Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Old 08-30-11, 04:26 AM
  #226  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Kailua, HI
Posts: 4,795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I'm also a big fan of Reason and Ron Bailey. I'm still probably more skeptical than he is on global warming, but it's refreshing to see someone who seems open to accepting whatever conclusions are best supported by the data, rather than constantly trying to shove square pegs into round holes as many on both sides of the debate seem prone to do.
Old 08-30-11, 09:37 AM
  #227  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,844
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
It was just a well written piece that was a great snap-shot of 2006. His points on Exxon had a ring of truth that I was hoping JasonF's might get some insight from. It's also a good summary of the debate up until 2006 written in a rather fair way (yes, just his opinion... but an rather educated one).

I bookmarked his blogs and I plan on catching up with his work in the next few weeks or so.
I thought it was a good read and good reminder that in general, it is easy to ascribe movites to anyone that are often offbase.
Old 08-30-11, 05:04 PM
  #228  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Some new research supporting the revised hockey-stick model from two different journals. Both in the top 20 in Geophysics (impact ratings mid 3).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JD012603.shtml

Spoiler:
We present a reconstruction of tropical South American temperature anomalies over the last ∼1600 years. The reconstruction is based on a highly resolved and carefully dated ammonium record from an ice core that was drilled in 1999 on Nevado Illimani in the eastern Bolivian Andes. Concerning the relevant processes governing the observed correlation between ammonium concentrations and temperature anomalies, we discuss anthropogenic emissions, biomass burning, and precipitation changes but clearly favor a temperature-dependent source strength of the vegetation in the Amazon Basin. That given, the reconstruction reveals that Medieval Warm Period– and Little Ice Age–type episodes are distinguishable in tropical South America, a region for which until now only very limited temperature proxy data have been available. For the time period from about 1050 to 1300 AD, our reconstruction shows relatively warm conditions that are followed by cooler conditions from the 15th to the 18th century, when temperatures dropped by up to 0.6°C below the 1961–1990 average. The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last ∼1600 years.


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...GL044771.shtml

Spoiler:
The impact of human activities on Earth's climate is still subject to debate and the pattern of a sharp recent global temperature increase contrasting with much lesser variable temperatures during preceding centuries has often been challenged, partly due to the lack of unquestionable evidence. In this paper, oxygen isotope compositions of benthic foraminifer shells recovered from sediments of the Lower St. Lawrence Estuary and the Gulf are used to reconstruct temperature changes in a water mass originating from ∼400 m deep North Atlantic waters. The data demonstrate that the 1.7 ± 0.3°C warming measured during the last century corresponds to a δ18O shift of 0.4 ± 0.05‰, encompassing the temperature effect and related change in the isotopic composition of the corresponding water mass. In contrast, δ18O values remained nearly constant over the last millennium, except for a small positive shift which we attribute to the Little Ice Age. We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.
Old 08-30-11, 05:32 PM
  #229  
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,250
Likes: 0
Received 107 Likes on 68 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Say it ain't so Al...
Al Gore compares climate change skeptics to racists
Posted on 08.28.11
By Andrew Jones

Al Gore continued his criticism of climate change skeptics in an interview with Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky on UStream, going as far as to compare them to the racists of the 20th century.

“There came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural,” Gore said. “Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won. We have to win the conversation on climate.”

When asked by Bogusky about Rick Perry’s recent comments against climate change, Gore focused on not just the Texas governor, but the entire anti-science movement.

“This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money,” Gore said.

“These scientists don’t make a lot of money. They’re comfortable as they should be, but they don’t make a lot of money. It’s not in their nature to get ready to constantly defend themselves against political attacks. That’s not want they expected to be doing in their lives.”

WATCH: Video from UStream, which occurred on August 27, 2011.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/20...cs-to-racists/

So is being called a racist a step up or step down from being called a denier?
Old 08-30-11, 05:44 PM
  #230  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by wishbone View Post
Say it ain't so Al...http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/20...cs-to-racists/

So is being called a racist a step up or step down from being called a denier?
Here is another story with a few more details.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/28/go...tions-racists/

Spoiler:
One day climate change skeptics will be seen in the same negative light as racists, or so says former Vice President Al Gore.

In an interview with former advertising executive and Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky broadcast on UStream on Friday, Gore explained that in order for climate change alarmists to succeed, they must “win the conversation” against those who deny there is a crisis. (RELATED: Bill McKibben: Global warming to blame for Hurricane Irene)

“I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an impression on me,” Gore said. “My generation watched Bull Connor turning the hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, ‘Whoa! How gross and evil is that?’ My generation asked old people, ‘Explain to me again why it is okay to discriminate against people because their skin color is different?’ And when they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really started.”

The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.

“Secondly, back to this phrase ‘win the conversation,’” he continued. “There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with — you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally — but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won.”

“We have to win the conversation on climate,” Gore added.

When Bogusky questioned the analogy, asking if the scientific reasoning behind climate change skeptics might throw a wrench into the good and evil comparison with racism, Gore did not back down.

“I think it’s the same where the moral component is concerned and where the facts are concerned I think it is important to get that out there, absolutely,” Gore said.

Gore also took shots at Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has lambasted climate change alarmists on the presidential campaign trail, and at other politicians who dare to question the veracity of global warming science.

“This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money,” Gore said.

Ironically, back during Perry’s days as a Democrat, the Texas governor supported Gore in his 1988 presidential bid. Perry became a Republican in 1989.
Old 08-30-11, 07:47 PM
  #231  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MI
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

If Al Gore is going to compare skeptics to racists opposed to the Civil Rights movement, isn't it worth pointing out that his own father voted against the Civil Rights Act?
Old 08-30-11, 11:25 PM
  #232  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Gore out does himself once again. Honesty, he does more harm for the pro-CAGW scientific community than anything the skeptics could come up with...
Old 08-31-11, 06:23 AM
  #233  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Some new research supporting the revised hockey-stick model from two different journals. Both in the top 20 in Geophysics (impact ratings mid 3).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JD012603.shtml

Spoiler:
We present a reconstruction of tropical South American temperature anomalies over the last ∼1600 years. The reconstruction is based on a highly resolved and carefully dated ammonium record from an ice core that was drilled in 1999 on Nevado Illimani in the eastern Bolivian Andes. Concerning the relevant processes governing the observed correlation between ammonium concentrations and temperature anomalies, we discuss anthropogenic emissions, biomass burning, and precipitation changes but clearly favor a temperature-dependent source strength of the vegetation in the Amazon Basin. That given, the reconstruction reveals that Medieval Warm Period– and Little Ice Age–type episodes are distinguishable in tropical South America, a region for which until now only very limited temperature proxy data have been available. For the time period from about 1050 to 1300 AD, our reconstruction shows relatively warm conditions that are followed by cooler conditions from the 15th to the 18th century, when temperatures dropped by up to 0.6°C below the 1961–1990 average. The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last ∼1600 years.


