Climate denial is so passé
Climate 'hockey stick' is revived
A new study by climate scientists behind the controversial 1998 "hockey stick" graph suggests their earlier analysis was broadly correct. Michael Mann's team analysed data for the last 2,000 years, and concluded that Northern Hemisphere temperatures now are "anomalously warm". Different analytical methods give the same result, they report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The 1998 hockey stick was a totem of debates over man-made global warming. The graph - indicating that Northern Hemisphere temperatures had been roughly constant for 1,000 years (the "shaft" of the stick) before turning abruptly upwards in the industrial age - featured prominently in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2001 assessment.
Another plank of climate denial theory comes crashing down, a bit like their 32 000 ‘scientists’ who signed that global warming isn’t man made on-line petition, because when you look at the listed professions of the 32 000 ‘scientists’ it boils down to 1.6% who actually study any climate science who don’t believe global warming is man made. Hardly as impressive as the 32 000 ‘scientists’ claim is it? Those wacky climate deniers, when will we stop tolerating them blocking the debate for real sustainable change? Add to this the methane issue and the non-linear warming event methane can create by pushing temperatures up by 10 degrees in a short period of time which I’ve been blogging about since I started blogging and we are inch by inch moving towards those tipping points from which we can’t change direction on climate change.
Methane Discharges In The Arctic Pose Threat To Earth's Climate
VLADIVOSTOK, Aug 20 (Bernama) -- Methane discharges in the permafrost break-up process in the Arctic pose a threat to the entire terrestrial climate, Russian news agency, Itar-Tass, reported. This hypothesis, put forward by scientists at the Pacific Oceanology Institute (POI) of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences is being corroborated by this year's research, Igor Semiletov, participant in a research expedition, and staff member of the POI Arctic Research Laboratory, reported by telephone from board the hydrographic research vessel "Yakov Smernitsky" on Wednesday.
posted by Bomber @ 3:46 pm
49 comments
49 Comments:
Bomber
a) Was there a 'little ice age'
b) Was there a 'midieval warm period'
If your answer is yes to a or b, why are both ignored by the hockey stick?
Or is it a case that the model doesnt fit reality.
Btw: Getting a group of people to confirm their previous analysis is not objective
BTW 2: Please dont say that because I "hate" labour I should be ignored. I want to debate the issue, not personalities.
I dare bomber to call Leighton Smith tomorrow and debate the issue. I bet he won't, but I encourage everyone to tune in and listen if he does. Go on Bomber, if you are that sure of yourself give us all a time that you will call and see how much you know your stuff. Or are you a chicken?
Bo ber see's nothing unusual about Micheal Mann confirming his own work when many others have ripped him a new one over it.
This being on of the most damaging to his ideas, also one of the most recent.
A killer blow against Mann?
Well when someones data is shonky, then their colleagues come out with even more shonky data and the the IPCC plays games with it and changes or ignores the rules to get said shonky data in their report confirming the immediate need to tax the hell out of everyone, you have to question what is really going on here.
Read the link for all the sordid details.
Bo ber, being a 'believer', doesn't seem to want to ask questions. He doesn't want anyone else to ask them either. If you do you are a 'denier', an unbeliever.
The enemy.
Weird huh?
Scott, read the article
The new paper adds to the evidence against that notion. One of the analytical methods used suggests that temperatures in the Mediaeval Warm Period could have been no higher than they were in about 1980; the other suggests they were no higher than those seen 100 years ago.
NZ Skeptic - I reviewed Primes so called Climate Change is a hoax 'doco' and Leighton Smith is an embarrassing fool who was so used to the echo chamber of talkback that he ended up making a complete clown of himself. He isn't worth it.
Legio, sounding less sure of yourself these days, your counter claims of one massice conspiracy and 'the alarmists are worse' crap just doesn't wash any longer, where are your usual foaming claims that you will be proven right and global warming is a hoax and I am wrong and you will be able to rub my face in it, not so much of that now, just links through to bloggers who think like you. Getting desperate much Leggy?
Have you even read the link Bo ber?
Pretty damming of the IPCC and Mr Mann and colleagues.
Why do I get the idea you haven't?
Since you don't appear to even know what its about, maybe that's where I got the idea from.
Typical 'believer' - ignorance is bliss.
I see you've go no rebuttal to it, just your usual personal attacks. The irony is when you get them back you get all hissy and start deleting comments. Too fucken funny.
I don't think natural Climate Change is a hoax. I think it has always been.
I do think man made climate change to the extent you and your fellow travellers are touting it to further your extremist Green agenda IS a hoax.
