search function to locate).
Comments continuing here in this vein will be deleted.
-
caerbannog at 12:07 PM on 2 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
dawsonjg, What effect does excluding the supposedly problematic bristlecone pines from Mann 2008 have on the results? What affect does excluding the supposedly problematic Tiljander proxies from Mann 2008 have on the results? You can download all of Mann's data/code and run those scenarios yourself. Get back to us when you have some results to show (but not before then). -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:52 AM on 2 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Dawsonjg, you really are funny. So Mann did all these terrible things, with obviously the intent to commit fraud, and yet came so close to the result one gets when not commiting these abominable errors that they make no significant difference, even when all accumulated together. Why go through all the trouble then? Let me get this straight, this would be the theory of the fruitcakes accusing Mann of all evils in creation: he accumulated all these errors with the intention of accomplishing a deceitful goal and did not accomplish that goal, yet went ahead with the publication and all that. That makes perfect sense. Every time I see that kind of idiotic nonsense it becomes easier for me to remember why I was so quick to make up my mind about the so-called climate change skeptics years ago. Keep-up the good work. -
Nick Palmer at 11:29 AM on 2 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
No dawsonjg, you are not "just asking". You are in full fledged "quoting crafted disinformation mode". -
dawsonjg at 11:24 AM on 2 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Didn’t Mann 2008 include bristlecone pines in its dataset that had been discredited as reliable proxies? Didn’t Mann 2008 ignore the effects of ditch digging on Tiljander’s lake sediment proxies? Didn’t Mann 2008 reverse the meaning of the x-ray scores recorded by Tiljander, thus recording the temperatures upside down? Didn’t Mann include a proxy line as temperatures in Africa that turned out to be rainfall in Spain? Or not? Just asking. -
Tom Curtis at 10:59 AM on 2 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
Chris G @18, you are absolutely correct that it is the rate of change of temperature rather than the absolute temperature (within limits) that determines extinction rates and the relative harm to human society. The reason is that life, and human's adapt. Life adapts on a million year timescale, with restoration of the full range of biodiversity and productivity of ecosystems taking up to 10 million years after a major extinction event. In human terms, that means any loss of biodiversity is effectively for ever. Humans also adapt, and much faster so that a thousand years from now even in the worst case of the reasonably probable scenarios global warming will have little impact on the standard of living. But our response now makes a large difference to the effect over the next 100 to 200 years. -
paulhtremblay at 10:58 AM on 2 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
>>I don't like the use of fantastical, graphically-enhanced 'scare' composites showing -- for example -- barefooted children standing on parched, cracked mud with smoke rolling over them in an orange landscape. Thanks for your comments, John. I think the graphic showing the girl was meant to show the extremes that Schneider doesn't agree with: look at how ridiculous that extreme is! Though, the confusion underscores your point that the clip isn't always as clear as you think it should be. Interestingly, I thought this clip was excellent compared to many others I have seen. It seemed less polemical and more likely to convince those not already convinced. -
Chris G at 10:45 AM on 2 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
Re: Tom C's post (#15), Several years ago I overlaid the geologic record of cooler/warmer temps with the mass extinction record. Just eye-balling it, the mass extinctions seemed not to be associated with cooler or warmer per se, but with changes in slope of the temperature graph. Which is basically another way of looking at the "warmer is fine" versus "it's the rate of change that matters" debates that frequently pop up.
It involved a flip and a stretch; sorry, looks like I lost the work, but the link is where I started from.
P.S. I'm having some trouble with the tips on posting images. href and src are both
"Description of page you're linking to"
and that seems not correct.
Moderator Response:[DB] Chris, Wiki pages can be a little tricky to use a source for hosted graphics. In the following html string:
The first url would be the location of the hosting Wiki page. The second URL would be the location of the graphic on the Wiki page. The way to find that second location would be to right-click on the desired graphic/image on the Wiki page and select either "View Image" or "Copy Image Location" to find out the URL you need.
If you need additional posting tips, follow this link.