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...GL044771.shtml

Spoiler:
The impact of human activities on Earth's climate is still subject to debate and the pattern of a sharp recent global temperature increase contrasting with much lesser variable temperatures during preceding centuries has often been challenged, partly due to the lack of unquestionable evidence. In this paper, oxygen isotope compositions of benthic foraminifer shells recovered from sediments of the Lower St. Lawrence Estuary and the Gulf are used to reconstruct temperature changes in a water mass originating from ∼400 m deep North Atlantic waters. The data demonstrate that the 1.7 ± 0.3°C warming measured during the last century corresponds to a δ18O shift of 0.4 ± 0.05‰, encompassing the temperature effect and related change in the isotopic composition of the corresponding water mass. In contrast, δ18O values remained nearly constant over the last millennium, except for a small positive shift which we attribute to the Little Ice Age. We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.
No one says the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than present in all locations or always at the exact same time. During the MWP (roughly 800-1300), many locations (not just Europe) were warm (mostly warmer than today) for at least part of that period as was the case during the Roman and Minoan warm periods. These are a collection of graphs showing reconstructions for many locations:

http://www.c3headlines.com/temperatu...l-proxies.html
Old 08-31-11, 07:15 AM
  #234  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

In Post #212 I mentioned Bill McKibben and his merry band protesting against the proposed Keystone pipeline from the Alberta, Canada oils sands to the the US. McKibben, Margot Kidder and now James Hansen, alarmist NASA scientist (who has been arrested at protests at least twice before and has testified for trespassers and vandals in Britain), and Darryl Hannah have been arrested.

A State Department environmental impact study has approved the pipeline but it needs final approval from Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama.

Washington Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson weighs in with why we should build this pipeline:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...mlJ_story.html

Robert J. Samuelson
Opinion Writer
Say yes to Canadian oil sands
By Robert J. Samuelson, Published: August 28

When it comes to energy, America is lucky to be next to Canada, whose proven oil reserves are estimated by Oil and Gas Journal at 175 billion barrels. This ranks just behind Saudi Arabia (260 billion) and Venezuela (211 billion) and ahead of Iran (137 billion) and Iraq (115 billion). True, about 97 percent of Canada’s reserves consist of Alberta’s controversial oil sands, but new technologies and high oil prices have made them economically viable. Expanded production can provide the U.S. market with a growing source of secure oil for decades.

We would be crazy to turn our back on this. In a global oil market repeatedly threatened by wars, revolutions, and natural and man-made disasters — and where government-owned oil companies control development of about three-quarters of known reserves — having dependable suppliers is no mean feat. We already import about half of our oil, and Canada is our largest supplier, with about 25 percent of imports. But its conventional fields are declining. Only oil sands can fill the gap.

Will we encourage this? Do we say yes to oil sands? Or do we increase our exposure to unstable world oil markets?

Those are the central questions raised by the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline connecting Alberta’s oil sands to U.S. refineries on the Texas Gulf coast. The pipeline requires White House approval, and environmentalists adamantly oppose it.

To be sure, there are dangers. Pipelines do crack; there are spills. Susan Casey-Lefkowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council reminds of recent spills of about 1 million gallons into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan and about 40,000 gallons into the Yellowstone River in Montana. Moreover, converting into oil the “bitumen” found in oil sands is messy. Some processes have required up to two barrels of water for every barrel of oil. Because energy use is also high, so are greenhouse gases. On a per-barrel basis, emissions have sometimes been double and triple that of standard oil production.

Environmentalists are outraged. They’ve made Keystone into a cause celebre. Sit-ins outside the White House have led to arrests. For President Obama to approve the pipeline would be regarded by his environmental supporters as a complete betrayal.

Actually, the reality is more complex. If Obama rejects the pipeline, he would — perversely — increase greenhouse gas emissions. Canada has made clear that it will proceed with oil sands development regardless of the American decision. If the United States doesn’t want the oil, China and other Asian countries do. Pipelines would be built to the West Coast. Transporting the oil by tanker to Asia would almost certainly create more emissions than moving it by pipeline to closer U.S. markets.

Next, oil sands’ greenhouse gases are exaggerated. Despite high per-barrel emissions, the cumulative total is not large: about 6.5 percent of Canada’s emissions in 2009 and about 0.2 percent of the world’s, according to Canadian government figures. More important, most emissions from oil (70 percent or more) stem from burning the fuel, not extracting and refining it. Here, oil sands and conventional oil don’t differ. When all these “life cycle” emissions — from recovery to combustion — are compared, oil sands’ disadvantage shrinks dramatically. Various studies put it between 5 and 23 percent.

By all logic, the administration’s Keystone decision — overseen by the State Department, which issued a final environmental impact statement last week — should be a snap. Obama wants job creation. Well, TransCanada, the pipeline’s sponsor, says the project should result in 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs. Most would be American, because 80 percent of the 1,661-mile pipeline would be in the United States. Continued development of oil sands would also help the U.S. economy; hundreds of American companies sell oil services in Canada. Finally, production technologies are gradually reducing environmental side effects, including greenhouse emissions.

The real benefit would be a stronger strategic alliance between Canada and the United States. Canada’s oil exports now go almost exclusively to us. Our interest is for this to continue. From 2010 to 2020, oil sands production is projected to double, to 3 million barrels a day; most of that would be available for export. On paper, it might seem that Canada should diversify its oil customers. Not so. Canada’s prospects are so tied to ours that any narrow advantage of having more buyers would vanish if that weakened the U.S. economy.

The United States and Canada are each other’s largest trading partners and closest allies. Oil markets are subtly changing, as more countries — led by China — seek preferential access to scarce global supplies. In the future, security of supply may matter as much as price. The more we can reduce oil demand and increase supply stability, the better off we’ll be. On oil sands, we should just say “yes.”
I just want to say that opponents invariably use the term "tar sands" which was the old name for oil sands. Since we now get oil and not tar from these sands, the name "oil sands" makes more sense (although, arguably, the name was changed, in part, because it sounds better; but before people figured out how to make oil useful some 150 years ago, finding it on your land was usually considered a nuisance). I suspect the opponents continue to say "tar sands" because it sounds worse.

Last edited by movielib; 08-31-11 at 07:45 AM.
Old 08-31-11, 09:05 AM
  #235  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,983
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I don't keep up with this thread, but have yall talked about the CERN study in Nature?
Old 08-31-11, 10:18 AM
  #236  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Venusian View Post
I don't keep up with this thread, but have yall talked about the CERN study in Nature?
See Posts #195-197.
Old 08-31-11, 03:05 PM
  #237  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
No one says the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than present in all locations or always at the exact same time. During the MWP (roughly 800-1300), many locations (not just Europe) were warm (mostly warmer than today) for at least part of that period as was the case during the Roman and Minoan warm periods. These are a collection of graphs showing reconstructions for many locations:

http://www.c3headlines.com/temperatu...l-proxies.html
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/09/n...ent-temps.html

The above graph looks like there is crazy temperature variance (Look at all the spikes and dips!) but it mostly follows Mann's assessment except for 300–800 ad. Not only that, but the author says in the paper that, not surprisingly, c3 didn't link to. How do I know? The author says so in the report itself.

The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.

And

“Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

So, from reading through his reports he basically disagrees with Mann's hockey stick in only one area, but agrees with everything else... including the last spike.

Or is the attempt just showing that if Mann was incorrect about 300-800 ad (there is good arguments that he was or wasn't on both sides) then he must be wrong about everything else? That's a pretty common logical fallacy called false dichotomy.
Old 08-31-11, 04:39 PM
  #238  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/09/n...ent-temps.html

The above graph looks like there is crazy temperature variance (Look at all the spikes and dips!) but it mostly follows Mann's assessment except for 300–800 ad. Not only that, but the author says in the paper that, not surprisingly, c3 didn't link to. How do I know? The author says so in the report itself.

