Since I apparently wasn't specific enough for you before -
The quote above from YOUR post (#58) you infer there has been no independent verification of the "hockey stick graph".

In post 26 I quoted from wikipedia showing there have been two dozen reconstructions confirming the science and results of Mann's research.

If that's not specific enough then I'm definitely wasting my time and David's rant was accurate.

If you aren't interested in the science and just want to feel you're right (contrary to the consensus of the credible scientific community) just say so. Everyone has a right to have their own opinion.

I think it is reasonable to say that there is evidence in both camps. Being on the minority side is not only unpopular, but sometimes changes a friendly conversation among friends into name calling and confrontation, which I think is unfortunate.

Being in the minority camp does not mean being dismissive to the majority evidence. It just concludes that there is other significant evidence that has some validity and makes uncertain solutions with astronomical costs less appealing.

Meanwhile, I will accurately quote Paul Simon from The Boxer, “man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

I think one is missing the point. If I were to produce a study using 'novel statistical techniques' to claim black is white, and then offer my code and data to colleagues for them to produce their own 'independent' research to claim the same, does that prove the research is correct, or could it be there's an error in the data and code biasing the result? This is what independent verification seeks to confirm. One could produce a million reconstructions offering the same conclusion, but if the underlying statistical analysis is wrong then so to are all the conclusions.

Steve McIntyre’s analysis of Mann’s original work suggests it mines for hockey sticks: his inputting random red noise data produced a hockey stick. The 2006 NAS Report says "Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions”, i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.”

Whether this was wilful, careless or incompetent we don't know for Mann has consistently refused to offer his r2 regression numbers for review; even to the extent of being prepared to lose his eight year libel suit against Tim Ball¹.

Yes, I'm interested in the science (can one not tell?), but it needs to be open to scrutiny not locked away in a drawer. Indeed, this is true for all research but particularly so for work underpinning demands for such profound political change.

As I said, there is no doubt Mann is well educated, but competent? I reserve judgement until he allows independent verification of the data and code for his hockey stick graph.

[1] [Link: principia-scientific.org]

OK, we're just going in circles here. Sometimes David is a bit extreme in what he posts. In this case he was right.

OK, we're just going in circles here.

The windmills of your mind, or an artefact of flaky science?

Carl Sagan popularised the saying 'extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence' and yet Mann's original work, which by apparently overturning a swathe of previously accepted research certainly ranks as extraordinary, did not provide full disclosure (and to this day still hasn't). Others I’ve mentioned have also made extraordinary claims in their respective fields, notably Lewandowsky and Resplandy, but these were quickly debunked as psycho-babble twaddle and mathematically flawed respectively. What they all have in common, however, is that they all passed peer-review; a process supposedly designed to weed out the dubious.

One previously claimed that 'deniers' cannot converse logically about climate change. Perhaps one doesn't see the irony here; that having provided compelling evidence of the uncertainty of Mann's work (of its being nothing like the extraordinary originally believed) one is still prepared to accept it. Is that logical?

As repeatedly shown by Steve McIntyre, Mann's original work was heavily reliant on: "[Donald] Graybill’s stripbark bristlecone chronologies and that the contribution from all other proxies was nothing more than whitish noise. We noted that Graybill himself had attributed the marked increase in late 19th and 20th century bristlecone growth to CO2 fertilization, not temperature – a theory which was arguably a harbinger of the massive and widespread world greening, especially in dry areas, over the 30 years since Graybill et al. (1985)¹."

Even the 2006 NAS panel agreed that stripbark (Graybill) chronologies should be avoided in temperature reconstructions, though this recommendation was pointedly flouted by Mann et al. 2008, with his inclusion of 20 of them. Then came the Tiljander lakebed sediments fiasco, where he claimed he could obtain a non-dendro reconstruction.