The bedrock of that is the 'hockey stick' graph. Which has been shown to have used some shonky suppositions to reach its conclusions as Scott alludes to above.
Sunspots, PDO, ADO, gamma rays, there are a huge list of NATURAL phenomena that are KNOWN to effect change in the climate. You appear to discount all of these to blame humans.
The next move is to control what people do (what a surprise), through schemes like the ETS, backed heavily by your party - The Greens. This will involve taxing the crap out of everyone to pay for feel good agendas that have little or no basis in reality.
745 amendments to the ETS, before the house at the moment. Sounds very similar to the EFB, and we all know what a complete success that's been.
Speaking of less sure of yourself -
Is Oil still going to be US$200 a barrel by the end of the year? You were predicting that just a few weeks ago.
Are we going to have NO fish left by 2020? You were predicting that a couple of months ago.
Is the sea still going to rise by 17 metres in the next 50 years? you have been putting that one out there for quite a while.
Hmmm, maybe I'll have a litte go through your archives and see what else you've been predicting over the last couple of years.
Should make interesting reading, don't cha think?
My mistake there's actually 785 amendments to the ETS before the house at the moment.
If this bill goes through The greens can kiss goodbye their representation in parliament.
As soon as the public realise the cost of this bullshit for basically no change in what its supposed to change the emperor will truly be shown to have no clothes.
Have you even read the link Bo ber?
Pretty damming of the IPCC and Mr Mann and colleagues.
Why do I get the idea you haven't?
Since you don't appear to even know what its about, maybe that's where I got the idea from.
Typical 'believer' - ignorance is bliss.
Yes I've read it and I am half way through reading some rebuttle to it as well.
Sunspots, PDO, ADO, gamma rays, there are a huge list of NATURAL phenomena that are KNOWN to effect change in the climate. You appear to discount all of these to blame humans.
These have been discounted as I blogged on several times.
Is Oil still going to be US$200 a barrel by the end of the year? You were predicting that just a few weeks ago.
No I think it will be about $150, and it was Merryl Lynch who were predicting it would be $200 by the end of the year. But I do think the trend shows it is moving in that direction especially when you go through the points I've made on this issue.
Are we going to have NO fish left by 2020? You were predicting that a couple of months ago.
Yes if we continue fishing the way we are.
Is the sea still going to rise by 17 metres in the next 50 years? you have been putting that one out there for quite a while.
It certainly is a possibility
Hmmm, maybe I'll have a litte go through your archives and see what else you've been predicting over the last couple of years.
Hey let's also go through your list of comments I've deleted over the years, the nasty personal attacks you've made on other posters here, the levels you drop to when you were mentioning girls genitalia and the weird stalker stuff you do as well.
I know that makes for very interesting reading Leggy.
PLEASE publish the stuff you've had to delete. I've noticed Leggy has worked very hard to try and not come across as feral as she once did, I'd love to see what she posted when she was angry, it would take a little shine off her. I'm an early enough reader on this site to remember her fights with mosthated and I remember the fight you had over her mentioning girls vaginas as a point she was making but it was all very gross.
why bother with Trollio X - she's a Troll, how many times has she been proven wrong here and yet still keeps coming back with more and more desperate points? She sounds like Leighton Smith
That piece is a very one-sided view of what Macintyre's been up to at Climate Audit. It's nit-picking about the statistics used in a ten year old paper that's been supported by all the work done since. "Bishop Hill" is a regular commenter at CA, and his world view seems to be determined by that tight little sceptic clique.
the Bishop Hill piece is full of insinuation, i.e. certain damning conclusions are encouraged without any good reasons to reach them being spelled out--such and such was "quietly" accomplished, this and that "duplicitous" arrangement was made. It looks like any other conspiracy theory to me. Extraordinary claims, such as professional misconduct, require extraordinary evidence, which does not appear to be offered in that piece. I think it fairly portrays what a lot of McIntyre's crowd *thinks* happened, but that does not demonstrate that it is what *did* happen. I am in no position to offer proof in either direction, so that's just my two cents about what can be gleaned from the way the piece is written. In any case, McIntyre is about to have a whole new round of fun looking at the new paper; we'll see what comes of it.
Whatever happens, it is the mark of a certain type of delusion when someone seems to think that they can call into question one piece of the evidence about anthropogenic warming, and that will somehow call the whole large-scale picture into question. It seems that some people don't understand what "multiple independent lines of evidence" means.