The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.

And

“Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

So, from reading through his reports he basically disagrees with Mann's hockey stick in only one area, but agrees with everything else... including the last spike.

Or is the attempt just showing that if Mann was incorrect about 300-800 ad (there is good arguments that he was or wasn't on both sides) then he must be wrong about everything else? That's a pretty common logical fallacy called false dichotomy.
Perhaps I'm missing something. I admit I am not trained in reading scientific studies.

Here's the abstract:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...1F03891.d01t01

ABSTRACT.

A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N), utilizing many palaeo-temperature proxy records never previously included in any large-scale temperature reconstruction. The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. ad 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. ad 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. ad 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. ad 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.[/quote]
Here's the graph:



Here's the famous Hockey Stick graph:



See the resemblance?

There are easily recognizable Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and Little Ice Age. Mann's original reconstructions showed none of these.

Now granted, he says his reconstruction agrees with Mann 2008 (it clearly doesn't agree at all with Mann et al. 1999 which was the face of the 2001 IPCC Report and which is still widely used today), wherein Mann did a temperature reconstruction with the questionable tree ring proxies omitted.

Here is the 2008 graph:



And here is some criticism from Steve McIntyre without whom (with Ross McKitrick), Mann's new reconstruction would not have been necessary:

http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/03/m...8-mwp-proxies/

http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/07/a...ide-down-mann/

The "upside down Mann" reference is to Mann's having published the Tiljandro lake sediment proxy series upside down and then not correcting it. See:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/2...f-peer-review/

For those that don’t know this story, here’s some links to get yourself up to speed. In a nutshell, Mann took some sediment data, inverted it in sign, and even though the scientist (Tiljander) who gathered and published the data says it is inverted, Mann has done nothing about it, and it continues to find its way into peer reviewed literature.
Maybe it's just me but this still looks pretty different from the 2010 study (definitely a lot closer though).

Look, there is still a great deal of doubt about past temperatures. Outside of taking thermometers and satellites back in time, that will probably always be true. But remember, at least one alarmist wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period" (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rj00BoItw). Mann's 1999 study purported to do just that and it did not fare well. While I think there is evidence that the MWP (and the Roman WP and the Minoan WP) were warmer than today, even if one doubts this there is really no doubt they were warm periods. Today's warming is not unprecedented, there hasn't been much in the last decade (admittedly not all that significant) and any future warming is still in great doubt.

Nivanabob, I really appreciate what you are doing here. I have learned that alarmist scientists are not necessarily as evil as I thought they were and skeptics are not always right or totally honest either (of course I did know that but I now think they may be less right and, in some cases, less honest than I thought they were). I am still far from persuaded that the alarmists are more correct or more pure or honest than the skeptics. In fact, I think there is ample evidence that the opposite is true, just maybe not to the extent I thought.You do know how to read studies much better than I do. I'm sure you will continue to do these more precise analyses and I think we will all be better off for it.

Last edited by movielib; 08-31-11 at 04:46 PM.
Old 08-31-11, 05:10 PM
  #239  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Thanks, that is a lot to digest. I was actually reading up on Watts vs. Mann but didn't have enough time to add any of that as I tend to just ramble on...

And the alarmist/mainstream side could very well be evil when you look at policy, politics or money. I'm just liking their science, I'm woefully ignorant on everything else.
Old 08-31-11, 05:30 PM
  #240  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Thanks, that is a lot to digest. I was actually reading up on Watts vs. Mann but didn't have enough time to add any of that as I tend to just ramble on...

And the alarmist/mainstream side could very well be evil when you look at policy, politics or money. I'm just liking their science, I'm woefully ignorant on everything else.
Actually, that would be McIntyre vs. Mann. On this subject Watts has never done anything but reporting.
Old 09-01-11, 01:44 PM
  #241  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I found the McIntyre research papers for those interested in looking at the source material. Mann was indeed torn to shreds it appears.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/188.pdf

Mann acknowledged many of his errors and has since clarified his research. The changes to the graph did two things: 1) climate skeptics/deniers embraced their major victory and have great ammo for when journalists, bloggers and politicians put up the out-dated graph as proof. And, 2) mainstream researchers / alarmists show that the basic trend remained the same and they now have better research to show. Our old friend Ljungqvist makes the great point on how both sides get away with graph/statistics trickery. If you use under 15 good sources of similar research and plot them over Mann's revised graph you'll see clearly the all the studies that don't match up. If you include 30+ you see a fat blurry chart that appears to match Mann. I always go with "the bigger the sample size the better", but in doing that you tend to gloss over the fact that so many studies conflict in different areas. It's a bit like flipping a coin... do it enough times and you'll get really close to 50-50.

Personally, I think the little-ice age or medieval spike isn't nearly as important fine-tuning the recent instrument data. Do you got a good expert on that Movie?
Old 09-01-11, 01:53 PM
  #242  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

This is just funny. I read this while looking into Mann. A great example why politicians are NOT experts (and occasionally dumb as shit).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in666190.shtml

Spoiler:
The U.S. Senate's leading abuser of science has struck again. Not content with calling the notion of human-caused global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" (as he did in a July 2003 Senate floor speech), last week James Inhofe returned with an "update" on climate-change science. In his latest speech, timed to coincide with the final steps toward implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (which the United States won't be joining), Inhofe asserted that "put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith." Clearly, he hasn't changed his tune.

What separates Inhofe's fixation from similar conservative crusades is just how brazenly it ignores what scientists know with confidence about global warming. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society all broadly agree on this basic point: Temperatures are rising, at least in part as a result of human greenhouse-gas emissions. According to the World Meteorological Organization, 2004 was the fourth-hottest year since 1861, while the past 10 years (excepting 1996) were "among the warmest 10 years on record."

That's not all. Drawing on highly sophisticated computer models, climate scientists can project -- not predict -- how much temperatures may rise by, say, 2100 if we carry on with business as usual. Although scenarios vary, some get pretty severe. So do the projected impacts of climate change: rising sea levels, species extinctions, glacial melting, and so forth.
One might argue, perhaps, that humanity should simply adapt to climatic changes rather than restricting fossil-fuel use. But that's not Inhofe's approach. No matter how strong the evidence of ongoing climate change gets, he simply rejects it. But backed into a corner, Inhofe's arguments have necessarily grown more and more desperate.

For example, in his latest speech, Inhofe continued his curious crusade against a single University of Virginia climate expert, Michael Mann. Mann initially became a target for global warming "skeptics" in 2001 after the IPCC prominently cited his work to show that recent temperatures represent an anomaly in the context of the past 1,000 years. The IPCC reproduced a graph published by Mann and his colleagues that's often referred to as a "hockey stick" because of its shape: After a long, relatively straight line, temperatures spike up in the 20th century.

Ever since then, global warming deniers (and especially Inhofe) have been trying to break the "hockey stick," but their attacks on Mann represent a grand diversion. Although in his latest speech Inhofe refers only to "the hockey stick graph, constructed by Dr. Michael Mann and colleagues," multiple other scientists have produced similar analyses. And even if all of these were to be overturned, that would hardly upend the conclusion that humans are currently heating the planet -- a robust scientific finding based on several different lines of evidence. Rather, shattering the "hockey stick" would merely leave us uncertain as to whether the current temperature spike has any precedent over the past millennium.