"Because of persistent criticism over the impact of these flawed proxies, Mann et al. (2008) made the grandiose assertion that he could get a hockey stick without tree rings (and thus, a fortiori, without stripbark bristlecones) – a claim credulously promoted by Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate. However, it was almost immediately pointed out at Climate Audit that Mann’s non-bristlecone hockey stick critically depended on a Finnish lake sediment “proxy”, the modern portion of which (its blade) had been contaminated by modern agriculture and road construction and which had been used upside-down to its interpretation as a temperature proxy in pre-modern times. Mann was aware of the contamination of lake sediments, but argued that his use of contaminated (and upside down) data was legitimate because he could get a HS without them – in a calculation which used stripbark bristlecones. When challenged to show results without either stripbark bristlecones or upside-down mud, Mann (and Gavin Schmidt) stuck their fingers in their ears, with the larger climate community obtusely refusing to understand a criticism that was obvious to any analyst not subservient to the cause."

Today, thanks to efforts of Steve McIntyre and others, hockey stick construction has largely been debunked as being merely an artefact of proxy selection, and one of those blind alleys I previously alluded to. McIntyre himself once described stripbark chronologies as heroin for paleoclimatologists and Keith Briffa's Yamal chronology as cocaine; thus it is hardly surprising there are some still willing to waste time, effort and resources in their pursuit. In the meanwhile, real science has moved on.

[1] [Link: climateaudit.org]

Nailed It!

Sorry, but misrepresenting half a quote doesn't nail anything.

first from the get go I said

you are the one that focuses on CO₂ and so I reply with it taking center stage.

but to reply to your assertion more directly, as long as conditions don't have a CO₂ issue our breathing is not an issue and I don't see it as a pollutant. On the other hand other forms of creation of CO₂ for example like burning coal or cars that produce both CO₂ especially in densely populated area then I do associate CO₂ with the others and call it a pollutant. In a way take it this way three guys enter a bank and steal money at gun point, there is a fourth guy in a car waiting for them to come out and drive them away. That 4th guy is not just a driver, he is a
bank robber as well even if he did not enter the bank.


any amount that messes with stability IMHO.


sorry should have been clearer I was asking why the label is important not the amount of CO₂


it might be more recent but you talked about "normal" there were times when CO₂ was over 6k ppm and maybe even over 7k, 200M years -150M it was around 2k, when looking superficially at the dat I thought it could be classified as "normal" and what came after it a drought.

Why don't you tell us what you feel is "normal" and a "drought" .


stability.

No. You made an assertion. I quoted information that proved your assertion was wrong yet you still go on making the assertion. This makes it clear that you have no interest in discussing this, just interested in pushing a personal viewpoint which has been proven wrong. It's actions such as you're doing that just makes the denier movement less and less credible.

Since you're not willing to discuss this in an adult matter I leave you to your delusions. Good luck with that.

Well, what can I say? Doggedly sticking to the view you’ve 'proved me wrong' when I've proffered a detailed argument (with supporting evidence of my own) countering your 'quoted information' rather defeats me.

To have an adult discussion one needs to proffer a compelling argument of one's own. Copying and pasting a few easily refutable quotes doesn't cut it.

Taking a step back for a moment, I think one will find it's the IPCC focusing on CO₂ not I. Following the modus operandi of politicians from time immemorial, they are stoking the fears of the unknown as a means of control. We (that’s us in the UK) saw it recently with 'Project Fear' during the run up to the 2016 referendum. How life, the universe and everything would collapse overnight if we voted to leave the EU. We are now seeing the same thing with the prospect of a 'No Deal' Brexit.

The 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development has two imperatives. The primary goal is ending poverty: "Eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge.". The secondary goal is ending hunger: "We resolve, between now and 2030, to end poverty and hunger everywhere." They further state "All sustainability goals and agendas must be subservient to the two points."

How does one address these problems? By, perhaps, using and (in my opinion) abusing science to persuade nations and governments of there being a global climate emergency. One serious enough it would necessitate joint global action and political change on an unprecedented scale? How serendipitous is it then that an atmospheric trace gas is one associated with the Greenhouse Effect (without either of which life on earth would not exist) and the only component of a hugely complex and chaotic climate system which could possibly be controlled - as long as we all pull together of course. And thus, with the aid of some flaky science pointing the finger at said trace gas, how easy would it be to convince the hoi polloi, particularly those with a predilection towards and propensity to believe in doom and gloom scenarios, of the onset of a global climate catastrophe.