Bomber
But then you read this
Lomonosovfonna Ice Cap, Spitsbergen, Svalbard, Norway
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Virkkunen, K., Moore, J.C., Isaksson, E., Pohjola, V., Peramaki, P., Grinsted, A. and Kekonen, T. 2007. Warm summers and ion concentrations in snow: comparison of present day with Medieval Warm Epoch from snow pits and an ice core from Lomonosovfonna, Svalbard. Journal of Glaciology 53: 623-634.
Description
Virkkunen et al. compared various ion concentrations and ratios obtained from snow pits at the summit of Svalbard's Lomonosovfonna ice cap (78°51'53"N, 17°25'30"E) in 2001 and 2002 with similar data obtained from an ice core drilled in the same location in 1997 that extended back in time from AD 1990 to approximately AD 1130. Noting "there is controversy over how warm the Medieval Warm Epoch was compared with the present-day climate," they report that the deepest of the ice pits contained data "from the warmest (2001) and the longest (2000) summers observed in the instrumental temperature record in the period 1978-2001."
In looking for comparable data within the ice core, the Nordic researchers found the largest set of similar values within the core's bottom two meters, where concentrations of several ions trended steadily towards zero (indicative of increasing warmth) as the core bottom was approached, reaching levels that -- in their words -- were "even lower than seen in the autumn 2001 to autumn 1999 layer." Hence, they concluded that "Medieval Warm Epoch temperatures were likely to have been at least as warm as the summers of 2001 and 2000." But in light of their ion data tending to become even more extreme than they were in those two years as the start of their ion history was approached, it can safely be concluded that most of the latter portion of the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 1130-1200) was in all probability significantly warmer than it has been at any time during the Current Warm Period.
**
And I wonder, how can you claim the science is settled?
Scott, are you presenting this as new evidence that was not looked at by this latest study? Is that what you are claiming?
Bishop Hill's piece makes a lot of noise about how the IPCC desperately needed the Wahl and Ammann paper in Climate Change for the AR4... but I just scanned the Paleoclimate chapter and it's only cited once (Ch6, p466), and only in connection to the first McIntyre-McKitrick paper's failure to replicate MBH98. Of the criticisms about verification steps that Bishop Hill brings up, the IPCC actually says:
McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised
further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verification of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude
of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).
Whatever your opinion on the statistical arguments, the insinuations of malfeasance and conspiracy on the part of the IPCC just look like bullshit.
No Martyn, I am saying that the science isnt settled, the scientists don't agree. Do you think the science is settled?
I think there is debate but I think the broad thrust of man made pollution is creating global warming is settled.
Isnt there a significant number of scientists who claim otherwise - that the sun drives climate, and we are in a cooling phase?
...
Isnt there a significant number of scientists who claim otherwise - that the sun drives climate, and we are in a cooling phase?
Yes, I have read this claim, there have been several reports that show that when you take solar influence into account, it can not explain the global warming we are seeing at the moment. And I have read about the 'global dimming' effect that will have the planet cool for the next decade as well, but that is only a masking agent to global warming.
it is the mark of a certain type of delusion when someone seems to think that they can call into question one piece of the evidence about anthropogenic warming
Possibly, however that one piece of evidence is the bedrock of this entire new scare. Everything is built upon it.
The 'hockey stick' is a hypothesis, nothing more.
A computer model of what possibly could happen.
Being a model if you change the starting coordinates you will get a completely different outcome. If you add or remove factors you will get a different outcome.
Apart from the 'hockey stick' can you point me to any other evidence that proves beyond doubt that climate change is man made?
Possibly, however that one piece of evidence is the bedrock of this entire new scare. Everything is built upon it.
The 'hockey stick' is a hypothesis, nothing more.
A computer model of what possibly could happen.
Being a model if you change the starting coordinates you will get a completely different outcome. If you add or remove factors you will get a different outcome.
Apart from the 'hockey stick' can you point me to any other evidence that proves beyond doubt that climate change is man made?
That's the best you have? Your response to
Bishop Hill's piece makes a lot of noise about how the IPCC desperately needed the Wahl and Ammann paper in Climate Change for the AR4... but I just scanned the Paleoclimate chapter and it's only cited once (Ch6, p466), and only in connection to the first McIntyre-McKitrick paper's failure to replicate MBH98. Of the criticisms about verification steps that Bishop Hill brings up, the IPCC actually says:
McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised
further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verification of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude
of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).
