That paper does not support a hockeystick - did you even read it?
According to our reconstruction, high temperatures —similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990— occurred around AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7K below the average of 1961–90 occurred around AD 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue.
The map at the top here claims (although I haven't personally gone through them all) that there are quite a lot of peer reviewed studies all pointing to a MWP warmer than today:
Why do you post that list as if it agrees with your statement? (It doesn't).
Atmospheric temperatures do not agree with AGW (the "heating" isn't where it "should be").
Sea temperatures show no AGW, but show the different cycles of PDO, AMO etc well.
Land temperatures - as also discussed in the leaked emails - show double the heating of the sea, which is unexplained (unless you subscribe to the theory that UHI is severely affecting the record)
Ice Core samples - the diffusion problem is still up in the air [hah].
Tree rings - good precipitation proxy. Not so much for temperature, which has been made evidently clear in the Briffa fiasco.
Growing season changes - on track as they've been throughout history.
Species/altitude - see above. We _know_ this has changed before, frozen pollen etc.
Arctic ice retreat - which retreat? 2007 was a low year due to _winds_ (known), and has increased since then.
General glacier retreat - end of Little Ice Age should cause that, and according to India it's much overblown for the Himalayas.
Measured mean sea level rise - in principle nonexistent according to photographic evidence and experts in the field (Mörner)...
Maybe you should read something else but the IPCC, which according to the leaked data is a compilation of personal quests by some scientists to favour their own pet ideas about the world and keep everything else out?
[everything written in this post easily googleable]
I think much of this stems from McIntyre teaching Mann and Briffa a bit about statistics;)
I agree datasets can be meaningfully compared. If the proxy matched up against known value then it might even be a good proxy.
As it is, the proxies Mann and Briffa "found" are lousy - and trying to hide that by using completely separate data and smooth over the disagreement between the datasets simply isn't good science.
It's an interesting hypothesis, but I'd say it's falsified due to not holding up to scrutiny when verified against other proxies (the MWP being a good place to look).
By all means, please produce a hockey stick graph of temperatures over the last two millennia without using the falsified works of Mann or Briffa.
Either you're saying that the proxy is correct (no MWP for example) - but then the recent temperature record isn't, or you're saying that the recent temperature record is correct (we've managed to handle citing, UHI etc) but then the proxy isn't (thus there was likely a MWP warmer than today, as published in numerous peer-reviewed papers).
Take your pick. If you've got something not based on the works of Mann or Briffa, it's even worth publishing:)
... and yet they continued to publish a dataset which they knew didn't hold up to scrutiny.
Either the proxy isn't a good proxy, or the temperature record isn't a good record. You can have either, but not both.
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum. - Michael Mann
Sure. Let's take the case of AGW currently resting on a single dead tree in Siberia as an example. Faulty research is used as the base for other papers, and thus overthrowing the original research casts doubt on everything that has been built upon it later.
You see, while it's a common misconception that there are "numerous independent data sources" that "prove" anthropogenic global warming, it's simply not true.
Now I'll try to come up with a comprehensive single link to convey this picture. Maybe this works:
As an active palaeoclimate scientist and also someone who has published in Nature I am deeply disturbed by this editorial. I have written to the editor and cancelled my subscription. There is no room in science for such closed minds. I fear that the editorial is now running behind the pack. By all accounts there is every chance the UEA investigation will be thorough and watching the Vice-Chancellor on television this evening he certainly was very careful to not defend CRU.
The leaked archive was a cherry-picked portion of the email. Which for me begged the question of where the person who leaked it possibly came up with the time and resources to go through the GBs of data and pick out all the bits that made the researchers look bad.
There had been previous cases where CRU employees put data in unprotected FTP directories (open FTP server) while either working on it or intending to send it to colleagues at other institutions.
Many have begun to think that the zip archive FOI2009.zip was prepared internally by CRU in response to Steve McIntyre’s FOI requests... and then downloaded by someone. After all, people had already found interesting stuff on their public server...
You mean the 800-1300 AD warming period seen in Europe due to changes in the gulf stream/jet stream, which was not warmer anywhere else on Earth?
vs
Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5C warmer world wide.
Wikipedia has lots of problems where edits get reverted even when they're factual because it doesn't fit with someone's opinions. Better info on the (global) MWP here:
It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5C warmer world wide.
it is normal to try and correct it based on your understanding of what might have gone wrong. And you call that a "trick".
