Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Why doesn't the Spectator "get" global warming?
Folks might also like to view:
A talk given by Gerry North at Texas A&M University.
It commends Mann's 99 paper on it's use of error bars, shows how different proxies also give 'hockey stick' curves, rips into Wegman's report for not having anonymous referees, ignoring referee criticism, and only having expertise in stats - as opposed to his broad-based panel.
He concludes Mann got it right, makes reference to bristlecones as proxies without denigrating them.
In reference to statistics and proxies he says:
"It's not just a statistical ensemble here: there are differences in the physics"
Other nice stuff: Medieval Warming was in the Arctic for sure - probably not everywhere.
Congressional hearing are a joke.
AGW does not depend on Hockey-stick curves - the linchpin is the physics.
Be warned - it's about one hour and five minutes, but well worth it to debunk the 'Hockey Stick' rubbish that floats around the net.
Some quotations from scientists involved with the IPCC:
Vincent Gray, climate scientist, expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports: "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."
Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer, climate/atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."
Tom V. Segalstad, geologist/geochemist, head of the Geological Museum - University of Oslo, past expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."
David Wojick, UN IPCC expert reviewer, co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this....The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."
Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, nuclear physcist: “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil....I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”
Frederick Seitz, Past President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences: The IPCC “is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty....the 1990 IPCC Summary “completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists — in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based on the now-discredited hockey stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activities, which are likely to dominate any human influence.”
And the opinions of a couple of scientific Nobel Prize winners:
Nobel Prize Winner For Physics, Ivar Giaever: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”
Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis: “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple."
"a.m.r." - thanks for copying and pasting from the various denier websites that cobble this nonsense together. Meanwhile, you conveniently fail to address the central point of my post - that is, the scientists cited by the deniers tend not to be experts in this field, tend not to have published in this field, tend to be retired, discredited or in the pay of the energy lobby.
Take Vincent Gray. A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal (!) with the last article being published 17 years ago.
Or take your man Richard Courtney who, according to Source Watch, is "Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry) who lives in Epsom, Surrey (UK). In the early 1990s Courtney was a Senior Material Scientist of the National Coal Board (also known as British Coal) and a Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management."
These are your heroes? These are the guys you're going to go with, over the IPCC, NASA and 75 scientific societies and academies of science across the globe, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries?
In a word, the deniers are just desperate, more so than with other scientific issues because this one is so big.
Big business and its apologists know that their profits won't be nearly as high if they have to make cutbacks to become more environmentally friendly, and governments are scared too to take any real action. Of course global warming is real: you just have to look at the prolonged droughts and the extreme bushfires here in Australia in recent years, for example, which are far worse than anything in the past.
Eamon, I'm abroad at the moment, so I'll just keep it to the following:
Why were bristlecones, which come from only one part of the US, and are CO2 covariant (making them a terrible choice for comparisons of CO2 and temperature), given a greater weight by Mann than boreholes, which are from hundreds of sites across the globe?
Non-proxy borehole temperature reconstructions (which are amongst our most reliable guides to general trends in the last few centuries) from at least a thousand boreholes in Europe, Asia, Africa, America and Australia show warming in the 18th and 19th centuries.
This is supported by human historical records from Europe, the American colonies and China (and various proxy data.), which record unusually low temperatures and their devastating effects on crops and the sea (in terms of ice).
Yet the 'hockey stick' shows warming only starting in the 20th century, and temperatures at the beginning of the 20th century as being the coldest in the last 500 years.
Do you seriously believe Mann's assertion (through his graph) that the beginning of the 20th century was the coldest in the last 500 years?
His graph had an R2 near zero, making it worthless. He knew this, yet he presented it as good evidence. I'm not sure why you're defending bad science.
a.m.r., why do you keep on forgetting that it DID NOT MATTER whether Mann used bristlecones or not. That's what Mann 2008 shows. Of course, you also forget the various uncertainties that are ALSO clearly discussed in the papers.
And your fetish with boreholes shows that you don't understand the major problem with borehole temperatures: they lack resolution when going back in time. For example, the resolution for the period 1600-1900 is a whole century. That is, one measurement point per century. And it is not even an ensemble average of that whole century!
Craig Loehle - dropped the problem proxies, and the LIA and MWP are back.
Marco, you made the assertion earlier that all subsequent temperature reconstructions since Mann's hockey stick graph agree with him, which I pointed out was not true (I'll add Loehle to the set of papers I listed,showing different results - an LIA at the very least)
You seem to be supporting strip-bark bristlecone proxies (to be avoided according to the NAS 'North' report, and also restricted to just one area of the US), and at the same time disparaging borehole reconstructions (praised by the North report as being particularly valuable, and covering all continents apart from Antartica).
True, borehole resolution is on the multi-decadal scale, but that doesn't make it any less useful in determining whether warming took place in the last few centuries.
Mann's hockey stick graph shows the beginning of the 20th century to have been the coldest in the last 500 years - do you believe this to be true?
For example, we know that the Baltic sea was frozen over at times in the 17th century (and that temperatures were very low in Europe and China, causing agricultural disaster).
If, according to Mann's graph, temperatures were warmer in the 17th century than early 20th, there must have been other places on the globe in the 17th c. which were unusually very warm to bring the global mean temperature higher then than the early 20th c.
Can you point me to the evidence for this? It doesn't seem to exist.
a.m.r., Loehle ?
And yes, the other reconstructions broadly agree with Mann's initial analysis. As I noted, there are differences in magnitude of MWP and LIA, but some have that upwards, other downwards. Mann's analysis is almost an average of the other reconstructions
You also keep on focusing on the bristlecone issue, without noting that Mann 2008 shows that including or excluding that data has very little influence on the data. I've now mentioned that a few times, but you just close your eyes.
Then to your claim that Mann's graph shows that the 17th century was warmer than the early 20th century:
Note the confidentiality range.
I don't understand your reference to the Baltic Sea having been frozen in the 17th century. There is ONE year in the 17th century where this supposedly happened. Now, that also happened in 1942 and 1966 (and almost completely in 1987)...were these periods also as cold as the early 20th century?
you are beating a dead donkey with your obsession on Bristlecones. North's objection to them was if they were used in the last 150 years - where the increased atmospheric CO2 levels could have affected their growth.
The LIA, and the contested MWP are well beyond 150 years ago.
Watch North's talk I referred to in my reply of the 25th of September - all 1 hour and 5 minutes are well worth it.
Please state which papers from Craig Loehle you're referring to.
Are they perhaps in 'Energy & Environment', a journal with a notoriously poorly peer-review system?
Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.