Whatever your opinion on the statistical arguments, the insinuations of malfeasance and conspiracy on the part of the IPCC just look like bullshit.
and
the Bishop Hill piece is full of insinuation, i.e. certain damning conclusions are encouraged without any good reasons to reach them being spelled out--such and such was "quietly" accomplished, this and that "duplicitous" arrangement was made. It looks like any other conspiracy theory to me. Extraordinary claims, such as professional misconduct, require extraordinary evidence, which does not appear to be offered in that piece. I think it fairly portrays what a lot of McIntyre's crowd *thinks* happened, but that does not demonstrate that it is what *did* happen. I am in no position to offer proof in either direction, so that's just my two cents about what can be gleaned from the way the piece is written. In any case, McIntyre is about to have a whole new round of fun looking at the new paper; we'll see what comes of it.
Whatever happens, it is the mark of a certain type of delusion when someone seems to think that they can call into question one piece of the evidence about anthropogenic warming, and that will somehow call the whole large-scale picture into question. It seems that some people don't understand what "multiple independent lines of evidence" means.
and
That piece is a very one-sided view of what Macintyre's been up to at Climate Audit. It's nit-picking about the statistics used in a ten year old paper that's been supported by all the work done since. "Bishop Hill" is a regular commenter at CA, and his world view seems to be determined by that tight little sceptic clique.
And your only response is to cling to "it's all just a theory" - that' all you have legio? I think your Roman Legion has just been over run haven't that Legio X?
What about this then
even more response to Bishop
Please note that my comment above was in response to your inferences that the IPCC was up to something dodgy based on the idea that Wahl & Ammann (2007) was highly important to them. Whatever the merits of the PC1/PC4 centred/decentred arguments (and I don't agree with you), that was not an argument you raised in the piece linked by bomber.
The argument you did make was that the IPCC depended on the Wahl & Ammann (2007) paper's verification statistics. Fact is I just demonstrated they aren't mentioned in the WG1 report, and the whole topic of MBH98 & MBH99 is brief. As such, statements like "the IPCC needed to have the Wahl and Amman papers in the report" are completely unfounded, on the evidence you've given. You wouldn't accept shoddy reasoning like you've presented from, say, Al Gore, and I'm not going to accept it from you.
And the fact is that it undermines your credibility. When you're wrong about easily fact-checked material like that, I'm not really inclined to go through and see if the claims you make about the actual statistics bear up under scrutiny. If you want to convince someone like me of something about the quality of the science, stick with the science please, and stay out of the realms of dodgy inferences about motivations.
Anon above, lock and load I presume, do YOU actually have any original thought on this topic or are you feeling so lonely that you quote one person that you disagree with and then quote someone else that you do agree with?
Seriousl?, do you have any independant thought at all? Because if not I suggest you piss off, stop reposting what has alreadt been said and let the grown ups do the arguing because it is tiresome have to scroll past you inane snotty posts all the time.
What a chicken bomber is for refusing to debate Leighton Smith.
To say "he isnt worth it" is such a copout.
I haven't got a dog in this fight but since Lovelock scared the bejesus out of me with the sequestered methane thingy, I have learned that methane breaks down into it's harmless constituents under UV. I can find no account taken of this process in these studies. Can anyone clear this matter up?
Anon above, lock and load I presume, do YOU actually have any original thought on this topic or are you feeling so lonely that you quote one person that you disagree with and then quote someone else that you do agree with?
Seriousl?, do you have any independant thought at all? Because if not I suggest you piss off, stop reposting what has alreadt been said and let the grown ups do the arguing because it is tiresome have to scroll past you inane snotty posts all the time.
Oh come on, get off your high horse, is that all you have as well, we are in this thread debating the issue and people are demanding answers and we've had some, I love how when you get the answers you get all shitty.
What a chicken bomber is for refusing to debate Leighton Smith.
To say "he isnt worth it" is such a copout.
Oh come on, Leighton Smith is no longer relevant to the debate, he is a climate denier and a dinosaur bigot of a man. He's a joke, and so is your post attacking bomber.
I haven't got a dog in this fight but since Lovelock scared the bejesus out of me with the sequestered methane thingy, I have learned that methane breaks down into it's harmless constituents under UV. I can find no account taken of this process in these studies. Can anyone clear this matter up?
Part of the problem is that while it only stays in the atmosphere for 7 years, you can cause a gigantic run away event as it gets warmer, more melts, it also releases Co2 which just adds to the problem.
Experts close in on culprit of Earth's mass extinction
Scientists say massacre can offer lessons for world
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5974698.html
If Leighton Smith was really such a joke that would be even more of a reason for bomber to debate him and make him look like an idiot on his own show...