In fact, Inhofe's latest foray against Mann throws into question the competence of the senator's scientific-research apparatus. Inhofe charged that recent critics, arguing in the scientific literature, have called Mann's hockey-stick work "just bad science." But the critics in question weren't attacking the "hockey stick" at all. Rather, they were challenging an entirely different paper by Mann and a colleague, and the disagreement concerns the period between 1971 and 1998 -- not the past 1,000 years. It looks as though Inhofe went rifling through the scientific literature to find someone criticizing Michael Mann without even bothering to understand the context of that criticism.

Yet Inhofe's latest speech stoops even lower than this. The senator also implied, on the slender basis of a Washington Post cartoon (which he misinterprets), that some "alarmists" think climate change triggered the recent Asian tsunami. "Are we to believe now that global warming is causing earthquakes?" Inhofe asked rhetorically.

Answer: No, we aren't to believe that. No one believes that.


In criticizing environmental "alarmists" for something that none of them have said, Inhofe has created as big a straw man as we've seen in politics lately. Yet when it comes to climate change, Inhofe doesn't seem to care whether he has a sound argument to make, so long as he has something contrary to say that takes at least some effort to deconstruct.

Let's take one more glance at the way Inhofe abuses climate science. In his latest speech, Inhofe took aim at a recently released report from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, produced by some 300 scientists working under the auspices of the Arctic Council (an intergovernmental group that includes the United States). The report shows that human-caused climate change has already had a pronounced effect in the Arctic region, where average temperatures have shot up "at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades." The result? Ongoing impacts such as melting glaciers and sea ice.

These conclusions come from a body of scientific experts who have studied the problem for four years. What does James Inhofe do when faced with such a major, peer-reviewed scientific consensus document? The same thing he always does: He draws on a tiny number of skeptic scientists, here pointing out that Arctic temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s rival those today, to challenge the consensus. But while 1930s and 1940s Arctic temperatures were probably caused by natural variation, today's temperature spike seems to have a human fingerprint. That's the whole point.

Throughout his speech, moreover, Inhofe made constant reference to a work of fiction: Michael Crichton's new novel, State of Fear. Calling Crichton a "scientist" -- actually, he's an M.D. -- Inhofe credited the author with telling "the real story about global warming" to the public. In fact, Crichton's new book misrepresents climate science nearly as badly as Inhofe does. Inhofe further suggested that Crichton's depictions of environmentalists -- as fear-mongers who hype the possibility of disasters to bring in donations -- show "art imitating life." Actually, Crichton's notion of a global eco-terrorist conspiracy, aided and abetted by leading environmental organizations, seems more than a tad conspiratorial.

Nevertheless, we haven't heard the last from Senator Crank. Speaking of the remaining cadre of climate-science "skeptics," Inhofe pledged in his latest speech: "I will do my part to make sure that they are heard." In other words, he will continue to challenge each new major piece of scientific evidence on climate, raising dubious criticisms rather than trying in earnest to understand the best science. And this is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works talking
Old 09-01-11, 03:06 PM
  #243  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

What happens next is the dreaded "scientific consensus" where Mann's research is pretty well confirmed by just about everyone who matters.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/share...lScience09.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.short

Spoiler:
The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.


http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

Spoiler:
Caspar Ammann, a paleoclimatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), is available to comment on the so-called hockey stick controversy discussed by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The hockey stick refers to the shape of a frequently cited graph of global mean temperature that shows a rapid rise between 1900 and 2000 after 900 years of relative stability. The graph first appeared in a research paper by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes published in the journal Nature in 1998.

Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. Their results appear in two new research papers submitted for review to the journals Geophysical Research Letters and Climatic Change. The authors invite researchers and others to use the code for their own evaluation of the method.

Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analyses at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year.

McIntyre and McKitrick’s papers were published in Energy and Environment (2003 and 2005) and in Geophysical Research Letters (2005).


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL023395.shtml

Spoiler:
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press) and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press).

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales. However, the methods in use are evolving and are expected to improve.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JCli...18.2308R

Spoiler:
Results are presented from a set of experiments designed to investigate factors that may influence proxy-based reconstructions of large-scale temperature patterns in past centuries. The factors investigated include 1) the method used to assimilate proxy data into a climate reconstruction, 2) the proxy data network used, 3) the target season, and 4) the spatial domain of the reconstruction. Estimates of hemispheric-mean temperature are formed through spatial averaging of reconstructed temperature patterns that are based on either the local calibration of proxy and instrumental data or a more elaborate multivariate climate field reconstruction approach. The experiments compare results based on the global multiproxy dataset used by Mann and coworkers, with results obtained using the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (NH) maximum latewood tree-ring density set used by Briffa and coworkers. Mean temperature reconstructions are compared for the full NH (Tropics and extratropics, land and ocean) and extratropical continents only, withvarying target seasons (cold-season half year, warm-season half year, and annual mean). The comparisons demonstrate dependence of reconstructions on seasonal, spatial, and methodological considerations, emphasizing the primary importance of the target region and seasonal window of the reconstruction. The comparisons support the generally robust nature of several previously published estimates of NH mean temperature changes in past centuries and suggest that further improvements in reconstructive skill are most likely to arise from an emphasis on the quality, rather than quantity, of available proxy data.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/sc...d-climate.html

Spoiler:
A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.

The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990's was probably the warmest in a millennium.

But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National Academies said "an array of evidence" supported the main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to old questions.

The study, led by Michael E. Mann, a climatologist now at Pennsylvania State University, was the first to estimate widespread climate trends by stitching together a grab bag of evidence, including variations in ancient tree rings and temperatures measured in deep holes in the earth.

It has been repeatedly attacked by Republican lawmakers and some business-financed groups as built on cherry-picked data meant to create an alarming view of recent warming and play down past natural warm periods.

At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result.

"I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation," said one member, Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North Carolina State University. He added that his impression was the study was "an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure."

More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing the pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with temperature shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high confidence that warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600. And in a news conference here today, three panelists said the current warming was probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.

The experts said there was no reliable way to make estimates for surface-temperature trends in the first millennium A.D.

In the report, the panel stressed that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence," the report said.

The 1999 paper is part of a growing body of work trying to pull together widely disparate clues of climate conditions before the age of weather instruments.

The paper includes a graph of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere that gained the nickname "hockey stick" because of its vivid depiction of a long period with little temperature variation for nearly 1,000 years, followed by a sharp upward hook in recent decades.

The hockey stick has become something of an environmentalist icon. It was prominently displayed in a pivotal 2001 United Nations report concluding that greenhouse gases from human activities had probably caused most of the warming measured since 1950. A version of it is in the Al Gore documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, have repeatedly criticized the Mann study, citing several peer-reviewed papers challenging its methods.

The main critiques were done by Stephen McIntyre, a statistician and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario.

They contended that Dr. Mann and his colleagues selected particular statistical methods and sets of data, like a record of rings in bristlecone pine trees, that were most apt to produce a picture of unusual recent warming. They also complained that Dr. Mann refused to share his data and techniques.

In an interview, Dr. Mann expressed muted satisfaction with the panel's findings. He said it clearly showed that the 1999 analysis has held up over time.

But he complained that the committee seemed to forget about the many caveats that were in the original paper. "Even the title of the paper on which all this has been based is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings," he said.

