Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1929crash

Putting Ericbliar Straight On The Hockey Stick

Recommended Posts

More seriously, many of you will have noticed yet more blogarrhea about tree rings this week. The target de jour is a particular compilation of trees (called a chronology in dendro-climatology) that was first put together by two Russians, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late 1990s (and published in 2002). This multi-millennial chronology from Yamal (in northwestern Siberia) was painstakingly collected from hundreds of sub-fossil trees buried in sediment in the river deltas. They used a subset of the 224 trees they found to be long enough and sensitive enough (based on the interannual variability) supplemented by 17 living tree cores to create a Yamal climate record.

A preliminary set of this data had also been used by Keith Briffa in 2000 (pdf) (processed using a different algorithm than used by H&S for consistency with two other northern high latitude series), to create another Yamal record that was designed to improve the representation of long-term climate variability.

Since long climate records with annual resolution are few and far between, it is unsurprising that they get used in climate reconstructions. Different reconstructions have used different methods and have made different selections of source data depending on what was being attempted. The best studies tend to test the robustness of their conclusions by dropping various subsets of data or by excluding whole classes of data (such as tree-rings) in order to see what difference they make so you wont generally find that too much rides on any one proxy record (despite what you might read elsewhere).

****

So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didnt just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.

McIntyre has based his critique on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. People have written theses about how to construct tree ring chronologies in order to avoid end-member effects and preserve as much of the climate signal as possible. Curiously no-one has ever suggested simply grabbing one set of data, deleting the trees you have a political objection to and replacing them with another set that you found lying around on the web.

The statement from Keith Briffa clearly describes the background to these studies and categorically refutes McIntyres accusations. Does that mean that the existing Yamal chronology is sacrosanct? Not at all all of the these proxy records are subject to revision with the addition of new (relevant) data and whether the records change significantly as a function of that isnt going to be clear until its done.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More seriously, many of you will have noticed yet more blogarrhea about tree rings this week. The target de jour is a particular compilation of trees (called a chronology in dendro-climatology) that was first put together by two Russians, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late 1990s (and published in 2002). This multi-millennial chronology from Yamal (in northwestern Siberia) was painstakingly collected from hundreds of sub-fossil trees buried in sediment in the river deltas. They used a subset of the 224 trees they found to be long enough and sensitive enough (based on the interannual variability) supplemented by 17 living tree cores to create a “Yamal” climate record.

A preliminary set of this data had also been used by Keith Briffa in 2000 (pdf) (processed using a different algorithm than used by H&S for consistency with two other northern high latitude series), to create another “Yamal” record that was designed to improve the representation of long-term climate variability.

Since long climate records with annual resolution are few and far between, it is unsurprising that they get used in climate reconstructions. Different reconstructions have used different methods and have made different selections of source data depending on what was being attempted. The best studies tend to test the robustness of their conclusions by dropping various subsets of data or by excluding whole classes of data (such as tree-rings) in order to see what difference they make so you won’t generally find that too much rides on any one proxy record (despite what you might read elsewhere).

****

So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.

McIntyre has based his ‘critique’ on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. People have written theses about how to construct tree ring chronologies in order to avoid end-member effects and preserve as much of the climate signal as possible. Curiously no-one has ever suggested simply grabbing one set of data, deleting the trees you have a political objection to and replacing them with another set that you found lying around on the web.

The statement from Keith Briffa clearly describes the background to these studies and categorically refutes McIntyre’s accusations. Does that mean that the existing Yamal chronology is sacrosanct? Not at all – all of the these proxy records are subject to revision with the addition of new (relevant) data and whether the records change significantly as a function of that isn’t going to be clear until it’s done.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

i was wondering when somebody was going to post that hysterical reaction from realclimate. it's worth reading the extensive comments to that piece (if they haven't been censored yet)

briffa hasn'r "refuted" anything, hasn't explained his methodology, hasn't said why he felt it necessary to block the release of the raw data for 7 years and why he then released it in an obsolete data format without metadata. what he did say though was that mcintyre's work was relevant and merited further study.

mcIntyre has himself already posted a response to realclimate on climateaudit, denying accusations of wilful deception were made by him against briffa.

it will be interesting to see how this affair develops but i'll be out of it until sunday as i'm going canoeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was wondering when somebody was going to post that hysterical reaction from realclimate. it's worth reading the extensive comments to that piece (if they haven't been censored yet)

briffa hasn'r "refuted" anything, hasn't explained his methodology, hasn't said why he felt it necessary to block the release of the raw data for 7 years and why he then released it in an obsolete data format without metadata. what he did say though was that mcintyre's work was relevant and merited further study.

mcIntyre has himself already posted a response to realclimate on climateaudit, denying accusations of wilful deception were made by him against briffa.

it will be interesting to see how this affair develops but i'll be out of it until sunday as i'm going canoeing.

