Remember me
▼ Content

The Hockey Stick Controversy


The Hockey Stick Controversy19-02-2017 06:12
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
The Climate Change Hockey Stick
Was it AGW or not?


If ever there was a single "trigger" to galvanise the average citizens of the world to accept the theory on humans causing dangerous global warming, then it would have to be the Mann, Bradley and Hughes - MBH "hockey stick" schematic diagram.

The Hockey Stick Diagram

MBH constructed their first diagram from AD 1200 to 1900 by looking at 183 tree ring records from across the Northern Hemisphere on the assumption that the width of each ring was related to temperature as the tree grew. There was some scientific fact to this. They then added actual thermometer records to project temperatures from 1900 to 2100. Mann et al later reconstructed the hockey stick extending it back to AD 1000.

The diagram was originally published in Nature in 1998, revised and published again in 1999 in Geophysical Research Letters. Mann went on to become one of the Lead Authors of the IPCC Third Assessment Report in 2001 in which an updated hockey stick diagram featured prominently. It also appeared in subsequent IPCC Assessment Reports in some form.

The IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001 also included a comment that the 1990s was the warmest period during the preceding 1000 years, even though there was abundant evidence to the contrary. Statements like these and the use of the hockey stick diagram, which by now was being severely questioned, became central to the promotion of AGW by the alarmist cause that humans were causing dangerous climate change.

Understandably the hockey stick immediately attracted attention on both sides of the debate.

At least 14 separate reconstructions were done by other scientists. They could use whatever collection of proxy measurement data sets they desired, but apparently were required to only use the proxy data sets provided by the IPCC. Similar results to Mann's et al were produced leading to an assertion that burning of fossil fuels was causing immediate and drastic heating of the planet.

Climate sceptics proceeded to analyse it to death, from every conceivable angle. Some problems were immediately noticed:

1. That the temperatures on the "shaft" showed a fairly even temperature range from AD 1000 to 1900 (prior to industrialisation), unlike "normal" climate fluctuations.

2. That the "blade" showing temperatures rising at such an alarming fast rate just begged to be double checked, especially since other records such as quality spelotherms (mineral deposits in caves) and tree ring data from the Southern Hemisphere hadn't shown any similar temperature rise at in the late 20th century. This appeared to negate any global warming allegations.

3. Statistician trained scientists noted a basic flaw in statistical compilation in that assumed measurements from proxy data e.g. tree rings had been combined with actual thermometer records in the same diagram and used to draw an alleged scientific conclusion. Additionally there was doubt about the conditions under which those thermometer records may have been taken and may not be standardised.

Despite the claims from non-aligned IPCC scientists, other computer modelled hockey stick versions started appearing, not a few of which were highly exaggerated such as used by Al Gore in his An Inconvenient Truth.

Thus the dogma of AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming started becoming widely accepted by the lay public. Anyone who did not believe in AGW were dubbed as "denialist" or "sceptic" and world opinion turned against those seeking better answers.

Any scientist labelled as such began to be stonewalled when trying to gain access to raw data from which to do further research, including as I understand it data about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. If it could be proved that the temperature during the MWP was the same or higher than today it would negate the statement that the 1990s where the warmest in the last 1000 years.

I will explore this further in a later post.

Source:

Climate: The Counter Consensus, Professor Robert M. Carter 2010.

This post with images is available at:
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com

Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
Edited on 19-02-2017 06:17
19-02-2017 12:34
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Just to point out they label us deniers. We call ourselves skeptics.
Edited on 19-02-2017 12:35
19-02-2017 14:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Thanks for sharing your theory with us.

Anyway if all this is true how how did various glaciers survive through the last 1000+ years and why is it now that they are disappearing? because this seems a big issue with the narrative that you want us to believe.

thanks
19-02-2017 15:13
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
spot wrote:
Thanks for sharing your theory with us.

Anyway if all this is true how how did various glaciers survive through the last 1000+ years and why is it now that they are disappearing? because this seems a big issue with the narrative that you want us to believe.

thanks


Do you mean the last 10,000 years?

And the glaciers of the world are always in a state of either retreat or advance.

Since it is a bit warmer now than it was 100 years ago most of the world's galciers are retreating.

It is relitively easy to understand how much warming will result in how much retreat of a glacier, at least aproximately.
19-02-2017 15:45
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Thanks for sharing your theory with us.

Anyway if all this is true how how did various glaciers survive through the last 1000+ years and why is it now that they are disappearing? because this seems a big issue with the narrative that you want us to believe.

thanks


Do you mean the last 10,000 years?

And the glaciers of the world are always in a state of either retreat or advance.

Since it is a bit warmer now than it was 100 years ago most of the world's galciers are retreating.

It is relitively easy to understand how much warming will result in how much retreat of a glacier, at least aproximately.