-
Chris G at 10:23 AM on 2 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
My two cents: Since Dr, Schneider gave that talk, we've learned that we have already passed the tipping point for a big chunk of the WAIS. Pine Island Glacier has retreated passed the choke point, and loss is accelerating. I'd side with Rob P and John Russel on this one. Dr. Schneider's speech is excellent, but the take-away is muddled. -
lloyd at 10:01 AM on 2 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
John at (12) I agree with you. Keeping the conversation simple is best. Trying to share my knowledge over time has taught me to relate the effects of climate change to something they understand. They get effects such as dirtier air making it harder to breathe, power and water rationing, or an explosion of bugs devouring their gardens and trees. Trying to convey the concept of AGW, which most are unaware of or ignore, is counterproductive. People want to know how their choices are going to impact them but not what it is called. They want us to keep it simple! -
Tom Curtis at 09:43 AM on 2 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
Paul Magnus @13, I believe there is some confusion about Stephen Schneider's comment about "end of the world" is a low probability outcome. A decade ago it was considered a real possibility by at least some commentators that global warming could result in a runaway greenhouse effect. Such an eventuality would result in the oceans boiling away and the Earth becoming a second Venus, and consequently the death of all life on Earth. Since at least 2002 it has been known that that sort of runaway greenhouse effect is impossible on Earth. (There remains a slight epistemic possibility that it could happen in the sense that the science that shows it is impossible could be wrong.) That is the end of the world scenario that Schneider considered one of the two lowest probability outcomes. At 6:45 in the video, Schneider says,"... here we talk about 50% risks and the planetary life support system..."
Clearly the high probability scenario Schneider is considering is very grim. It involves mass extinctions. Given other concurrent human pressures on the environment, it is likely to at least equal the end Eocene extinction and has a low but significant probability of exceeding the End Permian Extinction (at 250 million years before present on the chart below):
In the more extreme scenarios with significant probability the ocean will become anoxic (without oxygen), a possibility that is distinctly more probable than "it is good for you".
So, what we are talking about in the middle of the range is something in the range of great depression plus Spanish Flu simultaneously for a century or so to Great Depression plus black death plus mongol invasion for a century or so. That is on business as usual.
If we do nothing it will not be the end of the world. It will not result in the extinction of the human species (with high probability) but it will be grim, and may be the end of our civilization (which would winnow the human population down to between half and a billion people). That is your 33 to 66% range.
Having said that, I believe Paul Magnus is being overly pessimistic. Two degrees C represents a significant (around 50%) possibility of the loss of major reef systems around the world including the Great Barrier Reef, but not of the loss of coral reefs altogether. That level of impact will place a large strain on our civilization, but we will cope. We have coped with far larger strains (including, but not limited to the Black Death and WWII).
-
Paul D at 09:34 AM on 2 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
Well here in the UK we have had the second hottest year on record in 2011. The spring in the South was dry as has been the autumn, two trees I got planted in the winter were struggling a bit in the spring. Rivers and reservoirs are low this winter and there have been hose pipe bans in some places in the autumn, which is practically unheard of. Unless we get substantial amounts of rain (which may produce flooding, if the vast amounts needed come in a short time) then we will be seeing a drought in 2012. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:55 AM on 2 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
@ Paul Magnus"I dont think that there is sufficient evidence for anyone to say that the 'end of the world' probability outcome is low."
Having the probability of such an outcome being a non-zero sum should be terrifying enough for any sane person. -
Paul Magnus at 08:01 AM on 2 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
"The end of the world and what’s good for you are the two lowest probability outcomes" I dont think that there is sufficient evidence for anyone to say that the 'end of the world' probability outcome is low. We just dont know. And it actually at least to me looks high and getting more probable. And as commented above the risk factors need to be taken into account. It seems to me it is more and more likely that we are going to get >3C which is basically the end of the world for humans. I subscribe to the belief that a 2C warming means the end, more of less of, modern society. Currently we havent even reached 1C and basically if the current rate of extreme weather events continue at the level of 2010/11 we will have a collapse. But hey, guess what, they are going to get worse - more intense, more frequent, larger areas. So I think a collapse is inevitable. Not good. All the best for 2012 and good luck. -
Phila at 07:50 AM on 2 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