Raymond S. Bradley, a University of Massachusetts geoscientist and one of Dr. Mann's co-authors, said that the caveats were dropped mainly as the graph was widely reproduced by others. (The other author of the 1999 paper was Malcolm K Hughes of the University of Arizona.)

The report was done at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, who called last November for a review of the 1999 study and related research to clear the air.

In a statement, Mr. Boehlert, who is retiring at the end of the year, expressed satisfaction with the results, saying, "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change — which doesn't rest primarily on these temperature issues, in any event — or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work."


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD006352.shtml

Spoiler:
Previous tree-ring–based Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions portray a varying amplitude range between the “Medieval Warm Period” (MWP), “Little Ice Age” (LIA) and present. We describe a new reconstruction, developed using largely different methodologies and additional new data compared to previous efforts. Unlike earlier studies, we quantify differences between more traditional (STD) and Regional Curve Standardization (RCS) methodologies, concluding that RCS is superior for retention of low-frequency trends. Continental North American versus Eurasian RCS series developed prior to merging to the hemispheric scale cohere surprisingly well, suggesting common forcing, although there are notable deviations (e.g., fifteenth to sixteenth century). Results indicate clear MWP (warm), LIA (cool), and recent (warm) episodes. Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600–1609) to warmest (1937–1946) decades. However, we advise caution with this analysis. Although we conclude, as found elsewhere, that recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium, we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely “flatten out” estimates for this period relative to twentieth century warming, which expresses a more homogenous global “fingerprint.” Therefore we stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16469924

Spoiler:
Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period.


http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Thompson...hange-2003.pdf

Spoiler:
This paper examines the potential of the stable isotopic ratios, 18O/16O (δ18Oice) and 2H/1H (δDice), preserved in mid to low latitude glaciers as a tool for paleoclimate reconstruction. Ice cores are particularly valuable as they contain additional data, such as dust concentrations, aerosol chemistry, and accumulation rates, that can be combined with the isotopic information to assist with inferences about the regional climate conditions prevailing at the time of deposition. We use a collection of multi-proxy ice core histories to explore the δ18O-climate relationship over the last 25,000 years that includes both Late Glacial Stage (LGS) and Holocene climate conditions.

These results suggest that on centennial to millennial time scales atmospheric temperature is the principal control on the δ18Oice of the snowfall that sustains these high mountain ice fields. Decadally averaged δ18Oice records from three Andean and three Tibetan ice cores are composited to produce a low latitude δ18Oice history for the last millennium. Comparison of this ice core composite with the Northern Hemisphere proxy record (1000–2000 A.D.) reconstructed by Mann et al. (1999) and measured temperatures (1856–2000) reported by Jones et al. (1999) suggests the ice
cores have captured the decadal scale variability in the global temperature trends. These ice cores show a 20th century isotopic enrichment that suggests a large scale warming is underway at low latitudes. The rate of this isotopically inferred warming is amplified at higher elevations over the Tibetan
Plateau while amplification in the Andes is latitude dependent with enrichment (warming) increasing equatorward. In concert with this apparent warming, in situ observations reveal that tropical glaciers are currently disappearing. A brief overview of the loss of these tropical data archives over the last 30 years is presented along with evaluation of recent changes in mean δ18Oice composition. The isotopic composition of precipitation should be viewed not only as a powerful proxy indicator of climate change, but also as an additional parameter to aid our understanding of the linkages between changes in the hydrologic cycle and global climate.


http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=11676&page=R1

Spoiler:
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years.

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes before about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.


http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus...ion_to_th.html

Spoiler:
My reading of the summary of the report and parts of the text is that the NAS has rendered a near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al. They report does acknowledge that there are perhaps greater uncertainties in temperature reconstructions, reducing Mann et al.'s claim of warmest decade/year in 1,000 years down to 400. Nonetheless, I see nothing in the report that suggests that Mann's research is significantly flawed, nor any calls for release of his data or algorithms, though the report does say in very general terms that such release is a good idea. I am not a climate scientist, but my reading of the section that deals with criticisms of Mann et al.'s work (starting at p. 105) is that while these critiques raise some interesting points, they are minor issues, and the committee find's Mann et al.’s original conclusion to be "plausible." I’d bet that the word "plausible" will be oft invoked as one of the take home messages of the report.

So what to make of this? The NRC has come to the conclusion that the hockey stick debate is much ado about nothing, and make the further point that this particular area of science is not particularly relevant to detection and attribution of human caused climate change. I am certain that research on this subject will continue, but hopefully this NAS report will allow the rest of us to focus on the policy debate rather than this particular issue of science.

I would have liked to see the report get into far more detail on science policy questions, such as release of data, methods, code, etc. and mechanisms of peer review, and IPCC authors reviewing their own work. However, I recognize that these issues may have been interpreted as outside their charge and the committee was not empanelled for this purpose.

Is this the final word on the "hockey stick"? My guess is that for most people, yes, especially if Representative Boehlert, who requested the report, is satisfied with the answers to his questions.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../4411032a.html

Spoiler:
It's probably the most politicized graph in science — an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others — and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the ‘hockey-stick’ plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.


There is more from the Paleoclimate gang that support Mann, as well as about a dozen more major publications but I'm getting tired. I left off a bunch of reports that had too many criticisms from the skeptic side or had little scientific clout. Movie should get a medal for the patience to do this several times a day. It is exhausting.

I'm not sure I wanna tackle the Wegman Report as it was basically made-up crap that'd just piss me off.
Old 09-01-11, 06:16 PM
  #244  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
What happens next is the dreaded "scientific consensus" where Mann's research is pretty well confirmed by just about everyone who matters.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/share...lScience09.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.short

Spoiler:
The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.


http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

Spoiler:
Caspar Ammann, a paleoclimatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), is available to comment on the so-called hockey stick controversy discussed by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The hockey stick refers to the shape of a frequently cited graph of global mean temperature that shows a rapid rise between 1900 and 2000 after 900 years of relative stability. The graph first appeared in a research paper by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes published in the journal Nature in 1998.

Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. Their results appear in two new research papers submitted for review to the journals Geophysical Research Letters and Climatic Change. The authors invite researchers and others to use the code for their own evaluation of the method.

Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analyses at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year.

McIntyre and McKitrick’s papers were published in Energy and Environment (2003 and 2005) and in Geophysical Research Letters (2005).


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL023395.shtml

Spoiler:
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press) and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press).

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales. However, the methods in use are evolving and are expected to improve.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JCli...18.2308R

Spoiler:
Results are presented from a set of experiments designed to investigate factors that may influence proxy-based reconstructions of large-scale temperature patterns in past centuries. The factors investigated include 1) the method used to assimilate proxy data into a climate reconstruction, 2) the proxy data network used, 3) the target season, and 4) the spatial domain of the reconstruction. Estimates of hemispheric-mean temperature are formed through spatial averaging of reconstructed temperature patterns that are based on either the local calibration of proxy and instrumental data or a more elaborate multivariate climate field reconstruction approach. The experiments compare results based on the global multiproxy dataset used by Mann and coworkers, with results obtained using the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (NH) maximum latewood tree-ring density set used by Briffa and coworkers. Mean temperature reconstructions are compared for the full NH (Tropics and extratropics, land and ocean) and extratropical continents only, withvarying target seasons (cold-season half year, warm-season half year, and annual mean). The comparisons demonstrate dependence of reconstructions on seasonal, spatial, and methodological considerations, emphasizing the primary importance of the target region and seasonal window of the reconstruction. The comparisons support the generally robust nature of several previously published estimates of NH mean temperature changes in past centuries and suggest that further improvements in reconstructive skill are most likely to arise from an emphasis on the quality, rather than quantity, of available proxy data.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/sc...d-climate.html

Spoiler:
A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.