Well, have a nice time, but don't confuse style - hysterical or not - with substance.

But can it be true that all Hockey Sticks are made in Siberia? A RealClimate exclusive investigation follows:

We start with the original MBH hockey stick as replicated by Wahl and Ammann:

Hmmm… neither of the Yamal chronologies anywhere in there. And what about the hockey stick that Oerlemans derived from glacier retreat since 1600?

Nope, no Yamal record in there either. How about Osborn and Briffa’s results which were robust even when you removed any three of the records?

Or there. The hockey stick from borehole temperature reconstructions perhaps?

No. How about the hockey stick of CO2 concentrations from ice cores and direct measurements?

Err… not even close. What about the the impact on the Kaufman et al 2009 Arctic reconstruction when you take out Yamal?

Oh. The hockey stick you get when you don’t use tree-rings at all (blue curve)?

No. Well what about the hockey stick blade from the instrumental record itself?

And again, no. But wait, maybe there is something (Update: Original idea by Lucia)….

Nah….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was wondering when somebody was going to post that hysterical reaction from realclimate. it's worth reading the extensive comments to that piece (if they haven't been censored yet)

briffa hasn'r "refuted" anything, hasn't explained his methodology, hasn't said why he felt it necessary to block the release of the raw data for 7 years and why he then released it in an obsolete data format without metadata. what he did say though was that mcintyre's work was relevant and merited further study.

mcIntyre has himself already posted a response to realclimate on climateaudit, denying accusations of wilful deception were made by him against briffa.

it will be interesting to see how this affair develops but i'll be out of it until sunday as i'm going canoeing.

Briffa also mentioned that they have done work to address some issues IIRC.

Unfortunately it is without merit and is no defence because it has not been peer-reviewed. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, have a nice time, but don't confuse style - hysterical or not - with substance.

If you exclude the studies where raw data has been witheld and where Strip Bark BCPs are included and that do not cover the MWP, you get:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you exclude the studies where raw data has been witheld and where Strip Bark BCPs are included and that do not cover the MWP, you get:

What raw data did you have in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What raw data did you have in mind?

Dr Thompson's ice core series is not archived for example. That is the Dr Thompson of Dr Thompson's thermometer from An Inconvenient Truth.

And let's not forget that had Briffa not published in the Phil Trans Royal Society, a journal that requires such full disclosure, his data and methods would not be available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr Thompson's ice core series is not archived for example. That is the Dr Thompson of Dr Thompson's thermometer from An Inconvenient Truth.

And let's not forget that had Briffa not published in the Phil Trans Royal Society, a journal that requires such full disclosure, his data and methods would not be available.

There's no such thing as completely raw data. Human decisions to collect a particular kind of data means that it is not raw; it has human meaning imposed upon it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be firing up an extremely large V8,a bit later,to see whether anything happens.

Oh crikey! My wallet is empty! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be firing up an extremely large V8,a bit later,to see whether anything happens.

Oh crikey! My wallet is empty! :huh:

That's a bit off-topic, Mr Pin. B) Posts relating to poverty should be posted in the main economy forum. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://network.natio...-uncovered.aspx

Only by playing with data can scientists come up with the infamous 'hockey stick' graph of global warming

Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a famous result in paleoclimatology known as the Hockey Stick graph. Developed by a U.S. climatologist named Michael Mann, it was a statistical compilation of tree ring data supposedly proving that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century. Prior to the publication of the Hockey Stick, scientists had held that the medieval-era was warmer than the present, making the scale of 20th century global warming seem relatively unimportant. The dramatic revision to this view occasioned by the Hockey Stick's publication made it the poster child of the global warming movement. It was featured prominently in a 2001 report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as government websites and countless review reports.

..........

I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.

Ross McKitrick is a professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, and coauthor of Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other words they are human ,

I remember university for the dissetation I dont recall anybody NOT tampering with their datasets to produce a desired result and this was at a big supposedly well respected red brick university. Same thing at college.

Similar things happened when working in market research or rather when I did accounts jobs for a market research company , they had 1-200 chits for paying people cash for their opinions.

But they strangely had 1-2000 filled in questionaires....

And before anybody says it, this applies to both sides of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://network.natio...-uncovered.aspx

Only by playing with data can scientists come up with the infamous 'hockey stick' graph of global warming

Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a famous result in paleoclimatology known as the Hockey Stick graph. Developed by a U.S. climatologist named Michael Mann, it was a statistical compilation of tree ring data supposedly proving that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century. Prior to the publication of the Hockey Stick, scientists had held that the medieval-era was warmer than the present, making the scale of 20th century global warming seem relatively unimportant. The dramatic revision to this view occasioned by the Hockey Stick's publication made it the poster child of the global warming movement. It was featured prominently in a 2001 report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as government websites and countless review reports.