Thanks for trying tim but you are not really answering the question.

As far as I am aware there are methods for dating ice. If ice is old but not stable in current conditions that implies that current conditions are not like past conditions.

Do you understand?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 19-02-2017 15:48
19-02-2017 18:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Thanks for sharing your theory with us.

Anyway if all this is true how how did various glaciers survive through the last 1000+ years and why is it now that they are disappearing? because this seems a big issue with the narrative that you want us to believe.

thanks


Do you mean the last 10,000 years?

And the glaciers of the world are always in a state of either retreat or advance.

Since it is a bit warmer now than it was 100 years ago most of the world's galciers are retreating.

It is relitively easy to understand how much warming will result in how much retreat of a glacier, at least aproximately.


Thanks for trying tim but you are not really answering the question.

As far as I am aware there are methods for dating ice. If ice is old but not stable in current conditions that implies that current conditions are not like past conditions.

Do you understand?


Why do you insist on talking about things you don't know about? The "glaciers that lasted for the last 1000 years didn't.

The lower latitude glaciers such as those on Greenland were high altitude glaciers that advanced in the Little Ice Age circa 1650. They are now retreating back to their high altitude positions.

Below the remains of these glaciers are the remains of forests and viking farms that people such as yourself denied were ever there and that the name "Greenland" was nothing more than an advertising ploy.

Or perhaps you can play back the Utube video of Obama standing in front of a glacier in Alaska telling us all how worried he is for our safety with the melting glaciers. That particular glacier has moved back and forth 1 1/2 miles over the last several hundred years.

You simply cannot keep yourself from offering expert testimony about things that you do not understand and have no interest in ever learning do you?
19-02-2017 19:08
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:


Why do you insist on talking about things you don't know about? The "glaciers that lasted for the last 1000 years didn't.



I know far more about this then you. The Glaciers that are disappearing now are older then the medieval warm period. You might dispute that but there are those that think that god put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith I see no reason to take you seriously.

Clearly you are unable to understand let alone answer the question.

People like me don't believe that Greenland was colonized by the Norse? I know of no controversy. You know what people like me supposedly think on that subject how? or did you just make that lie up all by yourself?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
19-02-2017 21:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:


Why do you insist on talking about things you don't know about? The "glaciers that lasted for the last 1000 years didn't.



I know far more about this then you. The Glaciers that are disappearing now are older then the medieval warm period. You might dispute that but there are those that think that god put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith I see no reason to take you seriously.

Clearly you are unable to understand let alone answer the question.

People like me don't believe that Greenland was colonized by the Norse? I know of no controversy. You know what people like me supposedly think on that subject how? or did you just make that lie up all by yourself?


Funny thing that "you know that the glaciers in Greenland are older than the medieval warm period.

But as usual like your credentials you offer no proof whatsoever.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/one-worlds-leading-climate-change-experts-claims-have-thone-siharath?articleId=6159054829399339008

Let me hear you say DUHHHHHH. Or not, I'm getting very tired of it.
20-02-2017 02:12
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Hi Spot,
Anyway if all this is true how how did various glaciers survive through the last 1000+ years and why is it now that they are disappearing? because this seems a big issue with the narrative that you want us to believe.


Thank you for your question. I will use it to research a future topic for my blog.

It is not my intention through the blog that I want to change the belief of anyone. My concern is that the general public of the world, is that generally we're being too complacent on the issue - just accepting what is being spoon fed to us via media systems that are driven commercially to use exciting (or sensational) news items.

If one searches a search engine e.g. Google on climate change matters it's not unusual to find most of the returns are by climate alarm supporters including leading scientific agencies, WikiLeaks and government websites.

These sorts of sources have a lot of kudos but I, for one, am suspicious due to my own research that the world has been misled by a UN agency - IPCC, that is only focused on human caused warming instead of looking more widely at any other cause.

My aim is to get people to start questioning things like you have done with your post, and don't be fobbed off with clichés. Find what is basis for their information other than from the IPCC for reasons I have discussed here:
http://issuesonclimatechange.com/ipcc-and-climate-alarm/

There are some excellent websites out there that although being pro-alarmist, still provide information of BOTH sides of the debate. These are the ones to look for.
20-02-2017 02:44
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
The websites to look for are the ones that base their information on references to peer-reviewed scientific papers. Anything else is opinion, not fact.
20-02-2017 03:32
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"tipped the leaky plunger" plugged:....they label us deniers. We call ourselves skeptics.

Your most accurate names include old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.
20-02-2017 12:29
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Your most accurate names include old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.


And what are you trying to say exactly?
20-02-2017 19:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
rwswan wrote:
Your most accurate names include old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.


And what are you trying to say exactly?