The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990's was probably the warmest in a millennium.

But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National Academies said "an array of evidence" supported the main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to old questions.

The study, led by Michael E. Mann, a climatologist now at Pennsylvania State University, was the first to estimate widespread climate trends by stitching together a grab bag of evidence, including variations in ancient tree rings and temperatures measured in deep holes in the earth.

It has been repeatedly attacked by Republican lawmakers and some business-financed groups as built on cherry-picked data meant to create an alarming view of recent warming and play down past natural warm periods.

At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result.

"I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation," said one member, Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North Carolina State University. He added that his impression was the study was "an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure."

More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing the pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with temperature shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high confidence that warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600. And in a news conference here today, three panelists said the current warming was probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.

The experts said there was no reliable way to make estimates for surface-temperature trends in the first millennium A.D.

In the report, the panel stressed that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence," the report said.

The 1999 paper is part of a growing body of work trying to pull together widely disparate clues of climate conditions before the age of weather instruments.

The paper includes a graph of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere that gained the nickname "hockey stick" because of its vivid depiction of a long period with little temperature variation for nearly 1,000 years, followed by a sharp upward hook in recent decades.

The hockey stick has become something of an environmentalist icon. It was prominently displayed in a pivotal 2001 United Nations report concluding that greenhouse gases from human activities had probably caused most of the warming measured since 1950. A version of it is in the Al Gore documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, have repeatedly criticized the Mann study, citing several peer-reviewed papers challenging its methods.

The main critiques were done by Stephen McIntyre, a statistician and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario.

They contended that Dr. Mann and his colleagues selected particular statistical methods and sets of data, like a record of rings in bristlecone pine trees, that were most apt to produce a picture of unusual recent warming. They also complained that Dr. Mann refused to share his data and techniques.

In an interview, Dr. Mann expressed muted satisfaction with the panel's findings. He said it clearly showed that the 1999 analysis has held up over time.

But he complained that the committee seemed to forget about the many caveats that were in the original paper. "Even the title of the paper on which all this has been based is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings," he said.

Raymond S. Bradley, a University of Massachusetts geoscientist and one of Dr. Mann's co-authors, said that the caveats were dropped mainly as the graph was widely reproduced by others. (The other author of the 1999 paper was Malcolm K Hughes of the University of Arizona.)

The report was done at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, who called last November for a review of the 1999 study and related research to clear the air.

In a statement, Mr. Boehlert, who is retiring at the end of the year, expressed satisfaction with the results, saying, "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change — which doesn't rest primarily on these temperature issues, in any event — or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work."


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD006352.shtml

Spoiler:
Previous tree-ring–based Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions portray a varying amplitude range between the “Medieval Warm Period” (MWP), “Little Ice Age” (LIA) and present. We describe a new reconstruction, developed using largely different methodologies and additional new data compared to previous efforts. Unlike earlier studies, we quantify differences between more traditional (STD) and Regional Curve Standardization (RCS) methodologies, concluding that RCS is superior for retention of low-frequency trends. Continental North American versus Eurasian RCS series developed prior to merging to the hemispheric scale cohere surprisingly well, suggesting common forcing, although there are notable deviations (e.g., fifteenth to sixteenth century). Results indicate clear MWP (warm), LIA (cool), and recent (warm) episodes. Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600–1609) to warmest (1937–1946) decades. However, we advise caution with this analysis. Although we conclude, as found elsewhere, that recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium, we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely “flatten out” estimates for this period relative to twentieth century warming, which expresses a more homogenous global “fingerprint.” Therefore we stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16469924

Spoiler:
Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period.


http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Thompson...hange-2003.pdf

Spoiler:
This paper examines the potential of the stable isotopic ratios, 18O/16O (δ18Oice) and 2H/1H (δDice), preserved in mid to low latitude glaciers as a tool for paleoclimate reconstruction. Ice cores are particularly valuable as they contain additional data, such as dust concentrations, aerosol chemistry, and accumulation rates, that can be combined with the isotopic information to assist with inferences about the regional climate conditions prevailing at the time of deposition. We use a collection of multi-proxy ice core histories to explore the δ18O-climate relationship over the last 25,000 years that includes both Late Glacial Stage (LGS) and Holocene climate conditions.

These results suggest that on centennial to millennial time scales atmospheric temperature is the principal control on the δ18Oice of the snowfall that sustains these high mountain ice fields. Decadally averaged δ18Oice records from three Andean and three Tibetan ice cores are composited to produce a low latitude δ18Oice history for the last millennium. Comparison of this ice core composite with the Northern Hemisphere proxy record (1000–2000 A.D.) reconstructed by Mann et al. (1999) and measured temperatures (1856–2000) reported by Jones et al. (1999) suggests the ice
cores have captured the decadal scale variability in the global temperature trends. These ice cores show a 20th century isotopic enrichment that suggests a large scale warming is underway at low latitudes. The rate of this isotopically inferred warming is amplified at higher elevations over the Tibetan
Plateau while amplification in the Andes is latitude dependent with enrichment (warming) increasing equatorward. In concert with this apparent warming, in situ observations reveal that tropical glaciers are currently disappearing. A brief overview of the loss of these tropical data archives over the last 30 years is presented along with evaluation of recent changes in mean δ18Oice composition. The isotopic composition of precipitation should be viewed not only as a powerful proxy indicator of climate change, but also as an additional parameter to aid our understanding of the linkages between changes in the hydrologic cycle and global climate.


http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=11676&page=R1

Spoiler:
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years.

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes before about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.


http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus...ion_to_th.html

Spoiler:
My reading of the summary of the report and parts of the text is that the NAS has rendered a near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al. They report does acknowledge that there are perhaps greater uncertainties in temperature reconstructions, reducing Mann et al.'s claim of warmest decade/year in 1,000 years down to 400. Nonetheless, I see nothing in the report that suggests that Mann's research is significantly flawed, nor any calls for release of his data or algorithms, though the report does say in very general terms that such release is a good idea. I am not a climate scientist, but my reading of the section that deals with criticisms of Mann et al.'s work (starting at p. 105) is that while these critiques raise some interesting points, they are minor issues, and the committee find's Mann et al.’s original conclusion to be "plausible." I’d bet that the word "plausible" will be oft invoked as one of the take home messages of the report.

So what to make of this? The NRC has come to the conclusion that the hockey stick debate is much ado about nothing, and make the further point that this particular area of science is not particularly relevant to detection and attribution of human caused climate change. I am certain that research on this subject will continue, but hopefully this NAS report will allow the rest of us to focus on the policy debate rather than this particular issue of science.

I would have liked to see the report get into far more detail on science policy questions, such as release of data, methods, code, etc. and mechanisms of peer review, and IPCC authors reviewing their own work. However, I recognize that these issues may have been interpreted as outside their charge and the committee was not empanelled for this purpose.

Is this the final word on the "hockey stick"? My guess is that for most people, yes, especially if Representative Boehlert, who requested the report, is satisfied with the answers to his questions.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../4411032a.html

Spoiler:
It's probably the most politicized graph in science — an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others — and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the ‘hockey-stick’ plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.


