Conservative War On Science

[waldo]

You have to be careful to state what claim you are referring to. The claims that CO2 has caused the majority of warming over the last 50 years is definitely unfalsifiable. The claim that CO2 sensitivity is 3 degC/doubling is also unfalsifiable in any reasonable timeframe since no matter what happens there will other factors that can be used to explain away any discrepancy. We have seen this already with scientists speculating that ocean currents will cause cooling over the next 15 years but warming will return with vengeance (classic pseudo-science trick - when current data fails to co-operate insist the diveragance is temporary). All of the climate science claims that matter to policy makers are unfalsifiable within timeframes that matter.

please... please... save your denying/skeptical brethren some cycles and let them know about the unfalsifiable. Let me pull any ole random example out there, like, uhhh... Lindzen & Choi. If only they had just listened to you, Lindzen & Choi, could have saved themselves the consensus beat-back and their rather embarrassing back-peddaling - ya, think? I mean, c'mon... why would they even try, why would they go through all that work/effort... against the "unfalsifiable"! You know, the Lindzen & Choi paper, the much ballyhooed smoking gun that the denialsphere went ape-shit over... the absolute 'proof' against AGW (no less!). The unfalsifiable - keeping the denying/skeptical man down!

[waldo]

My rant about Nature was entirely based on their approach to the climate issue. I was wrong to suggest that the everything the magazine does is as tainted as its climate work. But as far as climate goes I have nothing but whithering contempt for so called 'piller of the scientific establishment' that uses words like 'denier' to denigrate scientists who do not support their political views. It is the position of Nature that leads me to believe that the entire field has been corrupted by the belief they need to save humanity from itself and it is not simply a matter of a few bad apples.

and I've read Nature journal editorials that draw a clear and precise delineation between skeptic and denier... skepticism being, of course, the (a) cornerstone of science. In your self-described 'withering contempt', you simply can't reconcile having your presumed skeptical romp exposed for what it truly is.

[Saipan]

I've read Nature journal editorials that draw a clear and precise delineation between skeptic and denier...

When editors stoop down by putting labels on people who disagree with them then it's just another tabloid.

Are they still denying climate change was always here?

[waldo]

Are they still denying climate change was always here?

thread drift is inevitable; however, I would suggest this thread be targeted as one more politically aligned - perhaps you could take your position (your apparent challenging climate science/change position), to an assortment of the many climate change related threads that appear within the MLW sub-forum titled "Health, Science and Technology"... perhaps you may realize more response to your posts within that forum.

[Saipan]

thread drift is inevitable; however, I would suggest this thread be targeted as one more politically aligned - perhaps you could take your position (your apparent challenging climate science/change position), to an assortment of the many climate change related threads that appear within the MLW sub-forum titled "Health, Science and Technology"... perhaps you may realize more response to your posts within that forum.

That's a lot of blah-blah about nothing in particular. It was simple question:

Are they still denying climate change was always here?

[Michael Hardner]

There is no ice data that can be compared to the tree ring data. The glacier cores don't go back to the MWP. The polar cores don't have the resolution. There is not one shred of evidence that supports the view that the divergence is unique to the late 20th.

Ok... not sure about that...

Nature - Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica

Is that what you mean ?

In any case, if you discard ice measurement there are other proxies.

The most likely explanation is trees are not thermometers and any apparent correlation is coincidental. There is peer reviewed literature that shows trees may actually have a non-linear response to temps but this is ignored because it would destroy the careers of several scientists. They have no choice but to believe trees have a linear response.

Statistical correlation can't be coincidental, by definition. You can't have two graphs follow each other over long periods of time by coincidence. It's practically impossible.

Actually, there are no proxies that give us compelling evidence of the temperatures over the last 2000 years. Everyone is flawed and the reasonable conclusion we can make is the MWP could have been warmer than today but we don't and cannot know.

Not true. There's no significant opposition to the link between CO2 and temperature, and hardly any that human activity is not behind the warming.

Here's a paper that compares what happens if we drop tree-ring proxies and use other proxies instead:

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats.

So tossing out tree-ring data doesn't seem to matter that much. And yet, it seems so central to the arguments you read on the web sometimes.

-----

I think you can see the problems with having you and I debate the science. You made a statement about correlation that was incorrect, and reveals you don't understand the concept, yet any novice reading our debate may think that we have equally valid opinions on statistics.

This is why I don't trust bloggers, and even people with PhDs outside the field should be looked at with some suspicion. We need to let climate science do their job - after all this is their specialty.

[Michael Hardner]

That's a lot of blah-blah about nothing in particular. It was simple question:

Are they still denying climate change was always here?

Nobody denies that. Are you saying that there are scientists who say the climate doesn't change ? What a strange idea.

[TimG]

Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica

I said the last 2000 years - not the last 42,0000. The distinction is important because mechanical problems with the way ice core data is collected means the records start from 4000 years ago. The Greenland ice cores seem to provide more by they support a strong MWP and Roman WP.

Statistical correlation can't be coincidental, by definition. You can't have two graphs follow each other over long periods of time by coincidence. It's practically impossible.

But they don't. You are making a claim that has no basis in fact. There are no ice core records that support it.

Here's a paper that compares what happens if we drop tree-ring proxies and use other proxies instead

That paper plays a number of statistical dirty tricks. What it does is include two sets of bogus proxies: tree rings and lake sediments. When both are removed the reconstruction has no statistical significance (meaning it is nothing more than random noise). Of course, Mann and co try to trick people my showing them graphs that look the same knowing that people without stats background would not understand the implications of the change in significance.

[Michael Hardner]

I said the last 2000 years - not the last 42,0000. The distinction is important because mechanical problems with the way ice core data is collected means the records start from 4000 years ago. The Greenland ice cores seem to provide more by they support a strong MWP and Roman WP.

Ok - you said this: "The glacier cores don't go back to the MWP. The polar cores don't have the resolution." It just seems to me that they have cores that go back that far.

But they don't. You are making a claim that has no basis in fact. There are no ice core records that support it.

See my 2nd link. That is the basis in fact.

That paper plays a number of statistical dirty tricks. What it does is include two sets of bogus proxies: tree rings and lake sediments. When both are removed the reconstruction has no statistical significance (meaning it is nothing more than random noise). Of course, Mann and co try to trick people my showing them graphs that look the same knowing that people without stats background would not understand the implications of the change in significance.

The proxies correlate to each other. Why are you dropping lake sediments and not ice ? What are the other proxies you refer to ?

You don't have a stats background yourself, so why are you putting yourself above others without one ?

[TimG]

See my 2nd link. That is the basis in fact.

There are no ice records in your second link that go back to the MWP.

The proxies correlate to each other. Why are you dropping lake sediments and not ice ? What are the other proxies you refer to ?

The paper you linked to has 1200 or so different proxies. Mann selected a subset of those proxies by correlating them with current temperatures. The trouble is the lake bed proxies have been corrupted in the last 100 years by construction and the correlation is spurious and cannot be used in way Mann did. The tree ring proxies proxies are problematic because there is no compelling evidence that they are linearly related to temps. When you take out the lake sediment and tree rings he does not have enough data left during the MWP to have a statistically significant reconstruction (do you even understand why that matters?) Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

There are no ice records in your second link that go back to the MWP.

Sorry - that's just the abstract. The full paper is here:

PDF version

For the Northern Hemisphere (NH), we make use of

temperature reconstructions from 8 distinct regions (based

on 23 individual proxy records). Each employs either

indicators (e.g., sediments and ice cores) with no known

limitations in resolving millennial-scale variability, or treering

records in which various ‘conservative’ standardization

methods have been used, which, though not all identical,

share the common aim of seeking to preserve millennialscale

temperature variability.

So they use ice data...

The paper you linked to has 1200 or so different proxies. Mann selected a subset of those proxies by correlating them with current temperatures. The trouble is the lake bed proxies have been corrupted in the last 100 years by construction and the correlation is spurious and cannot be used in way Mann did. The tree ring proxies proxies are problematic because there is no compelling evidence that they are linearly related to temps. When you take out the lake sediment and tree rings he does not have enough data left during the MWP to have a statistically significant reconstruction (do you even understand why that matters?)

As I pointed out, he left tree rings out for comparison of the models without tree rings.