Pirate: The first few paragraphs were plainly written to garner an emotional response. So if an article on AGW is disturbing or depressing, it can be discounted. And if it expresses basic human sympathy for victims of tragic events, it can be mocked as "emotional" (subtext: feminine and foolish). A nice way to win every argument before it begins! Do you apply the same stringently rational litmus test to articles positing a "Great Global Warming Swindle"? Or the "dangers" of reducing CO2 emissions? Aren't inactivist arguments about some grave existential threat to "liberty" equally emotional? And isn't there an intense emotional gratification in believing oneself to be smarter and better informed than expert climatologists? Or for that matter, in believing on principle that nothing really bad will come of AGW? Are you equally wary of these pitfalls? Do you look as consistently and carefully for these appeals to emotion and wishful thinking in your own rhetoric as you do in other peoples'? Be honest, now. -
John Russell at 06:14 AM on 2 January 2012North American mammal evolution tracks with climate change
At this point it seems apposite to post a link to this website. So, I wonder; will we be the first species to actually commit suicide -- or will we in fact join some form of green slime in achieving that remarkable distinction? Happy New Year everyone! -
MarkR at 04:52 AM on 2 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
#14 noelfuller : thanks, fixed! #17 apiratelooksat50 : I have to admit, I reacted emotionally to the disasters. A lot of other people do too, and 'did climate change cause x disaster?' is a common question. As a science communication site, we should answer these questions & I don't think we should be afraid of reporting the science and the context it's in because some people feel an emotional reaction to it. As long as the scientific content is clear and correct (which I believe it is), that's what's important. The recent series of record-breaking natural disasters that are now beginning to be detected as most probably human caused is one of the biggest science stories of 2011 IMO. It would have been ridiculous to leave them out as an appeasement policy, and the science on them needs to be communicated. I obviously agree with "An active extreme event year in weather related disaster no more indicates AGW than a year with few weather related disasters indicates the opposite", but the attribution studies work around this, and that was what I reported. -
MarkR at 04:41 AM on 2 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
#13 fydijkstra : Have these results been published? In the context of that paragraph, we can see rigorously that the full satellite record shows faster sea level rise than we measured last century. I'm not aware of any study showing a significant 'slowdown', especially not in the global warming 'signal'. We had a strong La Nina which depresses sea levels. So there might very well be a statistically significant negative trend over that very short time period, but it doesn't say anything about the background trend. Which is what Foster & Rahmstorf worked on with atmospheric temperatures in their paper. You can get statistical results you like by picking certain periods, but considering the physical reality also helps. Given that over the past 20-odd years there's been a slight downwards trend in the MEI index, if anything, I felt confident that using the FULL satellite record would better represent the real signal. -
MarkR at 04:37 AM on 2 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
#11 mace: The UK is only one small region, and experiences a lot of interannual variability so the temperature series has a lot of noise. It takes about ~17 years (Santer et al, 2009) to get statistical confidence in (less noisy) global changes, so you'd expect even more time for just the UK before you can be confident about saying anything... If you look at what you linked to, and switch to average temperatures, you see the smooth points downwards in some months, but upwards in others. Annually, it's flat at the end, but it's sensitive to the final datapoint which was cool thanks to the massive blocking event last winter that gave us a very cold January and December. Once this year (2nd warmest) is added, it won't look the same. And as I said, I'm not sure you can take anything from this curve fitting exercise. All you can say is that the last decade was the warmest. -
EOttawa at 02:23 AM on 2 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
I noticed that in early December, McIntyre was again/still attempting to sow doubt about reconstructions. In this case, it was the Briffa et al 2001 line in Figure 1 of Mann et al (2003). In short, that line of the plot appears to end around 1940. Someone asked about this over at RealClimate and I think it might be useful to provide a link to the question and Gavin's response Dr. Schmidt's key points are -It's interesting to add that in Briffa et al, 1998, they state: "Over the hemisphere, the divergence between tree growth and mean summer temperatures began perhaps as early as the 1930s;".
andThe divergence issue as a recognised problem predates this paper by years (Briffa et al, 1998), and was discussed in the almost contemporaneous Jones and Mann (2004) paper. That paper was a little clearer about what was done and why (i.e. fig 5): The various other (smoothed) NH reconstructions shown in the enlargement to Figure 5a have been scaled by linear regression against the smoothed instrumental NH series over the common interval 1856–1980, with the exception of the ‘‘Briffa et al.’’ series, which has been scaled over the shorter 1856–1940 interval owing to a decline in temperature response in the underlying data discussed elsewhere [Briffa et al., 1998a].