Well, since the code is out - what's your opinion of using an array of made-up numbers with which to interpolate the real readings - causing that which you want to claim?
1 ; 2 ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! 3 ; 4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] 5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor 6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!' 7 8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
There's only a few places in Sweden where 24MBit ADSL isn't offered. Cable companies are now pusing 100MBit as well, and a lot of buildings in the major cities are wired up with 100MBit ethernet (mine's 100/100 at that). There are even a few with 1GBit...
That's the second post in which you imply that the word "pirate" means "copyright infringement".
Two of the more famous authors in Sweden, founders of "the pirate book publishing company" (Piratförlaget) would seem to disagree. They're very anti-copyright infringement.
if we did, we'd be able to build systems that were robust against idiotic behaviour we haven't thought of yet.
People who are against everything "nucular" with Tchernobyl and Three Mile Island as their sole arguments have so far been able to stop us from building them.
The issue of long-term effects of the Chernobyl disaster on civilians is very controversial. The number of people whose lives were affected by the disaster is enormous. Over 300,000 people were resettled because of the disaster; millions lived and continue to live in the contaminated area. On the other hand, most of those affected received relatively low doses of radiation; there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain.
(I live in one of the countries with food restrictions btw. Reading that Wikipedia entry was the first time since the late 80s I've even heard of them)
Tchernobyl, of course, being not an accident but a deliberate test done with security systems shut off. I can't really see how it is even relevant in a discussion about nuclear safety.
Slashdot Mirror
That paper does not support a hockeystick - did you even read it?
According to our reconstruction, high temperatures —similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990— occurred around AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7K below the average of 1961–90 occurred around AD 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue.
Is the concept of "hockeystick" unclear?
With regards to your question: http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N5/C1.php
The map at the top here claims (although I haven't personally gone through them all) that there are quite a lot of peer reviewed studies all pointing to a MWP warmer than today:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
Why do you post that list as if it agrees with your statement? (It doesn't).
Atmospheric temperatures do not agree with AGW (the "heating" isn't where it "should be").
Sea temperatures show no AGW, but show the different cycles of PDO, AMO etc well.
Land temperatures - as also discussed in the leaked emails - show double the heating of the sea, which is unexplained (unless you subscribe to the theory that UHI is severely affecting the record)
Ice Core samples - the diffusion problem is still up in the air [hah].
Tree rings - good precipitation proxy. Not so much for temperature, which has been made evidently clear in the Briffa fiasco.
Growing season changes - on track as they've been throughout history.
Species/altitude - see above. We _know_ this has changed before, frozen pollen etc.
Arctic ice retreat - which retreat? 2007 was a low year due to _winds_ (known), and has increased since then.
General glacier retreat - end of Little Ice Age should cause that, and according to India it's much overblown for the Himalayas.
Measured mean sea level rise - in principle nonexistent according to photographic evidence and experts in the field (Mörner) ...
Maybe you should read something else but the IPCC, which according to the leaked data is a compilation of personal quests by some scientists to favour their own pet ideas about the world and keep everything else out?
[everything written in this post easily googleable]
I think much of this stems from McIntyre teaching Mann and Briffa a bit about statistics ;)
I agree datasets can be meaningfully compared. If the proxy matched up against known value then it might even be a good proxy.
As it is, the proxies Mann and Briffa "found" are lousy - and trying to hide that by using completely separate data and smooth over the disagreement between the datasets simply isn't good science.
It's an interesting hypothesis, but I'd say it's falsified due to not holding up to scrutiny when verified against other proxies (the MWP being a good place to look).
By all means, please produce a hockey stick graph of temperatures over the last two millennia without using the falsified works of Mann or Briffa.
Either you're saying that the proxy is correct (no MWP for example) - but then the recent temperature record isn't, or you're saying that the recent temperature record is correct (we've managed to handle citing, UHI etc) but then the proxy isn't (thus there was likely a MWP warmer than today, as published in numerous peer-reviewed papers).
Take your pick. If you've got something not based on the works of Mann or Briffa, it's even worth publishing :)
... and yet they continued to publish a dataset which they knew didn't hold up to scrutiny.
Either the proxy isn't a good proxy, or the temperature record isn't a good record. You can have either, but not both.
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum. - Michael Mann
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810
Sure. Let's take the case of AGW currently resting on a single dead tree in Siberia as an example. Faulty research is used as the base for other papers, and thus overthrowing the original research casts doubt on everything that has been built upon it later.