..........

I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.

Ross McKitrick is a professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, and coauthor of Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.

The Author of the above went on to retract every word. Did it in an obscure science journal rather than in the full glare of media frenzy of there initial pronouncements.

Typical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Author of the above went on to retract every word. Did it in an obscure science journal rather than in the full glare of media frenzy of there initial pronouncements.

Typical.

Well maybe he wants to get some attention/cash as well. Not only IPCC ....

But I am more interesting in the global climate change. Do we have some serious data to back it up or is it just a ponzi political scheme???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well maybe he wants to get some attention/cash as well. Not only IPCC ....

But I am more interesting in the global climate change. Do we have some serious data to back it up or is it just a ponzi political scheme???

If the answer is taxes, the question was a set up, a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the answer is taxes, the question was a set up, a lie.

Depends on the country , ie in the UK the answer is taxes, in Korea its build more high speed fast reliable and cheap public transport.

In Hong Kong the answer is to save some energy (and hence money) on the excuse of protecting the environment, air con in Hong Kong used to be meat locker cold it is no longer meat locker cold in many malls , the MTR system put platform barriers up to save on air conditioning costs of their stations , which saved them money and boosted their profits.But then again Hong Kong its a moot point anyway as there is a huge nuclear in Shenzen in Dava bay which provides a big portion of the electricity used in HK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Author of the above went on to retract every word. Did it in an obscure science journal rather than in the full glare of media frenzy of there initial pronouncements.

Typical.

Would you be so kind as to provide the journal and issue information? This would be quite interesting to me as I am working on a climate change project at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the country , ie in the UK the answer is taxes, in Korea its build more high speed fast reliable and cheap public transport.

Private sector?

In Hong Kong the answer is to save some energy (and hence money) on the excuse of protecting the environment, air con in Hong Kong used to be meat locker cold it is no longer meat locker cold in many malls , the MTR system put platform barriers up to save on air conditioning costs of their stations , which saved them money and boosted their profits.But then again Hong Kong its a moot point anyway as there is a huge nuclear in Shenzen in Dava bay which provides a big portion of the electricity used in HK.

Righto.

Have a song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you be so kind as to provide the journal and issue information? This would be quite interesting to me as I am working on a climate change project at the moment.

Cool, (but possibly getting warmer harhar). Can you tell us more about it or would you have to kill me? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mcintyre's attempt to discredit the hockey stick is based on zero evidence and has been discredited. Full expose on the Ericbliar thread in off-topic.

Mods! Why not move and merge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if you are right about this global warming trite?

will you be smug when you get hit with large green tax increases?

UK must surely have 5% or less of the global greenhouse emissions yet it seems to be paying the most for it.What is China doing exactly? it is the largest emitter of 'greenhouse gases' nowdays - are they still opening one new coal power plant per week or is that slowing down now?

As for the article you posted ....

First they ignore you , then they ridicule you , then they fight you , then you win.

The original authors of the tree data were ridiculing al gores hockey stick graph if you bothered to read the original post eric linked.... i don't see how that can be dodged so easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

briffa hasn'r "refuted" anything, hasn't explained his methodology, hasn't said why he felt it necessary to block the release of the raw data for 7 years and why he then released it in an obsolete data format without metadata. what he did say though was that mcintyre's work was relevant and merited further study.

Exactly.

It appears we have a number of alternative energy investors/employees on this forum, as there is no rational reason to be defending Briffa here. Even Briffa himself is finding it difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are now past the point where any honest person can innocently buy into this scam leading to the obvious conclusion: anyone still buying into the warmist narrative is not honest, and is not innocent. They are in it for the power and the money that they hope to recieve for their support, and nothing else.

The Yamal data has become the most Inconvenient Truth of all, and for that offense it must (in the warmists view) be buried with no discussion whatsoever.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are now past the point where any honest person can innocently buy into this scam – leading to the obvious conclusion: anyone still buying into the warmist narrative is not honest, and is not innocent. They are in it for the power and the money that they hope to recieve for their support, and nothing else.

The Yamal data has become the most “Inconvenient Truth” of all, and for that offense it must (in the warmists view) be buried with no discussion whatsoever.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/

You're talking rubbish. The hockey stick appears on data that doesn't go anywhere near tree rings, but you lot simply click on the last post without reading previous entries. Must be kind of comforting to live in a world without GCSEs. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.