-
ta7king at 02:17 AM on 2 January 2012Positive feedback means runaway warming
Nealjking, Thanks for your explanation, and especially thanks for the maths! I know you have stated that your mathematical analyses is overly simplified, but considering an increase in temperature can allow a rapid rise in absolute humidity, inducing an increase in radiative forcing which is not restricted to a logarithmic limiter, shouldn’t your advanced explanation at least take this into account. I still can’t see that earth could be subject to a Venus type runaway, but the argument doesn’t seem to be as obvious as you make out. To me the main danger is that the upper troposphere warms enough to allow a parcel of air to rise through it without dew point being reached. Is that so improbable at low temperatures and pressures? -
John Russell at 23:53 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
I should say straight off that I'm a film-maker myself of 40 years experience. I found the second half of the film to be much more effective than the first half. I don't believe it's right to give airtime to deniers claiming 'the debate is not over' and the like; except in the context of smoking, where it was very powerful to show those clearly ridiculous presenters holding cigarettes claiming that there are scientific papers denying the link between inhaling tobacco smoke and cancer. I don't like the use of fantastical, graphically-enhanced 'scare' composites showing -- for example -- barefooted children standing on parched, cracked mud with smoke rolling over them in an orange landscape. I do like the use of real documentary footage of melting glaciers, deforested river valleys, flooded towns and drought-ravaged crops. I do not support the use of text-based documents as cutaways where one's attention is split between what is read and what is being said: the viewer takes in neither. VO should always repeat exactly what is being shown as text so that it emphasises the text rather than fighting it. Emotive music should be used sparingly for emphasis -- not as wallpaper. Less is more. Generally I found this film to be a good tribute to a great man; Stephen Schneider. Do I think it could have made better use of the material it contained? Yes. I would have cut around 2 minutes out of it, tightened it and made it more factual and less emotive in places. I would have looked for more very short clips of politicians and presenters in denial clearly making obviously ideological personal attacks and avoided anything that could sound reasonable to the ignorant. The phrase "the debate is not over", should be avoided at all costs. It just sounds too bloody reasonable to those with no understanding of the subject. I would have cut out all references to Schneider's quote about the two extreme views and their improbability; especially as it was juxtaposed alongside some apocalyptic graphics -- like the one with the child -- that seem to contradict his statement. Keep the message clear and simple. It always works best. Hope that helps. -
catamon at 22:02 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
I think what struck me was the calm way he pointed out that: "The end of the world and what’s good for you are the two lowest probability outcomes" That's very true, makes sense (particularly in the fire-insurance context in which it was used), but i can just see some of those who claim to be "Skeptics" latching onto this comment as: "Reputable Scientist Recants and Refutes CAGW!!" with the quote re-written as: "The end of the world, lowest probability outcome" All in all i think the vid is a fine piece and a good attempt at communicating where the issue is, broadly, at the moment. -
OPatrick at 21:40 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
Sorry for stirring things up there Rob (P). I've deliberately only watched this through once and whilst I thought the video was spot on, for me, I am left with two strong impressions from it - one is the 'CO2 is good for you' advert and the other the is that there are two equally wrong extremes in the climate debate, catastrophe and 'good for you'. I can see how these could be the two messages that someone who hasn't previously engaged with the debate could take away from watching it. We all know that advertising works at some level, I don't like cola but when I'm hot and thirsty and see a cold can of coke I still hear a little animal part of my brain saying "buy it". I also think the "The end of the world and what’s good for you are the two lowest probability outcomes" message is the wrong one, it sets up a false equivalence. For a start, whilst they may be equally probable they shouldn't have equal impacts on our decision making. Even if there is only a minute chance of truly catastrophic outcomes this is still significant, whilst a tiny chance that we will see some improvement in our lives cannot balance out the risks of serious impacts. But I also think it doesn't fairly reflect the significance given to the two extremes. On the one hand we have people standing up in congress saying increased CO2 will be beneficial, but you have to dig up obscure video footage of a known controversialist to hear the other extreme. -
Bert from Eltham at 17:40 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
The inertia or time lag or whatever you want to call it for heating a whole planet and we are just measuring it now is something that really scares me. The final equilibrium will be far worse than we can even predict. It is sad that small minds grasp the tiniest straw to boost their false beliefs. The fence sitters have been conned by very dark forces. It is impossible to have a reasonable conversation about Global Warming with people who wake up in the morning and it is 15C and by lunchtime it gets to 37C. The glazed eyes are the give away. Bert -
Tom Curtis at 17:06 PM on 1 January 2012Hockey stick is broken