You talk of stability, but what is 'stable' in a climate system which, in the UK, can see annual variations of 50°C and, regardless of atmospheric CO₂ content, shows a penchant for multi-decadal change; e.g. the MWP and LIA. And what of the glacials and interglacials illustrated by the Vostok ice cores, those made famous by Gore and his sleight of hand in trying to claim CO₂ was the driver of temperature change, when in fact they show the complete opposite. No amount of CO₂ being pumped into the atmosphere will stop the next glacial when it comes: that will be a climate catastrophe.

maybe and I addressed that many pages back and agreed with you. I think it gets a worst wrap then iot deserves. But that being said the IPCC is not here to debate the subject, it is me and you. And even though this is no where near my fuield of expertise if you have something better to bring up please do so.


maybe, but when my friends place got flooded this spring and two years ago because his house is on the border of the hundred years flood plain, it does not take a genius to figure out that global warming + melting glaciers mean that the water level will get higher I don't need fear mongering or crackpots to understand what is happening.



and here in Montreal area the temp goes from just above 30 in the summer to just below -30 in the winter and when you include stuff like humidex or wind chill there are days that beat 40 and -40.

even though I bitch and ask myself what I am doing here when I am outside and the temp is extreme, having 4 real seasons is one of the things I love about this place.

I know how they work and I don't go nuts every season. assume they mean anything more then they do.




next glacial, next ultra warm period they will both be catastrophic. And yes maybe it will be futile and we can't make a difference. But you know what IMHO only losers give-up before even trying so, yeah if we can try and keep it stable by helping mother nature or working against it then I say let's go for it.


If I wanted colder or hotter I would be living somewhere else. Same if I to be closer or further from the water. Plus I love Chocolate and maple syrup. two things that are extremely particular when it comes to the environment.

Hmmm.
[Link: phys.org]

"Greenhouse gases thrust into the atmosphere mainly by burning fossil fuels are warming Earth's surface more quickly than previously understood, according to new climate models set to replace those used in current UN projections, scientists said Tuesday."

This is interesting insofar as the Greenhouse Effect takes place in the troposphere not at the surface.

"We have better models now," said Boucher. "They have better resolution, and they represent current climate trends more accurately."

Surely 'better models' showing 'more warming' will only make the divergence worse?


CMIP5 models vs Reality

This all seems so depressingly familiar - we have a new report to produce ergo we must makes things appear worse than we thought.

An example of this is the story of a 2m sea level rise being plausible by 2100 (also covered by the BBC here).

The Jevrejeva et al. 2013 sea level reconstruction says this...


Circa 2mm per year - 160mm by 2100

NASA, on the other hand, says circa 3.3mm per year - 264mm by 2100.

Thus in order to get to 2m by 2100, sea level rise would have to do this...



Even the IPCC thinks such an increase implausible "It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm/yr between 1901 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm/yr between 1993 and 2010.Tide gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate during the latter period. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.”

A few 'experts' sharing their opinions doesn’t necessarily make good science. And so it goes with CMIP6. As Roy Spencer notes...

So, once again, we see that the observed rate of warming — when we ignore the natural fluctuations in the climate system (which, along with severe weather events dominate 'climate change' news) — is only about one-half of that projected by climate models at this point in the 21st Century. This fraction is consistent with the global energy budget study of Lewis & Curry (2018) which analyzed 100 years of global temperatures and ocean heat content changes, and also found that the climate system is only about 1/2 as sensitive to increasing CO2 as climate models assume.

It will be interesting to see if the new climate model assessment (CMIP6) produces warming more in line with the observations. From what I have heard so far, this appears unlikely. If history is any guide, this means the observations will continue to need adjustments to fit the models, rather than the other way around.

Like the BBC, it appears as though phys.org is perfectly at ease in promoting alarm. I hope no young children are reading.

Which Koch brother are you screwing? The dead one or the living one?