Unfortunately he has not actually read peer reviewed journals. He has read people referencing them and often people that have misrepresented the papers. More and more NOAA and NASA scientists are speaking up. But the media will not publish them and when you do find a reference you better mark it well because Google will put it on page 20.
20-02-2017 21:55
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Surface Detail wrote:
The websites to look for are the ones that base their information on references to peer-reviewed scientific papers. Anything else is opinion, not fact.


Peer reviewed does not make it fact.

All peer review is supposed to say is that it is not obviously drivel and that it is interesting. But I can show you a paper published in Nature which clearly the reviewers should be hung for. And the lead author striped of any scientific qualifications at all as she does not understand the difference between rate and acceleration.
20-02-2017 22:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The websites to look for are the ones that base their information on references to peer-reviewed scientific papers. Anything else is opinion, not fact.


Peer reviewed does not make it fact.

All peer review is supposed to say is that it is not obviously drivel and that it is interesting. But I can show you a paper published in Nature which clearly the reviewers should be hung for. And the lead author striped of any scientific qualifications at all as she does not understand the difference between rate and acceleration.

Fair enough - peer review is a necessary but not sufficient condition for quality. But the point stands that unless information is based on sources that have been peer reviewed or have been verified as reliable by some other means, then it cannot be regarded as dependable.

Please show me the paper you're referring to. I'd like to check for myself.
20-02-2017 22:58
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Wake wrote:
rwswan wrote:
[quote]Your most accurate names include old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.


And what are you trying to say exactly?

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:
More and more NOAA and NASA scientists are speaking up.
////
litesong wrote:
"Don'T rump" is squashing NOAA & NASA scientists.
20-02-2017 23:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The websites to look for are the ones that base their information on references to peer-reviewed scientific papers. Anything else is opinion, not fact.


Peer reviewed does not make it fact.

All peer review is supposed to say is that it is not obviously drivel and that it is interesting. But I can show you a paper published in Nature which clearly the reviewers should be hung for. And the lead author striped of any scientific qualifications at all as she does not understand the difference between rate and acceleration.


30 people in agreement not criticizing a paper mimicking their beliefs is not and should not be offered as proof that even fire is hot.
20-02-2017 23:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The websites to look for are the ones that base their information on references to peer-reviewed scientific papers. Anything else is opinion, not fact.


Peer reviewed does not make it fact.

All peer review is supposed to say is that it is not obviously drivel and that it is interesting. But I can show you a paper published in Nature which clearly the reviewers should be hung for. And the lead author striped of any scientific qualifications at all as she does not understand the difference between rate and acceleration.


30 people in agreement not criticizing a paper mimicking their beliefs is not and should not be offered as proof that even fire is hot.

Peer review isn't offered as proof of anything. It's just a basic bullshit filter. A peer reviewed paper could still we wrong; it is just not obviously wrong.
20-02-2017 23:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The websites to look for are the ones that base their information on references to peer-reviewed scientific papers. Anything else is opinion, not fact.


Peer reviewed does not make it fact.

All peer review is supposed to say is that it is not obviously drivel and that it is interesting. But I can show you a paper published in Nature which clearly the reviewers should be hung for. And the lead author striped of any scientific qualifications at all as she does not understand the difference between rate and acceleration.


30 people in agreement not criticizing a paper mimicking their beliefs is not and should not be offered as proof that even fire is hot.

Peer review isn't offered as proof of anything. It's just a basic bullshit filter. A peer reviewed paper could still we wrong; it is just not obviously wrong.


Yes, not fact and also should not be obviously wrong.
21-02-2017 00:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The websites to look for are the ones that base their information on references to peer-reviewed scientific papers. Anything else is opinion, not fact.


Peer reviewed does not make it fact.

All peer review is supposed to say is that it is not obviously drivel and that it is interesting. But I can show you a paper published in Nature which clearly the reviewers should be hung for. And the lead author striped of any scientific qualifications at all as she does not understand the difference between rate and acceleration.


30 people in agreement not criticizing a paper mimicking their beliefs is not and should not be offered as proof that even fire is hot.

Peer review isn't offered as proof of anything. It's just a basic bullshit filter. A peer reviewed paper could still we wrong; it is just not obviously wrong.


Yes, not fact and also should not be obviously wrong.

Whereas stuff that is simply posted on some website with no sources provided may well be, and often is, utter codswallop. Which is why it makes sense to stick to peer reviewed material if you're not an expert in the subject. It's not necessarily correct, but it's far more likely to be correct.
21-02-2017 06:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Whereas stuff that is simply posted on some website with no sources provided may well be, and often is, utter codswallop. Which is why it makes sense to stick to peer reviewed material if you're not an expert in the subject. It's not necessarily correct, but it's far more likely to be correct.