Readers should note that Doug Cotton has been banned from commenting at SkS for repeated and deliberate violations of the comments policy. He continues violate the policy by posting under pseudonyms and has, I believe, his comments deleted as a result without any regard to their particular content. He is now claiming on his website that his posts are being deleted because we cannot refute his arguments. That is a lie. His arguments where considered fully and resoundingly rebutted previously on SkS as they also have on Science of Doom (where he has also been banned for repeated violation of comments policy). I note that there is no posting permitted on his website. By his logic that lack of permission to post an argument means the argument cannot be refuted, his refusal to allow comments is sufficient proof that his arguments have been refuted. Less facetiously, if anyone believes there is any credibility to Doug Cotton's arguments, by all means present them on an appropriate thread, and in compliance with the comments policy. I enjoy shooting sitting ducks. -
Tom Curtis at 16:51 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
With indulgence from the moderator, one small additional point. The 1966 guesstimate by Lamb much loved by deniers shows a 1.5 degree C difference between LIA and MWP, and hence shows to great a difference. As the LIA estimate is anchored by (an admittedly local) instrumental record, the conclusion must be that he overestimated the MWP warmth by about 0.5 degrees C, exactly as shown by MBH 99.Moderator Response: Really, everybody please pick one of the several more relevant threads. -
Tom Curtis at 16:45 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
dawsonjg @25, this is venturing into of topic territory so any further discussion on this point should be taken to another thread. For the record, it is possible to use the CO2 content of the atmosphere as a a measure of globally integrated sea surface temperature so long as net emissions are not large (ie, prior to the preindustiral era). Therefore based on the approximately 12 ppm difference in CO2 concentration between the peak of the MWP and the Maunder Minimum, there was approximately a 1 degree C difference in temperature between those times. On that basis, Moberg 2005 is likely to be a more accurate reconstruction than either Mann 2008 EIV or Mann 2008 CPS (where EIV and CPS refer to different reconstruction methods applied to the same data). However, as the following chart shows, the difference between the methods is small:
Based on that estimate, Moberg 2005 and Ljungqvist 2010 are both reasonably accurate. Mann 2008 EIV probably slightly overestimates MWP temperatures and LIA temperatures. Mann 2008 CPS is probably closer than the EIV result for the MWP but overestimates LIA temperatures. None of these estimates are certain enough to be considered the last word, however, all of them show MWP temperatures lower than 21st century (and late 20th century) temperatures. Given margins of error, it is possible but improbable that individual decades in the MWP were warmer than the the first decade of the 21st century. It is slightly more probable, but not very that some individual years in the MWP where warmer than the warmest years of the late 20th and early 21st century (1998, 2005, 2007, and 2010).
Any further discussion should be here.
-
Daniel Bailey at 16:41 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Indeed, Tom. In your words I am minded of those by Martin Niemöller:First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
In his continued prosecution of his agenda, dawsonjg shows his disinterest in the science in favor of ideology. So we must needs continue to continually debunk these selfsame tired memes for what they truly are: empty and vacuous dissembling. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:40 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Yup. Sorry for the confusion. I mean MBH99. I promise, it was the champaign talking!Moderator Response: [JH] We presume that you meant "champagne." -
Tom Curtis at 16:31 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Rob, I'm sure you meant Man Bradley and Hughes (MBH 99 rather than McIntyre and McKitrick (2001 MM). (I know your not confused, but I don't want casual readers to be confused by a mistype.) McIntyre and McKitrick's papers were in 2003 and 2005 (from memory). -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:28 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
dawsonjg... It seems to me there are a plethora of reconstructions to choose from. No one study is going to be absolute but you can be pretty sure that if you have nearly a dozen projects returning very similar results that you've got a pretty robust conclusion. -
dawsonjg at 16:07 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Thanks Tom, since I must move on from Mann 1998, might I enquire about Mann 2008? Is it your conviction that during the intervening decade the wrinkles were ironed out and the new improved hockey stick got it pretty right?Moderator Response: As I told you earlier, there is a more appropriate thread. Use it. -
Rob Honeycutt at 15:52 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
dawsonjg... One of the things people neglect to acknowledge about the 2001 MM graph is that it is just a 1000 year reconstruction. It does not eliminate the MWP but rather starts in the middle of the MWP. What disinformers have done is to focus on all the local temperature records that show the MWP warmer today, but ignoring the local records that show a MWP cooler than today, especially avoiding the records that show the records that are opposite sine from the MWP/LIA. What I continually point out is the fact that the "skeptics" of the hockey stick have never managed to produce a multi-proxy reconstruction that shows anything other than a hockey stick. -
Tom Curtis at 15:45 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
dawsonjg @42, the following chart shows three reconstructions. The first in dark red is MBH 99, which was shown to underestimate centennial variability. The second from Esper et al 2002 (dark blue) used a method which is known to overestimate variability. Finally, the last is from Mann et al 2008 (Orange), and is typical of modern reconstructions:
As you can see, there is far more agreement between MBH 99 and the other two reconstructions during the MWP than there is during the LIA. So while there is some justification for saying MBH 99 eliminated the LIA, there is no justification for saying it eliminated the MWP.