There is more from the Paleoclimate gang that support Mann, as well as about a dozen more major publications but I'm getting tired. I left off a bunch of reports that had too many criticisms from the skeptic side or had little scientific clout. Movie should get a medal for the patience to do this several times a day. It is exhausting.

I'm not sure I wanna tackle the Wegman Report as it was basically made-up crap that'd just piss me off.
Of course there are lots of defenses of Mann. It's The Team (a name they made up for themselves). The same names: Briffa, Wahl, Ammann, Osborn, Bradley, Hughes. And the same story, over and over of refusing to give critics like McIntyre and McKitrick the data and methods, while the critics' work is open.

And why is Wegman's work "made up crap"? Because The Team says so? Wegman is a highly accomplished statistician.

[(You can bring up the "plagiarism" charge. The plagiarism was done by a grad student - yes, Wegman should have exercised more oversight - and had absolutely nothing to do with the work or conclusion because it was uncontroversial boilerplate, which even the alarmists admit). It's all been talked about here before.]

Before being asked to write his report, I do not think there is any evidence that Wegman was biased against Mann and toward McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M). He was hired strictly to investigate the statistical methodology of the two sides. He found Mann's work greatly lacking in statistical methodology and M&M's highly credible. He found he could not find the material necessary to reconstruct Mann because it was not available (much the same problem M&M and others always ran into and, despite many requests, seldom found Mann forthcoming). He was able to reproduce M&M's work because they laid it all out in an open manner.

Wegman and Gerald North (not a statistician which is why he had one with him at the hearing, below) both made reports on the Hockey Stick for Congress in 2006. While North was much friendlier to Mann than was Wegman, North said he could not disagree with Wegman's findings:

http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/t...s-for-newbies/ (you should read this whole post)

Did Wegman and North Disagree?

There’s obviously been a lot of spinning here, as Wegman’s language was much more forthright. The realclimate crowd have tried to marginalize the clear statements in Wegman.

At the July 19, 2006 House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing, Barton asked North very precisely whether he disagreed with any Wegman’s findings and North (under oath) said no as follows:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.

CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–

DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.

DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.

MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
As I have repeatedly said, one cannot get the whole picture of the Hockey Stick controversy without reading Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion.

As an introduction, I am posting a link to "Caspar and the Jesus paper," a preClimategate blog written by Montford:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bl...sus-paper.html

Look, one can easily get a one-sided picture of the Hockey Stick by just reading one side (The Team and its acolytes) or the other (M&M and their acolytes). What ultimately separates the two (besides the quality of the science, which we may disagree on) is the covert hiding of data and methods by The Team and the openness of those things by M&M etc. That, in and of itself, does not prove M&M right by I have to wonder why The Team has to be so secretive and unwilling to share information. I also have to wonder why journals allow studies to be published that do not include (at least by reference) all such information.

Edit - one final thing - your link which acknowledges Mann's work can only say that today's temperatures are the warmest in 400 years (rather than 1000) is entirely noncontroversial. It is essentially saying nothing that is not already known (or, at least, agree to by almost everyone - a real consensus). But if his work is so statistically flawed, it doesn't even tell us that. It would be like a broken clock being right twice a day.

Last edited by movielib; 09-01-11 at 06:46 PM.
Old 09-01-11, 06:30 PM
  #245  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

It's been awhile since I dredged through these studies, so I'm just going from memory here...but I remember one of the biggest problems I kept running across was the "Team's" insistence that the hockey stick has been supported by numerous independent studies. The problem with such a statement as I recall, is that a closer look at the studies reveals that they are far from independent. In other words, they often used the same flawed data, models, codes, etc. (and the peer review was often done by the same small group of scientists)...
Old 09-02-11, 06:27 AM
  #246  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Charges against polar bear researcher came from within the Interior Department, not from any outside skeptic(s).

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/01/140122...bear-scientist

Polar Bear Scientist Was Accused By Federal Worker
by Nell Greenfieldboyce
September 1, 2011

The controversial "polarbeargate" investigation into Arctic researcher Charles Monnett originated when allegations of scientific misconduct were made by a "seasoned, career Department of the Interior" employee.

That's according to a new letter sent to Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) from the Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General.

For months, Monnett has been under investigation by that office. Agents have repeatedly asked him about an influential 2006 report he wrote on his observations of apparently drowned polar bears. The report became a symbol of the danger of melting ice and climate change.

Supporters of Monnett charged that the investigation amounted to a witch hunt against the scientist, whose work has implications for climate change and drilling in the Arctic.

"In March 2010, the OIG received credible allegations from a seasoned, career Department of the Interior (DOI) employee, that acts of scientific misconduct may have been committed by one or more DOI employees," says the letter to Inhofe, which is signed by Mary Kendall, acting inspector general for the Department of the Interior.

This means the original complaint apparently did not originate from an outside interest group trying to discredit climate change research or influence government decisions about Artic drilling, as some critics seem to have assumed.

Jeff Ruch, a lawyer with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which is providing legal representation for Monnett, expressed surprise when he heard that the allegations against Monnett came from within the Department of the Interior itself.

Ruch noted that Monnett's 2006 report on dead polar bears had been approved by his supervisors. "We assumed that if this agency approved it, it was unlikely that someone from that same agency would make allegations against itself," Ruch said.

Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, wrote a letter to the Office of Inspector General on Aug. 16 requesting information about the Monnett investigation, saying that Monnett's article had been important to the government's decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species.

The Office of Inspector General typically does not comment on ongoing investigations, but the letter said in this case officials had decided to release background information because the investigation has been "subject to much public speculation" and the department hopes to "quell speculation and assure interested parties of the OIG's objectivity, professionalism, and independence in investigating this matter."

But, Ruch said, "This doesn't vindicate them; it just raises more questions about the IG's judgment."

It should have been clear from the first interview with Monnett that the allegations of scientific misconduct had no merit, says Ruch. "The question we would have for the IG is, do they still think the allegations are credible?"
Apparently they do think there is at least some credibility to the allegations since, while Monnett was returned to duty pending the rest of the investigation (apparently standard procedure), he was relieved of duties connected with overseeing the project (and funds) he had been heading.
Old 09-02-11, 06:00 PM
  #247  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

"Consensus is collusion" is something traditional skeptics hear all the time. Outsiders branding themselves as brave pioneers of truth is not a new idea; homeopaths, chiropractors, ghost hunters and psychics all make the same claim.

Researchers using the same models and the increasingly similar results from model to model may look suspicious to most people (especially if so inclined to think there is a conspiracy), but for anyone who has any sort of scientific background, it is both normal and expected. It happens to be perfectly consistent with good science. That is exactly what you expect to happen. Real researchers are instead skeptical of the one study that says the opposite. It is that contradictory study that has the high burden of proof.

Yes, there could be a wide-spread conspiracy, and yes, they could all be sharing the same fictional research to get their research grants and federal money (although it doesn't explain non-US researchers). The "Team" is sorta consistent with a conspiracy... but it is also consistent with having the right answer. This is especially true when the majority of scientists with relevant research all basically fall to the same side as them. When in doubt, I lean towards occam's razor.

Even if you exclude Mann's work, you still have most other researchers showing a warm medieval period, a small cooling drop, and rapid warming since the 19th Century.