Oh Pa-Leeeese - did you see the poor old fool struggle on that joke of a panel show Prime were forced to run right after the 'global warming is a hoax doco' to balance it up - he was so far out of his depth, watching the others laugh at him while he was trying to tell them '32 000 scientists have signed a petition' bullshit, tell me Anon, how many of those 32 000 scientists actually have any education in Climate Change? Leighton is yesterday, and I have no time for yesterday.
So, no one can provide any evidence other than the discredited 'hockey stick' to show beyond doubt that man made GW is happening?
No surprise there.
um leggy, your hero Bishop is getting nailed over on Hot Topic, so could you just tell everyone again why global warming is a hoax and weren't you predicting the greens would fall below 5%?
Leighton Smith's radio show has quite a large following, so I'm sure Bomber would love to embarass him in front of his fans, if he could.
Leighton Smith's radio show has quite a large following, so I'm sure Bomber would love to embarass him in front of his fans, if he could.
1: The Panel has a larger audience on Radio New Zealand.
2: Leighton Smith is yesterday
Maybe Leighton Smith is yesterday.
But I would have thought Bomber wouldn't chicken out due to all his lefty followers who would want to hear that debate.
Maybe Leighton Smith is yesterday.
But I would have thought Bomber wouldn't chicken out due to all his lefty followers who would want to hear that debate.
1: Leighton Smith is Yesterday
2: Again, I do fine on Radio NZ in terms of getting my point of view across to the masses.
Bomber
Who is the most high profile person you have had a debate with?
Just curious
Hmmm - Jenny Shiply, Helen Clarke, Nixons lawyer John Dean, Cullen is always fun, on top of all the interviews we do at Alt.
This is the Hot Topic thread - wouldn't want anyone to miss me getting my arse kicked. :-)
Oops, forgot the link.
we've been watching bishop, looks like you aren't doing so well
You think? Nobody seems to think Mann got his statistics right, as far as I can see.
Yes I think that and I've responded to your claim that you aren't getting your arse kicked on that thread as well. I'm surprised that the great Bishop Hill has the time on his hands to visit little old NZ blogs, nice to see we rate so highly.
Ah actually Dumber, I doubt very much about your blogs rating. Now I know you were possibly being scarcastic but you do seem to be gulliable enough to believe almost anything, eg AGW.
And hey Dumber, wasn't that your signature I saw on a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide ??
Bomber
Just call Leighton
It will take 5 mins of your time and then you won't look like a chicken.
Hi Bomber
So where do you think Wegman and North went wrong?
("The great Bishop Hill"! Strewth! I'll have to show the missus that!)
Oh please 'Mr Hill', as Gareth points out you are most likely not Bishop Hill, but a group of people who post this nonesense around, and as for my thoughts, I've posted about you on that thread.
Bomber
Just call Leighton
It will take 5 mins of your time and then you won't look like a chicken.
Anytime Leighton would like to be Lets be Frank to debate the issue he is more than welcome to come along, I can have him up regarding his bullshit 32 000 scientists who have signed an online petition claiming global warming isn't man made.
Reasoning with Bomber is like trying to reason with a Mormon
Or would that be Moron ?
Or would that be Moron ?
BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - oh that's amazing, oh that's so clever of you Delboy, that's so amazing, did you see what he did there folks, he took morman, and he made it moran, Oh how clever, Delboy you must have slept like a baby after all the work you spent on that comback - morman to moron, Jesus Delboy have you ever considered a career in writing, that's amazingly clever of you. You are a little star aren't you Delboy, from morman to moron, who else could have ever come up with that. Whatever dead end job you currently work in, you should really consider leaving it, because you my friend, you Delboy are something special. Wow. Amazing. Wow.
PS - Only Fools and horses was a shit show cock.
Could Lock and Load be our resident scaremonger and doomsayer of AGW Bomber ?
Writing style very similar, tries to be witty but comes across as simple minded, somewhat on a childs intellect.
Also two very telling phrases in the post which Bomber has replied to me before. The "did you see what he did there" and "little star".
Dumber are you trying to cheat here on your own blog and lend support for yourself just cause others here think your AGW rants make you gullible ?
I think Dumber likes to play with himself. lol.
yawn - No Delboy I have no need to play with myself, I have plenty of folk here who like to fire up on my behalf. And weren't you calling me a moron as the reason why lock and load had a go at you Del? And you're now complaining because you think lock is me? Perhaps if you stick to the debate people won't have a go at you rather than coming up with conspiracy theories. Unlike you I'm more than happy for people to know what I think.
By The Way, I agree with Lock, only fools and horses was a shit show!
Post a Comment
<< Home