You see, while it's a common misconception that there are "numerous independent data sources" that "prove" anthropogenic global warming, it's simply not true.
Now I'll try to come up with a comprehensive single link to convey this picture. Maybe this works:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/ ... and in detail:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
If you study the leaked data in question, there's no doubt as to realclimate's role in this. Thus, your use of the word "thought" is in error.
(Your links are fine though, I just wanted to clarify the comment about realclimate)
As an active palaeoclimate scientist and also someone who has published in Nature I am deeply disturbed by this editorial. I have written to the editor and cancelled my subscription. There is no room in science for such closed minds. I fear that the editorial is now running behind the pack. By all accounts there is every chance the UEA investigation will be thorough and watching the Vice-Chancellor on television this evening he certainly was very careful to not defend CRU.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/2/has-nature-overstepped-the-mark.html
Why would it be lucky, since what you posted simply isn't true?
The leaked archive was a cherry-picked portion of the email. Which for me begged the question of where the person who leaked it possibly came up with the time and resources to go through the GBs of data and pick out all the bits that made the researchers look bad.
There had been previous cases where CRU employees put data in unprotected FTP directories (open FTP server) while either working on it or intending to send it to colleagues at other institutions.
Many have begun to think that the zip archive FOI2009.zip was prepared internally by CRU in response to Steve McIntyre’s FOI requests ... and then downloaded by someone. After all, people had already found interesting stuff on their public server ...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/the-crutape-letters%C2%AE-an-alternate-explanation/
unprecedented levels of CO2
CO2 levels have been more than an order of magnitude higher without runaway greenhouse effects before.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.htm
You mean the 800-1300 AD warming period seen in Europe due to changes in the gulf stream/jet stream, which was not warmer anywhere else on Earth?
vs
Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5C warmer world wide.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
Maybe because those periods weren't as warm globally as you think they were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warming
Wikipedia has lots of problems where edits get reverted even when they're factual because it doesn't fit with someone's opinions. Better info on the (global) MWP here:
It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5C warmer world wide.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
Sure - I'd say most of these are pretty damning, esp. if you subscribe to this thing called "the scientific process":
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
it is normal to try and correct it based on your understanding of what might have gone wrong. And you call that a "trick".
Well, since the code is out - what's your opinion of using an array of made-up numbers with which to interpolate the real readings - causing that which you want to claim?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/
1 ;
2 ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3 ;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
There's only a few places in Sweden where 24MBit ADSL isn't offered. Cable companies are now pusing 100MBit as well, and a lot of buildings in the major cities are wired up with 100MBit ethernet (mine's 100/100 at that). There are even a few with 1GBit ...
From the sound of it I guess you've already tried everything, but anyway ... ;)
http://www.azcentral.com/health/news/articles/1029health-antibiotics29-ON.html
She gets these extremely powerful antibiotics ('z-pak') prescribed for _anything_. Even just a light cold.
Someone should tell the doctor that colds are caused by viruses, and antibiotics only work against bacteria.
Or tell your GF at least.
I was with you all the way up until you wrote "laws of social science". Asimov rest in peace, but no.
"Don't believe everything you think" by Kida and "Kluge" by Marcus are further recommended reading on the topic.
That's the second post in which you imply that the word "pirate" means "copyright infringement".
Two of the more famous authors in Sweden, founders of "the pirate book publishing company" (Piratförlaget) would seem to disagree. They're very anti-copyright infringement.
Most of the innovation in the western world is due to patents.
No.
(Yes, I'm a patent holder)
fission power is particularly susceptible to idiotic behaviour
[citation needed]
and no one anywhere has any idea of how to ensure that design errors of that kind do not happen
We do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
if we did, we'd be able to build systems that were robust against idiotic behaviour we haven't thought of yet.
People who are against everything "nucular" with Tchernobyl and Three Mile Island as their sole arguments have so far been able to stop us from building them.
Yes?
The issue of long-term effects of the Chernobyl disaster on civilians is very controversial. The number of people whose lives were affected by the disaster is enormous. Over 300,000 people were resettled because of the disaster; millions lived and continue to live in the contaminated area. On the other hand, most of those affected received relatively low doses of radiation; there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain.
(I live in one of the countries with food restrictions btw. Reading that Wikipedia entry was the first time since the late 80s I've even heard of them)
Tchernobyl, of course, being not an accident but a deliberate test done with security systems shut off. I can't really see how it is even relevant in a discussion about nuclear safety.