Exactly what does it matter since you do neither. You only look for something somewhere that you can interpret as agreeing with your political positions and then quote it even without reading it through to realize that it's calling your position BS.
21-02-2017 12:51
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Whereas stuff that is simply posted on some website with no sources provided may well be, and often is, utter codswallop. Which is why it makes sense to stick to peer reviewed material if you're not an expert in the subject. It's not necessarily correct, but it's far more likely to be correct.


Exactly what does it matter since you do neither. You only look for something somewhere that you can interpret as agreeing with your political positions and then quote it even without reading it through to realize that it's calling your position BS.

Your personal attacks on me do nothing for your credibility. If you disagree with things that I say, then address those points. Otherwise, lay off the ad hominems.
21-02-2017 13:47
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
rwswan wrote:
Hi Spot,
Anyway if all this is true how how did various glaciers survive through the last 1000+ years and why is it now that they are disappearing? because this seems a big issue with the narrative that you want us to believe.


Thank you for your question. I will use it to research a future topic for my blog.

It is not my intention through the blog that I want to change the belief of anyone. My concern is that the general public of the world, is that generally we're being too complacent on the issue - just accepting what is being spoon fed to us via media systems that are driven commercially to use exciting (or sensational) news items.

If one searches a search engine e.g. Google on climate change matters it's not unusual to find most of the returns are by climate alarm supporters including leading scientific agencies, WikiLeaks and government websites.

These sorts of sources have a lot of kudos but I, for one, am suspicious due to my own research that the world has been misled by a UN agency - IPCC, that is only focused on human caused warming instead of looking more widely at any other cause.

My aim is to get people to start questioning things like you have done with your post, and don't be fobbed off with clichés. Find what is basis for their information other than from the IPCC for reasons I have discussed here:
http://issuesonclimatechange.com/ipcc-and-climate-alarm/

There are some excellent websites out there that although being pro-alarmist, still provide information of BOTH sides of the debate. These are the ones to look for.


You mean Wikipedia not Wikileaks surely. Anyway the ice has either survived the Medieval warm period and the bronze age warming and whatever or it hasn't, its either melting in current conditions or it isn't. This is nothing to do with politics or bias its just facts. If you want to know about an issue don't you agree to stick to the facts?

And I read you blog and noticed a problem



That's quite a striking illustration of how fickle scientific opinion is, however the image is a hoax.

the real times cover was this.



Wherever you got that the people behind that are deceptive, you can't have a reasoned debate with deceptive people in my experience. And if your point is strong there is no need to be deceptive.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
21-02-2017 16:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[b]spot wrote: That's quite a striking illustration of how fickle scientific opinion is, however the image is a hoax.

the real times cover was this.



Wherever you got that the people behind that are deceptive, you can't have a reasoned debate with deceptive people in my experience. And if your point is strong there is no need to be deceptive.


Then please do not yourself make precisely the same mistakes.

https://tinyurl.com/jaq2xff is not a counterfeit.

Nor is:

https://tinyurl.com/zacc63q

https://tinyurl.com/j8r625k

https://tinyurl.com/jrv3yw6

Because someone couldn't find the cover they were looking for an so counterfeited one that said more or less the same thing that another cover did means little other than one lie was being offset by another.
22-02-2017 01:32
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Spot and Wake,
Thank you for setting me straight and I will be updating that post today.
The last thing I want is to be putting up BS either for or against the debate of AGW. I do try to check my facts prior to publication but this one obviously slipped through. Not surprising I suppose when both sides are so intent on muddying the waters with their "cause noblesse" . Appreciate you both taking the time.
Cheers,
Russ Swan
22-02-2017 23:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
rwswan wrote:
Spot and Wake,
Thank you for setting me straight and I will be updating that post today.
The last thing I want is to be putting up BS either for or against the debate of AGW. I do try to check my facts prior to publication but this one obviously slipped through. Not surprising I suppose when both sides are so intent on muddying the waters with their "cause noblesse" . Appreciate you both taking the time.
Cheers,
Russ Swan


Russ, the very LAST thing that you should have anything to do with is the popular media. Time/Newsweek was the absolute WORST source of anything. Up until Kennedy was elected they were pretty conservative - not in the political sense - but in the editorial sense where they publish well researched and well written articles. But they went the way of ALL of the media since then. Whatever will sell. And what sells is fear.
24-02-2017 17:04
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
rwswan wrote: The last thing I want is to be putting up BS either for or against the debate of AGW. Cheers,
Russ Swan

In the 1970's & early 1980's, 44 Science Papers were published in Science Journals about global warming. In that same time period, only 7 papers were written about global cooling. AGW denier liar whiners love to report the Time & Newsweek issues toting global cooling. But AGW denier liar whiners never were scientific & didn't look at Science Journals.




Join the debate The Hockey Stick Controversy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Hockey Stick Climate Sensitivity426-04-2017 18:47
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact