AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (108 comments)

  1. Che is dead

    Has anyone else noticed how the improvement of the human condition is positively correlated with the insanity of the environmental left?

    1. The left still believes in the zero-sum, Malthusian nonsense and wants nothing to do with progress.

  2. Ned Stark

    The clock in the background is stuck at 4:20.
    Coincidence? lol

    1. Maybe it’s a sign that it’s a timeless message?

  3. “amazing, astonishing discovery”?
    Everybody knows that CO2 is necessary for the plant’s life!
    It’s used as fertilizer in greenhouses.

    1. How much did big oil pay this joker! Believe what you want both sides have their beliefs,but fact is the globe is getting warmer,and storms more severe in consistency.Be it god or carbon emissions something in nature is out of norm in our time.

      1. morganovich

        actually kevin, everyhting you just said is wrong.

        there has been no warming for 15 years and global cyclonic intensity is near 50 year lows. intense storms are driven by cold temps, not warm ones on a global scale. they were far stronger in the early 1800’s during the little ice age.

        you can have your own opinion, but you do not get to make up your own facts.

        there is absolutely nothing weird going on. in the 1700-800’s it got really cold. this was due to a calm sun (maunder minimum) we have bounced back from this some, but it is still colder than the medieval period which, in turn, was colder than the roman, which was colder than the minoan, which was colder than the 3000 year holocene climate optimum.

        we are in the late phases of an interglacial during an ice age. in only 10% of the period since multi-cellular life evolved (500 million years ago) has it been cold enough for there to be ice at both poles. this has more to do with having a polar continent and the closure of the isthmus of panama stopping equatorial mingling of the great oceans than anything else.

        climate changes all the time, always has, always will.

        there is no “norm” to claim. if anything, current temps are notable for being cold, not hot.

        1850 was the coldest period in 9000 years. that causes famine and hardship. be grateful it warmed back up again. the medieval and roman periods were much warmer than today and civilization and ecology thrived as a result.

        the romans grew wine in london. the vikings grew it on new foundland (then vinland).

        try either of those today.

        temps in our time are perfectly normal and part of cycles that happen all the time and are too complex to be well understood.

        what we do know is this:

        all the AGW models have failed massively. co2 is above worst case and temps are below best case which was predicated on a drop in co2, not a massive rise.

        the “fingerprint” of tropical tropospheric warming predicted by agw has completely failed to materialize. thus, either, the notion of how agw works is totally wrong or the warming we are experiencing is not co2 driven.

        co2 cannot drive runaway warming. it’s literally impossible. co2 insulation is a log function and we are way past the steep part. when we entered the current ice age, co2 levels on earth were 10X what they are now (4500ppm). it is only by positing large positive feedbacks from things like water vapor that you can paint scary scenarios, but this ignores the glaring facts that 1. it never happened before with 10X the co2 and 2. positive feedbacks are all but non existent in nature.

        the actual data shows that water vapor has a negative, not a positive feedback to warming (and cooling). it’s a massive stabilizer. read lindzen at MIT on adaptive heat iris.

        this whole farce is driven by attributing the wrong sign to feedbacks in contravention of all good sense and experimental data.

        co2 increases are an effect of climate change (ocean outgassing) not a cause. co2 rose 1500 years after temps in every interglacial, long before man could be doing it. co2 does not drive climate on a planet with liquid water. it can’t. never has, never will.

        1. Citizen B.

          “the romans grew wine in london. the vikings grew it on new foundland (then vinland).”

          Vinland. Viking wine? Maybe.

          1. Or to take a related example, the viking settlements in Greenland, prospered for a number of years before the climate got colder and they failed in the period 1450 to 1500. Then we also had the slightly later little ice age as noted.
            Perhaps a way to spin it is we are working to get back to the climatic optimum of 4-6000 years ago. (Which would also make the north african deserts bloom as they did in roman times.

          2. There is debated about the name Vinland. One argument is that the name does not just apply to Newfoundland but to the region where it is possible that the Norse found wild grapes, probably around New Brunswick. Another argument is that the word vin refers to the ‘meadow’ or ‘pasture’ at which the Norse built their winter camp. The location is L’Anse aux Meadows at the northern part of the island.

        2. RonRonDoRon

          morganovich –

          Not arguing against any of your other points, but you might want to drop the Newfoundland-wine-growing claim. It’s more likely they called it Vinland because they were surprised to find grapes growing there (native grapes similar to what are now called Concord).

          Not sure if Vikings grew grapes anywhere (except maybe when they took over parts of France) – can’t imagine them transporting vine cuttings on exploratory trips across the North Atlantic. Not sure there are even any European grapes that could survive in Newfoundland.

          1. morganovich

            rrdr-

            i’m not basing it on the name, i’m bading it upon the accounts from leif errisson meeting natives who grew wine and from the results of the l’anse aux meadows excavation.

            regardless, the fact the viking churches etc turn up as glaciers melt certainly seems to confirm that greenland, vinland, etc were once quite a bit warmer.

            (to say nothing of the boreal forest remains you can find drilling boreholes through 1000’s of feet of greenland ice even in the far north.

          2. But it is undoubted based upon records that England grew a good bit of wine in Roman and Dark Age times. So its clear that at least on that side of the atlantic things are colder than 1100 years ago.

          3. Not sure if Vikings grew grapes anywhere (except maybe when they took over parts of France) – can’t imagine them transporting vine cuttings on exploratory trips across the North Atlantic. Not sure there are even any European grapes that could survive in Newfoundland.

            What we do know is that grapes grew in England and that English wine was exported to France during the MWP. That is somewhat inconvenient for the AGW types who are trying to rewrite history. As for the Vikings, their graveyards have bodies that are below the current permafrost. The fact that Greenland was a lot warmer a thousand years ago than it is today is also very inconvenient.

          4. morganovich

            and not just a little bit warmer.

            http://co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php

            the average reconstruction study for the MWP shows that it was around a degree warmer.

            of course, the roman period was warmer still, the minoan downright hot, and the holocene climate optimum, which lasted 3000 years was around 3 degrees warmer.

            this, of course, was when human civilization really started to thrive.

            the polar bears were fine.

            the world did not die.

            even that period was still really cold by the standards of the last 500 million years.

          5. morganovich

            people lose sight of this:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

            it’s really, really cold right now.

            it’s actually quite rare for earth to have ice at both poles in the period since mufti-cellular life began.

            we are in an ice age, but in an interglacial.

            this interglacial (holocene) has not been nearly as hot as the last one. the peak of the holocene optimum was 3 degrees lower in temps than the 100’s of years at the top of the eemian, and we are 3 degree off that high now.

            there is nothing weird about these temperatures. the aberration was the stadial period of the little ice age and honestly, if i thought that CO2 was to blame, i’d strt a coal fire in the backyard.

            you do NOT want to see this interglacial end.

            if we hit a glacial like the last one and temps dropped 6 or 8 degrees and ice ran down to the carolinas, i’d be willing to bet that 80% of humanity would die of starvation.

            warm is manageable, serious glaciation is not.

            boreal forest in greenland can work for humans. 500 feet of ice covering manhattan, not so much. (y’all realize long island is a glacial moraine, yes? it’s only about 20k years old.)

          6. In addition we can see that CO2 levels today are as low as they have ever been in the last 600 million years.

            The only other time levels have been this low was during the carboniferous period between 320 and 270 million years ago when all that coal got buried in the ground.

          7. Zachriel

            Ron H: In addition we can see that CO2 levels today are as low as they have ever been in the last 600 million years.

            Yaaawwwn!

            You do understand that a sudden change to those climate conditions may not conducive to human civilization.

          8. You do understand that a sudden change to those climate conditions may not conducive to human civilization.

            Well of course – anything’s possible. But by all indications, historically warmer periods have been the times of greatest human prosperity and advancement. We’re just not falling for that nonsense about rolling back the industrial revolution, thereby making everyone poorer, in an attempt to slightly reduce the amount of a trace gas in the atmosphere.

            You can also see by the results of such rollback efforts world-wide, that very few others are convinced of the need for such efforts.

          9. Z:

            In addition, you can clearly see that humans not only survive but thrive in a wide range of climatic conditions and temperature, and do so best when they are rich – not poor.

            Until something cheaper and more abundant than fossil fuels are widely available, attempts to reduce worldwide standards of living are counterproductive and potentially deadly for the poorest in the world.

          10. Zachriel

            Ron H: Well of course – anything’s possible.

            Among those periods included periods with extensive ice sheets, and periods with no ice caps. The latter would mean Florida, Bangladesh, and many other populated areas would be inundated. Was that really your point?

            Ron H: You can also see by the results of such rollback efforts world-wide, that very few others are convinced of the need for such efforts.

            Most industrialized and industrializing nations are already moving towards mitigation. We agree that climate change mitigation has to be balanced with the need for continued development.

          11. Z: “Among those periods included periods with extensive ice sheets, and periods with no ice caps. The latter would mean Florida, Bangladesh, and many other populated areas would be inundated. Was that really your point?

            Our point was that climate happens, and you can’t exert meaning control over it by lowering atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

            If you believe increased atmospheric CO2 will cause extensive warming, then extensive ice sheets shouldn’t be one of your concerns, but cooling is more likely than warming over the long term, as we are currently in a rather long interglacial period of an ice age.

            As for inundation of populated areas, you can almost certainly find information on the maximum possible sea level rise assuming no ice (about 200 feet), and the length of time required to melt the antarctic ice sheet, which at the current rate would be about 135,000 years. Don’t you think people can get out of the way of water rising that slowly? Especially people who haven’t impoverished themselves trying to reduce CO2?

            Bangladesh is a unique example. Parts of it will sink beneath the waves whether sea levels rise or not, as the tectonic plate on which it rests is subducting beneath the Eurasian plate, and the compensating deposits of silt that used to be deposited by rivers no longer reach the delta because of dams built upstream.

            We agree that climate change mitigation has to be balanced with the need for continued development.

            We don’t agree that climate change can be mitigated in any meaningful way but that the *effects* of climate change on people can be reduced or eliminated by ensuring that everyone’s wealth and standard of living improves through the use of cheap, abundant energy. Currently that means burning lots of fossil fuels.

          12. Zachriel

            Ron H: Our point was that climate happens, and you can’t exert meaning control over it by lowering atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

            No one is talking about lowering CO2 concentrations, and while fine control of the climate isn’t possible, if you did lower CO2 levels, it would cool the Earth’s surface.

            Ron H: If you believe increased atmospheric CO2 will cause extensive warming, then extensive ice sheets shouldn’t be one of your concerns, but cooling is more likely than warming over the long term, as we are currently in a rather long interglacial period of an ice age.

            That is incorrect. The impending ice age would have been several centuries in the future, but anthropogenic warming means that the ice age will nor occur. The problem now is artificially accelerated warming.

            Ron H: Don’t you think people can get out of the way of water rising that slowly?

            You’re the one who used climate change over geological time periods to brush away the impact of the current warming trend. Just because dinosaurs lived through warmer periods doesn’t mean human civilization won’t be disrupted.

            Ron H: We don’t agree that climate change can be mitigated in any meaningful way

            Of course it can. Humans built the energy infrastructure, and most of it has to be replaced every couple of decades anyway. Markets are quite adept at adaptation when provided incentives.

            Ron H: Currently that means burning lots of fossil fuels.

            That’s right. Fossil fuels will continue to be important for quite some time. However, climate change is a significant threat that needs to be addressed.

      2. Yes, climate research is all done by good people who don’t believe in profit and wouldn’t take a nickel from oil concerns–people like Al Gore

      3. MacDaddyWatch

        Bullshlt…like others who post here, you are a cornucopia of misinformation and a tsunami of BS.

        I wouldn’t even know where to start to get you back on the road to sanity.

      4. This ‘joker’ points out that the world got greener. And the last time I looked the data showed that the the total number of strong to violent tornadoes in the US has been dropping. It also shows that the Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy is close to its lows.

        So what we have is a greener world, higher crop yields, and lower storm frequency. Where exactly is the crisis?

        1. morganovich

          “Where exactly is the crisis?”

          at the UN?

          1. at the UN?

            Heh. We can only hope it causes serious damage.

  4. it’s sad that environmentalism has become such a bad word. The “environment” is, after all, only keeping us alive.
    If you dump waste into the air, or the rivers, or wherever, you are externalizing the true costs of your production on everyone else. Environmental regulations exist to try to make sure that these costs are internalized. If we don’t, the end result is that the government and society as a whole is going to end up spending ten times as much to clean up your shiat (BP anyone?). The people that most stand to profit from externalizing costs understand this principle very well. But in a society that does its level best to privatize profit and socialize cost, it’s just business as usual.

    1. morganovich

      in this, i actually agree with you moe.

      environment is extremely valuable.

      it also acts like a luxury good. people choose to consume a great deal more as % when they get rich.

      the best way to protect the environment is to create wealth. poor societies are dismal stewards of the environment.

      this is what makes this whole AGW nonsense so doubly damaging. it not only creates and encourages poverty, but it also siphons off all the money from the many legitimate environmental issues. the US and EU had made great stride in water and air quality for decades and all that has been sidelined by this massive agw sinkhole.

      sox, mercury, pcb’s etc are all legitimate negative externalities/effects that are worth remediation. sucking all the money and attention out of that to try to ban a beneficial trace gas is the height of stupidity.

      note that these same “environmentalists” pushing agw were railing about an impending ice age in the 70’s due to, wait for it, burning fossil fuels.

      they were going to freeze us, now fry us, who knows what’s next? hell, they probably cause gingivitis and the disappearance of 400 hitting in baseball.

      environment is a real and valid issue but it has been hijacked by anti fossil fuel luddites and zealots which risks discrediting the valid aims of the movement.

    2. Steven Hales

      No, Moe environmental regulations don’t exist to do anything they are a political response to a technological problem. And they only work without doing harm when there is an off the shelf technical solution that creates a profit center rather than dead weight losses. The problem with classifying CO2 as a pollutant is well illustrated in Ridley’s talk; reducing output will likely do more harm than good. The forecast of 6 to 10 deg C of warming by 2100 is sheer nonsense. That is more than 1 deg C warming per decade at the high end. If temp response to CO2 is a log function then a flattening of response in rate of rise should be encountered which is what we have seen in the past 17 odd years. In the US we reached the maximum of energy consumption per capita in the 1960’s and have not exceeded that level since. Energy use per capita will likely decline in a natural fashion with an aging population and slightly warmer planet. I suggest you read some of Ausubel’s work on de-carbonization to get an idea how for the past 150 years there have been punctuated fuel switching that has led to cleaner and cleaner energy. This clean energy is what technology wants. Read Kevin Kelly on how technology is driving us to do things in service to its needs without us really being in control or aware of the process. The drive to cleaner energy is just one aspect of this process.

      1. we disagree.

      2. morganovich

        steven-

        that seems like a very myopic and incomplete way to look at it.

        let’s say i have a powerplant. that poweplant produces soot and sulphur dioxide that causes acid rain.

        now it just comes down to a rights structure.

        do i have the right to pollute and inflict these things on you or do you have the right to clean air and water?

        clearly, environment has value. pretty much all of us would rather breathe clean air as opposed the the air in bejing.

        if we establish the right to do so, then a i, the polluter must pay you for the right to do so. if we establish the right to pollute, then you must pay me not to do it.

        between the 2, it seems more fair to me for the producer of pollution, a negative externality, to face the costs.

        coase has done a great deal of interesting work on this.

        it’s easy for you and i to bargain if i am harming just you and the cost is large and identifiable. but if the cost is diffuse, as in acid rain, and hard to pin down (how do you know it was MY sulfur diox) then there are times when regulation and permitting are the best course to get an economically efficient outcome.

        if you harm one person for $1million, it’s worth it and easy to come after you. if you harm 10 million people for $1, it’s impractical for them to seek redress via tort or negotiation.

        i am not generally a big fan of regulation, but certain pollutants are really only addressable that way.

        industry did not end acid rain. it would not have chosen to pay for sox scrubbers etc. there was no practical way to address it with tort or negoatiation.

        i would rather have seen sox emissions priced and traded as opposed to set by regulatory fiat, but it is a legitimate role of government to protect the rights of citizens and if we accept a right to clean air, then such regulations work just like they would if i harmed your property in some other way.

        1. Steven Hales

          Externalities tend to be solved with improved technology. Some of those improvements have long diffusion times and during those adjustment periods some people bear those costs unjustly unless compensated. I would say that regulation short circuits judicial solutions and probably saddles us with immature solutions or rube Goldberg type devices like catalytic converters or windmills.

    3. it’s sad that environmentalism has become such a bad word.

      It is a bad word because environmentalists abandoned the environment in favour of political activism. Most of us want a better environment. We just do not believe that we have to destroy our economy to get it.

      The “environment” is, after all, only keeping us alive.

      And that ‘environment’ has improved greatly with the increase in the standard of living and productivity improvements that made that possible.

      If you dump waste into the air, or the rivers, or wherever, you are externalizing the true costs of your production on everyone else.

      The last time I looked the biggest polluters were governments, government controlled operations, and government contractors that had been given permission to pollute.

      Environmental regulations exist to try to make sure that these costs are internalized.

      The planners can’t figure out the costs and often allow people to pollute as they take away the property rights of those that suffer the damages.

      If we don’t, the end result is that the government and society as a whole is going to end up spending ten times as much to clean up your shiat (BP anyone?).</b.

      First, BP was working under a regulatory regime that did not prevent the spill. Second, most of the oil was cleaned up by microbes that live in the Gulf and consume natural leaks. Three, it was the government that stepped in and capped BP's liabilities.

      The people that most stand to profit from externalizing costs understand this principle very well. But in a society that does its level best to privatize profit and socialize cost, it’s just business as usual.

      As usual, you are confused. Polluters love government regulations because they get to write the rules and protect themselves while offering a little bit in the form of contributions/bribes that are a part of the cost of doing business. While you may wish to ignore that bit it is hard to ignore that the countries in which governments have the most influence because they trample on property rights of citizens have the biggest environmental problems.

      1. excellent response – if you’re being sarcastic.

      2. Polluters love government regulations…

        Another reason they love regulation is that they typically grandfather themselves, and then that puts up a massive barrier to competition for any new entrants. This happened with the tobacco industry, power plants, etc… the list is endless.

        Another aspect of regulations is that they tend to choose some standard that is easy to measure, rather than the outcome that is desired. For example, they say “no more than 5 parts per million of _____ in your waste discharge.” Then, everyone builds technology to comply with that standard. Whether or not that produces fish in the river that are safe to eat is a completely different question. And, of course the manufacturers of the cleanup technology are there alongside the environmentalists crying out “we have the solution” and spending their lobbying dollars. That is part of how we ended up with catalytic converters (invented in USA!!! protect American jobs!!!) rather than different technology that the Japanese automakers were creating at the time.

        There’s a great Econtalk podcast with Bruce Yandle on this topic called Bootleggers and Baptists, if people are interested.

        1. I listened to the Yandle podcast and have recommended it on Mark Perry’s old site. Sadly, most well meaning people who are ignorant of economics do not understand how their preference for meddling makes things worse and how the best and most effective society is one in which government is least able to violate property rights.

          1. Its Gsatt

            This is a great podcast. Not sure if I stumbled upon it by your recommendation or not, but I have learned a great deal from it over the past year or so.

  5. Anony Mouse

    What do you call the formulas used in climate change models? AlGoreithms.

    Thank you, I’ll be here all week.

  6. RonRonDoRon

    Given that CO2 is a key requirement for plant growth, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Earth is greener at higher atmospheric CO2 levels.

    Any serious indoor plant grower knows this. Indoor cannabis growers use it extensively – the effect is significant.

  7. Zachriel

    This is not a new discovery. Unfortunately, increased plant growth is not sufficient to avoid most of the projected global warming. However, it does represent a negative feedback of about 0.3°C per doubling of CO2.

    Bounoua et al., Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach, Geophysical Research Letters 2010.

    1. Z: “This is not a new discovery. Unfortunately, increased plant growth is not sufficient to avoid most of the projected global warming. However, it does represent a negative feedback of about 0.3°C per doubling of CO2.

      Yaaawwwn!

  8. musickcd

    I’m having trouble following some of the logic. I’ve heard:

    1) Burning fossil fuels will destroy the planet because of all of the CO2 generated and put into the atmosphere.

    2) The carbon in coal, oil and natural gas came from old plant life (or plant eating animals)

    3) The carbon in the old plant life came from CO2 in the atmosphere.

    So, if we burned every pound of oil coal and gas, we would only have as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we had before. EXCEPT most of the former CO2 is actually trapped in limestone (CaCO3), not in fossil fuels.

    If I follow the logic correctly, less CO2 in the atmosphere than we had before will destroy the planet.

    1. You got it. See how logical this all is if you drink heavily?

      1. Zachriel

        musickcd: 1) Burning fossil fuels will destroy the planet because of all of the CO2 generated and put into the atmosphere.

        The planet will be fine. However, part of humanity’s natural heritage will be lost, and many people will suffer unnecessarily.

        musickcd: 2) The carbon in coal, oil and natural gas came from old plant life (or plant eating animals)

        That’s right.

        musickcd: 3) The carbon in the old plant life came from CO2 in the atmosphere.

        That’s right.

        musickcd: So, if we burned every pound of oil coal and gas, we would only have as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we had before. EXCEPT most of the former CO2 is actually trapped in limestone (CaCO3), not in fossil fuels.

        That may not be exactly correct, but close enough for your point.

        musickcd: If I follow the logic correctly, less CO2 in the atmosphere than we had before will destroy the planet.

        The planet will be fine.

        1. musickcd

          Zachriel:The planet will be fine. However, part of humanity’s heritage will be lost, and many people will suffer unnecessarily.

          My concern is that fighting CO2 emissions cause people to suffer unnecessarily. If I look at life expectancy vs. per capita CO2 emissions by country, there is a very strong correlation that persists over tme. The more CO2 emissions a country has, the longer the life expectancy (http://www.bit.ly/mP8PAL). This is because the CO2 emissions allow transport of food, refrigeration, water pumps and filtration, emergency transportation, and many other quality of life benefits.

          1. Zachriel

            musickcd: My concern is that fighting CO2 emissions cause people to suffer unnecessarily.

            Sure, and that’s a legitimate concern.

            musickcd: If I look at life expectancy vs. per capita CO2 emissions by country, there is a very strong correlation that persists over tme.

            Sure. Industrialization has been fueled by fossil fuels. However, that process is not sustainable over the long run. It’s the same problem as occurred with conventional air and water pollution. It was not sustainable, but the transition was necessarily costly. Some claimed industry would collapse, but it turns out that industry depends, ultimately, on the environment. China, for instance, is choking on its own growth, and knows that it has to change to continue to develop.

  9. Matt Ridley is an idiot.

    We will eventually accept the truth: we cannot unearth millions of years of fossils and release them to the atmosphere in a few hundred years and expect that the earth can reabsorb it all, in a fraction of the time it took to create.

    1. Why don’t you take your meds and go back to sleep until that great day dawns.

    2. Matt Ridley is an idiot.

      Why? All he has pointed out is that the data shows that the planet is greening.

      We will eventually accept the truth: we cannot unearth millions of years of fossils and release them to the atmosphere in a few hundred years and expect that the earth can reabsorb it all, in a fraction of the time it took to create.

      Speaking of being an idiot, most people are aware that we are at a point in the planet’s history where CO2 is near its record lows in the atmosphere. Most life evolved at much higher CO2 levels and at a time when the planet was warmer.

      1. Zachriel

        Vangel: Speaking of being an idiot, most people are aware that we are at a point in the planet’s history where CO2 is near its record lows in the atmosphere. Most life evolved at much higher CO2 levels and at a time when the planet was warmer.

        That’s right, but civilization evolved and grew in a low CO2 environment. A sudden shift in climate would be highly disruptive.

        1. That’s right, but civilization evolved and grew in a low CO2 environment. A sudden shift in climate would be highly disruptive.

          I think that you have a serious knowledge deficiency. Civilization has always thrived during warmer temperatures and suffered during cooler periods. Since we are so dependent on agriculture it is important to realize that what is good for plants is good for civilization. High temperatures and higher CO2 content in the air means a higher standard of living for people and a greener planet at the same time. Only a fool would wish for cooler temperatures and the return of ice cover as our interglacial warm period passes. It is far better to have higher temperatures, higher plant yields, and a lower need for heating energy than to slip back into another little ice age or worse.

  10. Zachriel

    Vangel: Civilization has always thrived during warmer temperatures and suffered during cooler periods.

    However, the evidence is indicating a much more rapid warming than ever experienced since the advent of civilization.

    Vangel: High temperatures and higher CO2 content in the air means a higher standard of living for people and a greener planet at the same time.

    Not according to the scientific evidence.

    1. However, the evidence is indicating a much more rapid warming than ever experienced since the advent of civilization.

      No. A rise of around 1C since the end of the Little Ice Age is not particularly rapid and has been very beneficial if you look at agricultural yields and the increased standard of living. It has been rapid cooling, not warming that have done the damage.

      Not according to the scientific evidence.

      The science is clear on this. Higher CO2 concentrations mean more rapid plant growth and a lower need for water. Why do you think that greenhouse operators pay money to increase the CO2 concentrations? The science is actually very clear on these points. You are just confused because you think that it says something that it doesn’t. Computer models and statistical analysis of ‘adjusted’ data using methodology that allows arbitrary weighting of proxies is not science. It is simply narrative.

  11. Zachriel

    Vangel: A rise of around 1C since the end of the Little Ice Age is not particularly rapid

    Not according to multiple scientific studies, most recently by Marcott et al., A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, Science 2013.

    Vangel: Higher CO2 concentrations mean more rapid plant growth and a lower need for water.

    This is not a new discovery. Unfortunately, increased plant growth is not sufficient to avoid most of the projected global warming. However, it does represent a negative feedback of about 0.3°C per doubling of CO2.

    Bounoua et al., Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach, Geophysical Research Letters 2010.

    1. Not according to multiple scientific studies, most recently by Marcott et al., A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, Science 2013.

      Marcott is toast already. The same person who discredited the Mann trick has already exposed the redating issues with Marcott and I suspect that Science will be withdrawing the paper soon.

      The mainstream medial is beginning to catch on.

  12. This is not a new discovery. Unfortunately, increased plant growth is not sufficient to avoid most of the projected global warming. However, it does represent a negative feedback of about 0.3°C per doubling of CO2.

    LOL…We have not had any warming for nearly 15 years now so what global warming are you talking about? Even the AGW crazies no longer talk about ‘global warming’ and have changed the debate to ‘climate change’.

    And let me point out to you that the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, which began long before emissions had much impact on CO2 concentrations, has increased agricultural yields and reduced human suffering. Men have always had far more trouble with cooling than warming. The green nutcases have to learn their history.

    Bounoua et al., Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach, Geophysical Research Letters 2010.

    Very nice but totally worthless given that the feedback assumptions are wrong. Even the warmers are now a href=”http://www.forskningsradet.no/prognett-norklima/Nyheter/Oppvarmingen_gar_saktere_enn_antatt/1253979119991?lang=no”>having doubts about their original pronouncements.

    It is time to get off the sinking ship. The AGW fraud has run its course and everyone is figuring out that there was not much science behind the unfounded claims. Climate changes naturally for natural reasons just as it always has and man’s emissions of CO2 do not have a material role to play.

  13. Zachriel

    Vangel: The same person who discredited the Mann trick has already exposed the redating issues with Marcott

    Presumably, McIntyre will be publishing his rebuttal in Science, along with his article discrediting Mann.

    Vangel: I suspect that Science will be withdrawing the paper soon.

    Let us know when they do. You are aware that multiple studies have confirmed Mann’s basic findings.

    Vangel: We have not had any warming for nearly 15 years now so what global warming are you talking about?

    http://www.jimharris.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/skepticsvrealists_500.gif

    Vangel: Even the AGW crazies no longer talk about ‘global warming’ and have changed the debate to ‘climate change’.

    That sort of silliness shows that you get your ‘climate science’ from the bubble. Both terms are regularly used in climate science, as they mean different things. Global warming refers to mean surface temperature. Climate change refers to regional changes in weather patterns. We would be happy to provide any number of papers as support that scientists regularly use both terms.

    Vangel: Very nice but totally worthless given that the feedback assumptions are wrong.

    You might try to read the actual research. Berntsen et al. was at the low end of IPCC estimates. Furthermore, their calculation of climate sensitivity was based on a simplified model, so the results are not definitive. As they point out, even if they are right, it still means significant climate change and society should work to mitigate the problem.

    1. Presumably, McIntyre will be publishing his rebuttal in Science, along with his article discrediting Mann.

      It took a while for McIntyre to get his refutation of Mann’s hockey stick fraud published but that was done and now nobody outside of a few AGW fanatics accept MBH98 and MBH99 any longer.

      Let us know when they do. You are aware that multiple studies have confirmed Mann’s basic findings.

      No. None of the ‘studies’ that use statistically valid methodology have been able to replicate Mann’s conclusions.

      http://www.jimharris.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/skepticsvrealists_500.gif

      Nice try but citing an unreferenced chart from a propaganda site without bringing up the IPCC’s claim that its models would be invalidated if the warming did not continue for 15 years, and it hasn’t does not support your position.

      But since you like this game let me show you where some of your ‘warming’ comes from. It seems that our friends who like to talk about AGW (now climate change) want to make warming appear even when none exists. They take the actual instrumental measurements and turn them into an adjusted data set that shows warming inside the computers.

      That sort of silliness shows that you get your ‘climate science’ from the bubble. Both terms are regularly used in climate science, as they mean different things. Global warming refers to mean surface temperature. Climate change refers to regional changes in weather patterns. We would be happy to provide any number of papers as support that scientists regularly use both terms.

      No, the term Global Warming was used for a very long time. When the data showed that the warming trend stopped, the AGW crowd stopped the warming talk and went to Climate Change.

      You might try to read the actual research. Berntsen et al. was at the low end of IPCC estimates. Furthermore, their calculation of climate sensitivity was based on a simplified model, so the results are not definitive. As they point out, even if they are right, it still means significant climate change and society should work to mitigate the problem.

      Actually, I have been looking at the research for a very long time. I see nothing in the data that shows any unusual warming trends. Even Phil Jones has admitted that I am right.

      Q- Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

      An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

      Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

      I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

      So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

      Here are the trends and significances for each period:
      Period: years (C/decade) Significance
      1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
      1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
      1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
      1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

      It seems to me that the warming that we experienced was not at all unusual.

      Q- If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

      The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing

      Got that? We are supposed to believe that human CO2 emissions are responsible even though the rate of warming is not particularly different than it was before CO2 emissions became significant enough to matter because the IPCC models can’t explain the warming by using other factors. Yet, the IPCC disregarded the effect of changes in cloud cover, changes in ocean currents, PDO, AMO effects, changes in solar activity, the effect of soot deposition on snow, the UHI effect, and anything else that could actually help explain the changes not caused by simple data manipulation and cheery picking.

    2. Zachriel

      spend some time on Climate Audit and read the critiques that McIntyre is offering on the Marcott paper. If you find errors in his mathematical critique, feel free to post them in the comments on his various posts. Unlike the pro-AGW sites, critical comments will not be deleted (unless they are ad hominem attacks).

      Also look back at the critique of Gergis et al, a paper that was similarly flawed and eventually retracted.

      And, if you’re using peer review as criteria for whether something is valid or not, please spend some time on Retraction Watch. AGW theorists would like to believe that their branch of science is free from the pitfalls and abuse seen across every other branch of science, but it is not. Eventually, Retraction Watch is going to have a full roster of failed, data manipulated climate research papers. It will just take a little more time…

  14. Zachriel

    Vangel: It took a while for McIntyre to get his refutation of Mann’s hockey stick fraud published …

    In a very low impact journal with a reputation for loose peer review.

    Vangel: … now nobody outside of a few AGW fanatics accept MBH98 and MBH99 any longer.

    McIntyre & McKitrick has had very little impact, and has been repeatedly refuted, not only by new research supporting the original findings, but directly, such as in Rutherford et al. 2004.

    Vangel: None of the ‘studies’ that use statistically valid methodology have been able to replicate Mann’s conclusions.

    Sure they have, such as Rohde et al 2013.

    Vangel: Nice try but citing an unreferenced chart from a propaganda site …

    Are you saying the chart is in error? In any case, the chart is optical. People see what they want to see and disregard the rest.

    Vangel: No, the term Global Warming was used for a very long time.

    Oh gee whiz. That’s demonstrably false.

    NASA’s Earth Observatory: Global Warming
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

    Anderson et al., Global warming in an independent record of the last 130 years, Geophysical Research Letters 2012.

    Frieler et al., Limiting global warming to 2 °C is unlikely to save most coral reefs, Nature 2012.

    We can give you hundred of citations, if that is what is required.

    Vangel: Actually, I have been looking at the research for a very long time. I see nothing in the data that shows any unusual warming trends.

    You cited a paper unread. When we pointed out that the authors used a simplified model, were within IPCC estimates, and consider climate change to be a problem that needs to be addressed, you wave your hands.

    1. In a very low impact journal with a reputation for loose peer review.

      What peer review accepted papers that can create hockey stick forms out of random numbers? SM figured out in a few hours what the reviewers of MBH98 and MBH99 had months to catch. He did the same with Steig, Marcott, and others. That is why the AGW frauds are so infuriated; their inability to understand simple math was exposed by a retired mining engineer who is so much at doing the analysis than they were.

      McIntyre & McKitrick has had very little impact,…

      Sure they did. The IPCC dropped MBH98 and MBH99 in subsequent reports because it was refuted.

      Sure they have, such as Rohde et al 2013.

      Sorry. No valid statistical methodology splices different proxies with such high uncertainties to come up with a valid conclusion. Most of the research shows that previous episodes such as the MWP were warmer than today without any CO2 emission effects. That is very inconvenient for your movement and the rats have abandoned ship. Your high priest, Gore, took his money and ran away and many previous supporters are now opposing the IPCC’s incompetence and very unscientific behaviour.

      Are you saying the chart is in error? In any case, the chart is optical. People see what they want to see and disregard the rest.

      No. I am saying that you did not cite where the data came from. It helps to know what the data set is, who has ‘adjusted’ it, and what the original data shows. As I pointed out, GISS/NOAA add an artificial warming signal to the original data to get the warming. That is not very scientific.

      We can give you hundred of citations, if that is what is required.

      About five years ago the term ‘global warming’ was used around five times as often as the term ‘climate change’. While fewer people are now interested in both and both are in decline the ratio has fallen to less than two to one. And if you do a scholar search you find that the term climate change now appears around 2.3 times as often as global warming. After years of talking about how global warming will do away with winter snow the alarmists are now talking about how climate change can bring on even more snow. Which is why the public is pissed off at being lied to and no longer believes the alarmists.

      You cited a paper unread. When we pointed out that the authors used a simplified model, were within IPCC estimates, and consider climate change to be a problem that needs to be addressed, you wave your hands.

      I have cited hundreds of papers on this topic on Mark’s blog. It is the IPCC models that failed to make any predictions. In fact, now the IPCC only talks about projections and is too embarrassed to bring up predictions. It and the alarmists had their chance but blew it. I think that more people worry about zombies today than worry about global warming being a problem.

  15. Zachriel

    Vangel: What peer review accepted papers that can create hockey stick forms out of random numbers?

    Most recently, among many such papers, the Journal Science.

    Vangel: Sure they did. The IPCC dropped MBH98 and MBH99 in subsequent reports because it was refuted.

    All data-sets become obsolete as new data becomes available. Nevertheless, multiple studies, using many different sources and methods, have confirmed the basic findings.

    Vangel: No valid statistical methodology splices different proxies with such high uncertainties to come up with a valid conclusion.

    Handwaving. There are a variety of analytical techniques that allow just that. You might object that such techniques have not resulted in a valid reconstruction in this case, but simply rejecting all such reconstructions is not a defensible position. Furthermore, new statistical methods confirm the reliability of these reconstructions.

    Vangel: Most of the research shows that previous episodes such as the MWP were warmer than today without any CO2 emission effects.

    Citation, please.

    There have been many warmer periods in Earth’s climate. That’s important evidence in understanding the current warming trend.

    Vangel: I am saying that you did not cite where the data came from.

    It was meant qualitatively, to provoke you to think about your claim concerning short periods while ignoring longer periods. The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets.

    Vangel: As I pointed out, GISS/NOAA add an artificial warming signal to the original data to get the warming.

    Handwaving. Multiple, independent studies and measures have confirmed the findings.

    Vangel: About five years ago the term ‘global warming’ was used around five times as often as the term ‘climate change’. While fewer people are now interested in both and both are in decline the ratio has fallen to less than two to one.

    You originally claimed that “AGW crazies no longer talk about ‘global warming’” (By crazies, and from the fact that you point to “scholar search”, you apparently mean scientists.) You have apparently abandoned that claim.

    The fact of global warming is no longer in significant scientific dispute. Some important scientific questions of the day are the effects of global warming, that is, climate change.

    Vangel: After years of talking about how global warming will do away with winter snow the alarmists are now talking about how climate change can bring on even more snow.

    Of course it can. Just like hot summer temperatures can cause ice to fall from the sky. But wave your hands, it can seem like magic!
    http://www.zimbop.com/hailstorm/hailstorm12.jpg

    Vangel: I have cited hundreds of papers on this topic on Mark’s blog.

    Non-responsive. You cited Berntsen et al. and misstated their findings.

  16. Zachriel

    Vangel: What peer review accepted papers that can create hockey stick forms out of random numbers?

    Sorry, misread your question. That would be a very old statistics journal. In science, it isn’t sufficient to show that the statistical methods used *could* have create a false trend: You have to show that they did. Reanalysis of the data, by many different statistical methods, along with new data using independent means, confirm the original findings.

    1. Sorry, misread your question. That would be a very old statistics journal. In science, it isn’t sufficient to show that the statistical methods used *could* have create a false trend: You have to show that they did. Reanalysis of the data, by many different statistical methods, along with new data using independent means, confirm the original findings.

      That is exactly what was shown. The methodology created a hockey stick where none existed. Not only that but some of the proxies were cut off because they were going down at the most inconvenient time, when the ‘adjusted’ reported temperatures were going up. If the proxies do not move in the same direction as the thermometers it is hard to justify splicing everything together. Add to that the problem of cherry picked data in which the main warming signal comes from a few trees that have a different signal than the rest and you have a mess that cannot be considered to be following the scientific method.

      The bottom line is that rational people no longer buy into simple models that cannot predict and ‘scientists’ who flip flop more than Romney did. The game is about over. Gore has taken his money out. Many of the frauds have moved on and are now taking potshots at their colleagues who have stayed behind. The private e-mails show the frauds taking potshots at each other and frustration at the data not supporting the narrative. Eventually people will have enough of paying extra for fuel to prevent warming as they freeze in the dark because utilities moved away from coal to unreliable wind and will turn on the politicians and the frauds in the scientific community that used lies to justify higher taxes. And when funding cuts are signalled you can bet your ass that other scientists will point to the paleofrauds as the first candidate for reduced spending.

  17. Zachriel

    Vangel: That is exactly what was shown. The methodology created a hockey stick where none existed.

    No, it did not show that. It showed that a hockey stick could be formed from random data, not that the specific data doesn’t show a hockey stick. Those are different claims.

    1. No, it did not show that. It showed that a hockey stick could be formed from random data, not that the specific data doesn’t show a hockey stick. Those are different claims.

      As usual you are in error. Read the Wegman reply to Stupak for clarification.

      We read:

      “We explicitly looked at the first principal component of the North American Tree Ring series and demonstrated that the hockey stick shows up when the data are decentered, but not when properly centered.”

      and

      “To reiterate our testimony, the decentering process as used in MBH98 and MBH99 selectively prefers to emphasize the hockey stick shape. This is because the decentering increases the apparent variance of hockey sticks and principal component methods attempt to find components with the largest explainable variance. If the variance is artificially increased by decentering, then the principal component methods will “data mine” for those shapes. In other words, the hockey stick shape must be in the data to start with or the CFR methodology would not pick it up. What we have shown both analytically and graphically in Figure 4.6 is that using the CFR methodology, just one signal when decentered will overwhelm 69 independent noise series. The point is that if all 70 proxies contained the same temperature signal, then it wouldn’t matter which method one used. But this is very far from the case. Most proxies do not contain the hockey- stick signal. The MBH98 methodology puts undue emphasis on those proxies that do exhibit the hockey-stick shape and this is the fundamental flaw. Indeed, it is not clear that the hockey-stick shape is even a temperature signal because all the confounding variables have not been removed.”

      and

      “Our report does not prove that the hockey stick disappears. Our work demonstrates that the methodology is incorrect. Because of the lack of proper statistical sampling and correct inferential methodology, we concluded that the statements regarding the decade of the 1990s probably being the hottest in a millennium and 1998 probably being the hottest year in a millennium are unwarranted. Indeed, I repeatedly testified that the instrumented temperature record from 1850 onwards indicated that there is a pattern of global warming. We have never disputed this. We also believe that there is no dispute between our report and the North report in this regard. Professor North in testimony agreed with our conclusions regarding the incorrectness of the methodology. We in turn agree with the fundamental conclusion of the North report, i.e. that the present era is likely the hottest in the last 400 years. We remain silent on the issues related to anthropogenic global warming.”

      and perhaps most damning to MBH:

      “It is our understanding that when using the same proxies as and the same methodology as MM, Wahl and Ammann essentially reproduce the MM curves. Thus, far from disproving the MM work, they reinforce the MM work. The debate then is over the proxies and the exact algorithms as it always has been.

      The fact that Wahl and Ammann (2006) admit that the results of the MBH methodology does not coincide with the results of other methods such as borehole methods and atmospheric-ocean general circulation models and that Wahl and Ammann adjust the MBH methodology to include the PC4 bristlecone/foxtail pine effects are significant reasons we believe that the Wahl and Amman paper does not convincingly demonstrate the validity of the MBH methodology.

      Got that last bit? Mann’s own student, (Mann was a coadvisor to Dr. Ammann when Ammann was pursuing his Ph.D.) admits that MBH do not agree with other methodologies and has to include invalid bristlecone/foxtail pine proxy data to try to make MBH work. There is no hockey stick if the proper methodology is used. All the data can show us is that it has warmed up since the Little Ice Age. Everyone knew that but MBH tried to hide the fact that the LIA and MWP existed.

  18. Zachriel

    Vangel: The game is about over.

    You might want to let the scientific community know. They keep publishing new and interesting research on the topic.

    1. As long as the funding keeps flowing they will do what they must to keep getting paid. But as I said, the game is over. Reality has intervened and the public no longer cares about what those clowns say. The scientific community treats the climate people as retards who do not understand simple math and are pissed off as being tainted by the corruption that has been revealed.

  19. Zachriel

    Vangel: We read

    And we read, “Our report does not prove that the hockey stick disappears.” In other words, while they dispute the methodology, they don’t show it changes the results.

    1. Sure, but then why bother with all the fancy math if it doesn’t work? They could have just said “we think temperature graph looks like a hockey stick”, and they would have just as much validity, since their mathematical approach was not valid (and they never produced a different analysis to prove it).

      1. Sure, but then why bother with all the fancy math if it doesn’t work? They could have just said “we think temperature graph looks like a hockey stick”, and they would have just as much validity, since their mathematical approach was not valid (and they never produced a different analysis to prove it).

        It wasn’t just the bad math. MBH were cherry picking proxies and truncating the data series when it inconveniently turned down in the 1950s. Mann tried that trick again in one of his presentations not too long ago when comparing the reported temperatures and comparing them to the model predictions but was immediately found out and exposed. It seems that he tried to cut off the real readings in 2005 and compared the land temperature readings to the land/sea model predictions because they were closer. These fools are having trouble keeping their stories straight and preventing any rational reviewer from figuring out the scams that they are pulling. As such they get little respect from scientists in the hard sciences even as the political players that lead many scientific organizations go along with narratives that their governments support. And they are too scared to have open and honest debates because each time they have one they get trounced by the other side.

    2. And we read, “Our report does not prove that the hockey stick disappears.” In other words, while they dispute the methodology, they don’t show it changes the results.

      No. You missed the next statements, “Our work demonstrates that the methodology is incorrect. Because of the lack of proper statistical sampling and correct inferential methodology, we concluded that the statements regarding the decade of the 1990s probably being the hottest in a millennium and 1998 probably being the hottest year in a millennium are unwarranted.”

      The point of the review was to see if the methodology was right, not to create a temperature profile. The review concluded that when you used proper cantering, Montford covers the details of this in detail in his book, there was no hockey stick. That does not mean that if you find all of the data that you need you will not find one; only that MBH98 and MBH98 would not have really found one if proper methodology was used.

  20. Zachriel

    Rufus: Sure, but then why bother with all the fancy math if it doesn’t work? They could have just said “we think temperature graph looks like a hockey stick”, and they would have just as much validity, since their mathematical approach was not valid (and they never produced a different analysis to prove it).

    Presumably because they thought the method they used was sufficient to the purpose. A more elaborated analysis might have shown a different result, but Vangel’s cited authorities looked at the data and they couldn’t show that the results would be changed. In other words, they confirmed the result.

    1. Sooo…, you think that when McIntyre ran random data through the same process and it still produced a hockey stick, that that confirms the result? The rest of the world would recognize the result as no better than random.

    2. Presumably because they thought the method they used was sufficient to the purpose. A more elaborated analysis might have shown a different result, but Vangel’s cited authorities looked at the data and they couldn’t show that the results would be changed. In other words, they confirmed the result.

      That is blatantly wrong. The reviewers were only tasked to determine who was right, MBH or their critics MM? They looked at the methods and data and found that MM were right and that there could be no way to claim that the hockey stick was real. They did not make any attempt to determine what happened to temperature trends because they did not have all the data needed for such a determination and they were interested in getting the math right, not do the research themselves.

      What we do know is that MBH used a method that turned random number inputs into hockey sticks because it was looking for series that had that shape and overweighing their importance as it rejected series that went the other way. But that is not all. Some series have been used upside down but Mann missed it; while they were showing cooling Mann assumed that they were showing warming. Add to that the use of proxies that respond to CO2 changes as well as temperatures AND precipitation changes and the reviewers found that there was no way to find the truth.

      For the record, MM agree that the earth has warmed, as expected, since the end of the Little Ice Age. It was MBH and company that tried to erase the LIA (and MWP) from the history books because it was inconvenient for their narrative. After all, if temperatures were warmer not too long ago when man was not putting that much CO2 into the atmosphere it is hard to argue that today’s lower temperatures were caused by CO2 emissions.

  21. Zachriel

    Rufus: Sooo…, you think that when McIntyre ran random data through the same process and it still produced a hockey stick, that that confirms the result?

    That was Vangel’s characterization, which is not quite accurate. In any case, in science, it isn’t sufficient to show that the statistical methods used *could* have create a false trend: You have to show that they did.

    1. Actually, you only need to prove the result dubious, which is what McIntyre and then Wegman did. If I recall correctly, the key data sets were approximately 5 in the much larger sample. If those were excluded from the analysis: no hockey stick. If included with the other data: hockey stick. If included and used with random data: hockey stick.

      Other analysis showed that the algorithm used put a weighting of 384x when the patterns looked like a hockey stick vs those that didn’t.

      Now, stepping out the the real world, what would be the author’s reason for weighting those “5” proxies that much higher than the rest? What in the real world would say “this one Yamal tree ring is the most accurate historical temperature record compared to any other. In fact, it’s 384x more valuable.”

      From all I’ve read, that was never explained, and most real scientists accept that a result no better than random is just that… time to move one and search for a new theory.

      1. Actually, you only need to prove the result dubious, which is what McIntyre and then Wegman did. If I recall correctly, the key data sets were approximately 5 in the much larger sample. If those were excluded from the analysis: no hockey stick. If included with the other data: hockey stick. If included and used with random data: hockey stick.

        It is worse than that. All you need is random red noise without the 5 data sets. You still get a hockey stick. The complaint about the data sets is that they do not just measure temperature but also CO2 increases due to airborne fertilisation. The bristlecone and foxtail pines respond strongly to increased CO2 content in the atmosphere so the NAS has suggested that they not be used. But people like Mann have relied on just those proxies and their lousy methodology to create hockey sticks where none exist.

        A very good book that is quite readable and interesting on the whole issue is Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science . It reads a lot like a detective story and explains all of the concepts quite well.

    2. That was Vangel’s characterization, which is not quite accurate. In any case, in science, it isn’t sufficient to show that the statistical methods used *could* have create a false trend: You have to show that they did.

      But it is accurate. MM showed that when you input series containing random numbers you got the same shape as MBH did. See the eight graphs cited? One is the MBH reconstruction while the other seven are generated by feeding random red noise into the algorithm. There is no difference. That means that the conclusions are invalid, just as the reviewers concluded.

  22. Zachriel

    Vangel: No. You missed the next statements, “Our work demonstrates that the methodology is incorrect. Because of the lack of proper statistical sampling and correct inferential methodology, we concluded that the statements regarding the decade of the 1990s probably being the hottest in a millennium and 1998 probably being the hottest year in a millennium are unwarranted.”

    That doesn’t change “Our report does not prove that the hockey stick disappears.”

    Vangel: The reviewers were only tasked to determine who was right, MBH or their critics MM?

    Fortunately, the National Research Council was tasked with reanalyzing the final reconstruction, and they found that “while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a material effect on the final reconstruction.”

    1. That doesn’t change “Our report does not prove that the hockey stick disappears.”

      Because they never tried to see if there was a real hockey stick or not. They only had to show that there was no hockey stick in MBH if the data was properly centred and the method did not choose only hockey stick shapes while discarding other shapes. The didn’t show that there was an ice age or Holocene Optimum either but we know that those exist.

      Fortunately, the National Research Council was tasked with reanalyzing the final reconstruction, and they found that “while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a material effect on the final reconstruction.”

      Wrong. The NRC appointed lead reviewer, Dr. North did not disagree with Wegman’s findings during his testimony. The panel also found the methodology flawed but could say that we are now warmer than we were during the Little Ice Age. Since nobody really disputes that and it was MBH and their supporters that tried to do away with the LIA and MWP that did not help MBH. The panel agreed with MM’s criticism of the methodology and as such invalidated the, ‘we are warmer than we have been for 1,200 years,’ conclusion.

      1. Zachriel

        Vangel: The NRC appointed lead reviewer, Dr. North did not disagree with Wegman’s findings during his testimony.

        “while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a material effect on the final reconstruction.”

        1. True, given that the whole thing is a fabrication, what further difference could using bad math make?

          1. If the math were better SM would not have discovered the fraud as easily.

        2. Both Wegman and North testified that Mann’s methodology and conclusions were invalid. That is quite material.

          1. Zachriel

            Vangel: Both Wegman and North testified that Mann’s methodology and conclusions were invalid. That is quite material.

            Let’s review. Your citation, a non-peer reviewed study, says “Our report does not prove that the hockey stick disappears.” A peer reviewed study says “while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a material effect on the final reconstruction.” In other words, none of it changes the results.

          2. Here’s what the report says, and it was published in a peer reviewed journal.

            “The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the
            MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to
            1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.”

            And, of course, we have Wegman’s analysis which goes far beyond what peer review does. Most peer reviews don’t even look at the underlying data, nor the code or techniques used to run the statistical analysis.

            As such, this sort of analysis stands far above that of peer review.

            And, why even read this blog if there is no value to things that aren’t peer reviewed?

          3. Let’s review. Your citation, a non-peer reviewed study, says “Our report does not prove that the hockey stick disappears.” A peer reviewed study says “while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a material effect on the final reconstruction.” In other words, none of it changes the results.

            My citation was the response to Congress and contained testimony to Congress moron. Stop believing every lie the AGW PR department spins and pay attention to the actual facts. Two committees were appointed to figure out which of the two published sides were correct. Both concluded that MBH used the wrong methodology and had incomplete and inappropriate proxies that could not be used to come to the conclusions that the paper reached. At best they could say that we are warmer now than we were in the Little Ice Age, which is not anything that any of the ‘deniers’ would dispute. In fact, it was MBH that tried to dispute the LIA and the MWP because they were inconvenient for their story.

  23. Zachriel

    Rufus: Here’s what the report says, and it was published in a peer reviewed journal.

    Must have missed that. Can you provide a citation?

    Rufus: Both concluded that MBH used the wrong methodology and had incomplete and inappropriate proxies that could not be used to come to the conclusions that the paper reached.

    There were problems with the methodology, yes, that’s not unusual, but it didn’t affect the results.

    1. Zachriel

      The latter quote should be attributed to Vangel.

    2. From the article in Energy and Environment

      I’m sure you’ll interpret this as agreement.

      http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf

      “…the dataset used to make this construction contained collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects. These errors and defects substantially affect the temperature index.”

      More generally, the extent of errors and defects in the MBH98 data means that the indexes computed from it are unreliable and cannot be used for comparisons between the current climate and that of past centuries, including claims like “temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century were unprecedented,” …

    3. There were problems with the methodology, yes, that’s not unusual, but it didn’t affect the results.

      Yes it did. All data was turned into hockey sticks. When the data was properly centred there was no hockey stick.

  24. Zachriel

    Rufus: From the article in Energy and Environment

    You said the Wegman Report was peer reviewed, but pointed to McIntyre & McKitrick 1998. McIntyre & McKitrick has been repeatedly refuted, e.g. Rutherford 2004, and the original studies have been repeatedly confirmed by independent studies.

    Rufus: More generally, the extent of errors and defects in the MBH98 data means that the indexes computed from it are unreliable and cannot be used for comparisons between the current climate and that of past centuries …

    Even if we were to accept that analysis, it turns out reanalysis supports the original findings. Again, this is not unusual, for instance, the foundation of Newton’s calculus was rather squishy.

    Vangel: When the data was properly centred there was no hockey stick.

    Wegman’s reanalysis of McIntyre & McKitrick “does not prove that the hockey stick disappears”.

    1. It also turns out that repeated reanalysis is often wrong. Just as Ancel Keys cherry picked data to fit his theory of heart disease and consumption of fat, and numerous studies then “confirmed” the result. That only proves bias in the mind of the researchers, something which is quite difficult to avoid. Then you add in the math errors, corrupted data, etc. and you see that skepticism is highly warranted when reading any research based on statistical methods.

      why most published research is false
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

      Luckily, as Ridley’s article shows, we can actually measure that the earth is getting greener… so we don’t have to worry so much about peer reviewed or not, math wizardy, computer models, etc. We can just look outside. What a nice day. My aren’t those trees looking green?

    2. You said the Wegman Report was peer reviewed, but pointed to McIntyre & McKitrick 1998. McIntyre & McKitrick has been repeatedly refuted, e.g. Rutherford 2004, and the original studies have been repeatedly confirmed by independent studies.

      The Wegman report was done for Congress. What I cited was testimony to congress. That is a much higher standard than having some of your buddies peer review your paper and approve it. As I said, if you do not centre the data properly and use an algorithm that turns random red noise into hockey sticks you can replicate the results. But they are not valid. And let us not forget the use of bristlecone/foxtail pine proxies which have been shown to respond to higher CO2 levels and as such are not appropriate. Most of Mann’s data has come from such proxies. And let us not mention the upside-down use of four Tiljander series as well as the further upside-down use of of the SU967 proxy. When the alarmists flip series that signify cooling and pretend that they show waring without their peer reviewing buddies catching the errors we know that the process has failed. What is even more pathetic is when they claim that cooling can signify warming and the other way around.

      I think that the ship is sinking. Be a good rat and leave before you drown.

  25. Zachriel

    Rufus: It also turns out that repeated reanalysis is often wrong.

    Sure it could be. All science is tentative, but simply noting that doesn’t indicate whether it is wrong in this case. Multiple studies have confirmed the basics of anthropogenic climate change, and as this thread has shown, contrarians only nitpick here and there on the margins, or cast aspersions.

    Rufus: Luckily, as Ridley’s article shows, we can actually measure that the earth is getting greener…

    This is not a new discovery. Unfortunately, increased plant growth is not sufficient to avoid most of the projected global warming. However, it does represent a negative feedback of about 0.3°C per doubling of CO2.

    Bounoua et al., Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach, Geophysical Research Letters 2010.

    1. Great, another model. The ones before were wrong, but we can trust this one… at least until it’s proven wrong by the next one.

      “When we combine these interactions in climate simulations with 2 × CO2, the associated increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2. “

      1. Zachriel

        Rufus: Great, another model. The ones before were wrong, but we can trust this one… at least until it’s proven wrong by the next one.

        Well, in this case, a modified model. There’s still uncertainty, but anthropogenic climate change remains a real phenomenon. In any case, that’s how science works. Today’s theory of evolution is quite different than Darwin’s, or even that of the 1980s. Not sure why you find this surprising. If everything were already known about climate change, then scientists wouldn’t be studying it.

    2. Sure it could be. All science is tentative, but simply noting that doesn’t indicate whether it is wrong in this case. Multiple studies have confirmed the basics of anthropogenic climate change, and as this thread has shown, contrarians only nitpick here and there on the margins, or cast aspersions.

      There is nothing tentative about this pseudo-science. Data series were cut off because some years did not agree with the thesis. When the complete sampling of proxies was done it did not agree with the cherry picked data so the proxies were not archived. Some proxies that showed cooling were used upside down to indicate warming without the knowledge of the research. When it was pointed out that they had been used improperly they made up excuses and did not redo the analysis. This is all about the money. There is a lot of it in blaming humans for warming even when it isn’t warming and arguing for higher taxes for governments that fund your research. You get to go to great resorts and hotels in Tahiti, Paris, Rio, Shanghai, etc., and spend a lot of other people’s money as you collect speaking fees and awards from foundations set up by promoters of warming looking to cash in from government transfers and subsidies for whatever they are selling.

      This is not a new discovery. Unfortunately, increased plant growth is not sufficient to avoid most of the projected global warming. However, it does represent a negative feedback of about 0.3°C per doubling of CO2.

      A greening planet is a good thing dumdum. When combined with higher CO2 fertilisation a warmer climate brings higher yields, a higher standard of living, and far more biodiversity. Those are all positives.

  26. Zachriel

    Vangel: Data series were cut off because some years did not agree with the thesis. When the complete sampling of proxies was done it did not agree with the cherry picked data so the proxies were not archived.

    And yet when the data is reanalyzed, they come up with the same result. And when other scientists use different methods, they come up with the same result.

    1. And yet when the data is reanalyzed, they come up with the same result. And when other scientists use different methods, they come up with the same result.

      Actually, when the data is analyzed we find the MWP and LIA that MBH said did not exist. The MWP is warmer than the present as are the Holocene Optimum and Roman Warm periods. The studies show no material effect by CO2 emissions because the cycles appear to be natural.

  27. Zachriel

    Vangel: Actually, when the data is analyzed we find the MWP and LIA that MBH said did not exist.

    Well, no. The evidence for the Medieval Warming as a global event wasn’t clear at the time. However, more recent data has shown that the mean temperature did increase somewhat, though offset by coolness in many regions, with the average somewhat less than the current warming. See, for instance, D’Andrea et al., Mild Little Ice Age and unprecedented recent warmth in an 1800 year lake sediment record from Svalbard, Geology 2012.

    1. Well, no. The evidence for the Medieval Warming as a global event wasn’t clear at the time. However, more recent data has shown that the mean temperature did increase somewhat, though offset by coolness in many regions, with the average somewhat less than the current warming. See, for instance, D’Andrea et al., Mild Little Ice Age and unprecedented recent warmth in an 1800 year lake sediment record from Svalbard, Geology 2012.

      It was clear at the time but it was inconvenient for the AGW crowd so Mann decided to be the hero and rewrite history. There are thousands of papers showing that the MWP took place all across the globe. The AGW crew simply ignored those papers and the proxies and changed the methodology to do away with history. But they failed.

  28. Zachriel

    Vangel: Actually, when the data is analyzed we find the MWP and LIA that MBH said did not exist. The MWP is warmer than the present

    The existence of the Medieval Warming Period as a global phenomena was not clear at that time. More recent research has shown that warming in some regions was largely offset by cooling in others, and in any case, the mean global temperature is higher now than then. See, for instance, D’Andrea et al., Mild Little Ice Age and unprecedented recent warmth in an 1800 year lake sediment record from Svalbard, Geology 2012.

    1. here’s more on those amazing models – the one’s that predict warming that actual observations don’t show. Seems like we should be funding more empirical science rather than theoretics.

      http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/

      And, I highly recommend reading the All Models Are Wrong blog for further education.

  29. Zachriel

    Vangel: There are thousands of papers showing that the MWP took place all across the globe.

    Notably, we keep pointing to specific research, you keep waving your hands in the general direction. In any case, these climate scientists are amazing, always coming up with research and stuff.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content