For completeness, some modern reconstructions (including the Mann 2008 EIV method) show MWP temperatures 0.3 degrees C warmer than those shown by MBH 99 (and Mann et al 2008 CPS method). The fact that the use of two different but justifiable methods on the same data can result in that 0.3 C difference shows that reconstructions in that era are uncertain. But 0.3 C above MBH 99 (0.2 C above the mid 20th century baseline) is still 0.3 C less than modern temperatures.
Finally, I am unimpressed by deniers saying that in order to move on we just need to accept unjustified slanders against Michael Mann. The story about how they first came for the Jews comes to mind. If we allow unjustified slanders to stand against Mann, and cut him loose; deniers will just turn to their next target.
Nor are we defending any "sainthood" of Mann. MBH 98 and 99 had flaws, as has been shown by genuine scientific critiques, including by Mann himself. But I am not going to let lies about him stand just for the convenience of deniers who continue to make accusations without substantive evidence.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:16 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
It's even bizarre to me that a person can completely gloss over the "cacophony of conflicting voice" backed by fossil fuel interests and instead land on "5m sea level rise." -
jyyh at 15:16 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
I don't understand this 'fence-sitter' issue at all. Either you think, believe or know that ice will melt at temperatures of over 32F (0C) or you don't. In the latter case you either deny the existence of agreed temperature scales, physical reality, or the conservation of mass in regular thermodynamics, mechanics or chemistry. Maybe this is too bluntly said, so feel free to delete this if it's outside the policy here. -
dawsonjg at 15:15 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
The 2001 hockey stick did not simply imply that the Current Warm Period is slightly warmer than the MWP scaddenp, it eliminated the MWP. That got it wrong. (-Snip-).Response:[DB] It has been pointed out to you a number of times now that both Mann and the science have moved on, that the "hockey stick" has been replicated in multiple reconstructions and in virtually every single temperature series and metric. Now it is time to move this dialogue on; you beat a dead horse.
Overheated rhetoric snipped.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:12 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
Hank @ 3... You would have to be working very hard to avoid Schneider's message if "5m of sea level rise" was your take-away. He clearly states that... "End of the world and good for you are the two least likely outcomes." But the issue with sea level rise is in relation to tipping points. He states that we know that those tipping points are there, yet we don't know where they are. We might not know when we've crossed one of those tipping points for 50 years. He's talking about the world we are bequeathing to later generations. -
Tom Curtis at 15:05 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
dawsonjg @39, the defamatory campaign against Michael Mann does not simply say he was wrong. They accuse him of deliberate fraud. Indeed, googling "Michael", "Mann", "fraud", "MWP" turns up 2,390,000 hits so the campaign is extensive. Further, McIntyre did not just say Mann was wrong. Searching his site for "Mann", "Fraud" turns up 32 articles. And, quite frankly, you did not just say that Mann was wrong. Your original, and demonstrably false, claim was that Mann had defamed McIntyre. There is no point coming over all coy and innocent. The corpse is on the floor, the blood is all over you and the knife is in your hands. As demonstrated by Caerbannog above and elsewhere in this site, McIntyre's criticisms of Mann have been poorly grounded, false or based on invalid statistics. Despite that, they have resulted in endless accusations of fraud, death threats, two congressional ordered inquiries and endless efforts to defame Mann of which yours is just the latest. -
Rob Painting at 14:06 PM on 1 January 2012Hockey stick is broken
Muon, it was Doug Cotton again. What's that his 6th or 7th fake identity?Response:[DB] Sorry guys. Just fingered him & took action.
-
muoncounter at 14:01 PM on 1 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
Robert Murphy#63: "the Democrats still have a hard argument claiming lack of power in the Senate" Nonsense. The filibuster is the Republican Party's Golden Ticket to obstructionism.
And let's not forget about the magic 'hold' that any one Senator can put on pending legislation and nominations to fill what are essentially non-political, administrative jobs.
a particularly egregious case was when Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) placed secret holds on 70 of President Obama's nominations to win terms more favorable to his state on an Air Force contract to build aerial refueling tankers.
One man, one vote went the way of the flintlock musket. Call this 'tyranny of the minority'.
Prev 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 Next