What I profoundly dislike about Mann is his refusal to release source-code, even if it is ugly, he should do it. Much of today's climate research is readily available and his refusal is in bad form. I do understand it though. In academia you typically did not release code, especially if it wasn't formatted for public viewing and would likely cost a lot to format. You report what you did, not how you did it. Repeatability by others using their own code is more important. Recently our research "climate" has changed some; new research isn't cobbled together with bits of string and FORTRAN anymore. This site is doing the right thing and anyone can recheck NASA's findings.

http://clearclimatecode.org/
http://clearclimatecode.org/ccc-gistemp-release-0-6-0/

Now you can use raw data to conduct your own research, nobody is stopping anyone from doing that.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

But again, like I said before, that one study by Mann isn't the entire show.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...Comparison_png
Old 09-02-11, 06:05 PM
  #248  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Back on "consensus" for a bit... I did a search and didn't see anyone bring this up. Note the giant leap in results from those with PhD in relevant science from just the general public.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Old 09-02-11, 08:12 PM
  #249  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 41,684
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I thought this was an interesting development.
Editorial

Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603-1613

Wolfgang Wagner

Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vienna University of Technology (TU Wien), Gusshausstrasse 27-29, A-1040 Vienna, Austria; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +43-1-58801-12225; Fax: +43-1-58801-12299

Received: 1 September 2011 / Accepted: 2 September 2011 / Published: 2 September 2011

Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.

With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few. Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication. But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible. Aside from ignoring all the other observational data sets (such as the rapidly shrinking sea ice extent and changes in the flora and fauna) and contrasting theoretical studies, such a simple conclusion simply cannot be drawn considering the complexity of the involved models and satellite measurements.

The political views of the authors and the thematic goal of their study did, of course, alone not disqualify the paper from entering the review process in the journal Remote Sensing. As I stated in my editorial at the launch of this new open access journal [6] one of the premier goals of remote sensing as a discipline is to better understand physical and biological processes on our planet Earth. The use of satellite data to check the functionality of all sorts of geophysical models is therefore a very important part of our work. But it should not be done in isolation by the remote sensing scientists. Interdisciplinary cooperation with modelers is required in order to develop a joint understanding of where and why models deviate from satellite data. Only through this close cooperation the complex aspects involved in the satellite retrievals and the modeling processes can be properly taken into account.

In hindsight, it is possible to see why the review process of the paper by Spencer and Braswell did not fulfill its aim. The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record. Their reviews had an apparently good technical standard and suggested one “major revision”, one “minor revision” and one “accept as is”. The authors revised their paper according to the comments made by the reviewers and, consequently, the editorial board member who handled this paper accepted the paper (and could in fact not have done otherwise). Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors. This selection by itself does not mean that the review process for this paper was wrong. In science, diversity and controversy are essential to progress and therefore it is important that different opinions are heard and openly discussed. Therefore editors should take special care that minority views are not suppressed, meaning that it certainly would not be correct to reject all controversial papers already during the review process. If a paper presents interesting scientific arguments, even if controversial, it should be published and responded to in the open literature. This was my initial response after having become aware of this particular case. So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

Let me conclude with saying that even considering this unfortunate case I think Remote Sensing is an excellent journal which has achieved a high scientific standard within the very short period since its start in January 2009. The start of every new journal is challenging because authors, reviewers, and editors need to become familiar with the journal. New journals are often unattractive to many authors as the papers are not (yet) indexed by the prominent citation databases. In that sense, I was very happy to learn in May 2011 that Remote Sensing was already accepted for inclusion in Scopus, Europe’s most important citation database. This success became possible primarily due to the excellent work done by the editorial team of MDPI who give their best to make sure that the review process is handled as quickly as possible without compromising on quality of the review process. I would also like to thank all members of the editorial board, reviewers, and authors of Remote Sensing very much, who helped to give this first open access remote sensing journal a good start. I will continue supporting the journal, albeit in different roles, wishing it all the best for the future!

References and Notes

1. Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth’s radiant energy balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

2. Climate Models Get Energy Balance Wrong, Make too Hot Forecasts of Global Warming; 26 July 2011. Available online: http://www.uah.edu/news/newspages/campusnews.php?id=564 (accessed on 1 September 2011).

3. Spencer, R. Personal Homepage. Available online: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ (accessed on 1 September 2011).

4. New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole in Global Warming Alarmism; 27 July 2011. Available online: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ming-alarmism/ (accessed on 1 September 2011).

5. Does NASA Data Show Global Warming Lost in Space? Available online: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...lobal-warming/ (accessed on 1 September 2011).

6. Wagner, W. A better understanding of our Earth through Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2009, 1, 1-2.

7. Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo, J.T., O’Dell, C., Wong, T. Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2010, 37, L03702.

© 2011 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf
Old 09-02-11, 09:39 PM
  #250  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
"Consensus is collusion" is something traditional skeptics hear all the time. Outsiders branding themselves as brave pioneers of truth is not a new idea; homeopaths, chiropractors, ghost hunters and psychics all make the same claim.

Researchers using the same models and the increasingly similar results from model to model may look suspicious to most people (especially if so inclined to think there is a conspiracy), but for anyone who has any sort of scientific background, it is both normal and expected. It happens to be perfectly consistent with good science. That is exactly what you expect to happen. Real researchers are instead skeptical of the one study that says the opposite. It is that contradictory study that has the high burden of proof.

Yes, there could be a wide-spread conspiracy, and yes, they could all be sharing the same fictional research to get their research grants and federal money (although it doesn't explain non-US researchers). The "Team" is sorta consistent with a conspiracy... but it is also consistent with having the right answer. This is especially true when the majority of scientists with relevant research all basically fall to the same side as them. When in doubt, I lean towards occam's razor.

Even if you exclude Mann's work, you still have most other researchers showing a warm medieval period, a small cooling drop, and rapid warming since the 19th Century.

What I profoundly dislike about Mann is his refusal to release source-code, even if it is ugly, he should do it. Much of today's climate research is readily available and his refusal is in bad form. I do understand it though. In academia you typically did not release code, especially if it wasn't formatted for public viewing and would likely cost a lot to format. You report what you did, not how you did it. Repeatability by others using their own code is more important. Recently our research "climate" has changed some; new research isn't cobbled together with bits of string and FORTRAN anymore. This site is doing the right thing and anyone can recheck NASA's findings.

http://clearclimatecode.org/
http://clearclimatecode.org/ccc-gistemp-release-0-6-0/

Now you can use raw data to conduct your own research, nobody is stopping anyone from doing that.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

But again, like I said before, that one study by Mann isn't the entire show.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...Comparison_png
While I get what you are saying and they are fair points about how good science works, they are also general rules and we are still required to look closer into the details of specific areas of research, as the rules have flaws. I consider myself fairly well reversed at reading various scientific studies (having done it for most of my adult life and being on the other end too, by getting research published). So I like to think I am better than the average bear at spotting science that is lacking (just my opi nion of course).

Again, it's been a while since I delved into these studies and my impression was that there were some serious flaws. What is truly needed, if it hasn't yet been done, are actual independent studies to get repeatability. Garbage in, garbage out as the saying goes. Also, when you a have a relatively small, insular community of scientists, in a niche field, errors of bias need to be even more carefully guarded against. This was particularly lacking in the paleoclimatology community. Perhaps this has changed since I read the research last, at least I hope it has.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.