As to whether there's enough data left - I don't know where you're getting that, unless you're quoting another scientist. If so, please provide the link.

Your question "do you even understand..." seems to ignore the fact that you, above, tried to say that a long-period correlation could be a coincidence. I'm not going to get into the game of comparing your credentials against mine, as that's exactly the problem with this debate - people on the web arguing the science rather than letting the scientists do it.

Everything that I'm presenting here (with the exception of pointing out your error in statistics) is based on papers that the experts have published. Friis-Christensen is once such expert, who had postulated that sunspots could explain the warming but (as posted in another thread) he has retracted that, it seems.

[TimG]

So they use ice data.

The glacier ice core data does not go back to MWP. The greenland ice core show a massive MWP. The vostok ice core only goes up to 4000 years ago. Whatever they are doing with ice cores it does not support your claim.

As I pointed out, he left tree rings out for comparison of the models without tree rings.

As I pointed out this is a trick because he has two bogus sets of data: tree rings and sediments. All he needs to do is leave one in to get a hockey stick. Take both out and the restruction has no statistical significance.

Your question "do you even understand..." seems to ignore the fact that you, above, tried to say that a long-period correlation could be a coincidence.

There is nothing in the paper you quote that supports the claim. The data from different proxies does not correlate over the long term. They are mostly noise that cancels out leaving an average near zero. It is a statistical trick.

I am not going to bother. I am tired of trying to educate people on science that simply do not want to learn. The fact is Mann's work is largely garbage and this will be accepted fact in 20 years or so. Until then politics blinds people.

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The glacier ice core data does not go back to MWP. The greenland ice core show a massive MWP. The vostok ice core only goes up to 4000 years ago. Whatever they are doing with ice cores it does not support your claim.

Hmmm... but the claim is that warming is happening. As near as I can from this thread, we're talking about whether the claims are based on evidence - and this paper shows that warming is happening whether or not you use the tree proxies.

Nobody is denying there was an MWP either.

They use both methods.

As I pointed out this is a trick because he has two bogus sets of data: tree rings and sediments. All he needs to do is leave one in to get a hockey stick. Take both out and the restruction has no statitical significant.

But if you only use ice segments, then you're depending on one set of proxies aren't you ?

There is nothing in the paper you quote that supports the claim. The data from different proxies does not correlate over the long term. They are mostly noise that cancels out leaving an average near zero. It is a statistical trick.

The conclusion says:

[28] Reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperatures

over roughly the past two millennia employing

surface temperature data networks with sufficient

and seasonal sampling, temporal resolution, and retention

millennial-scale variance, support previous conclusions

with regard to the anomalous nature of late 20th

temperature at least about two millennia back in time

Northern Hemisphere. To the extent that a ‘Medieval’

interval of moderately warmer conditions can be

from about AD 800–1400, any hemispheric warmth

that interval is dwarfed in magnitude by late 20th

warmth. The sparseness of the available proxy data

Southern Hemisphere lead to less definitive conclusions

the SH or global mean temperature at present.

Again - can you provide a contrary scientific opinion that indicates we should only use one source for proxies, if that's what you're saying ?

[TimG]

Again - can you provide a contrary scientific opinion that indicates we should only use one source for proxies, if that's what you're saying ?

The problem here is you think it is a binary issue: either MWP was warmer than today or it was not. It is not a binary issue. The real question is: do we have enough reliable data that can can answer question about the MWP? The answer is no. What this means is you will never find a scientific opinion that proves the MWP is greater because the data does not exist. The data to show it is less does not exist either but that does not stop Mann from pretending it exists.

So it is rediculous to say that the only way to show that Mann is wrong is to show the opposite. It is enough to show that his methods are bogus and provide no useful information about the past.

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The problem here is you think it is a binary issue: either MWP was warmer than today or it was not. It is not a binary issue. The real question is: do we have enough reliable data that can can answer question about the MWP? The answer is no. What this means is you will never find a scientific opinion that proves the MWP is greater. The criticisms of Mann are because he falsy claiming that MWP is cooler than today when the real answer is we don't know.

Well, that's not really the question to my mind. If it were warmer than today then we still have a warming trend.

[TimG]

Well, that's not really the question to my mind. If it were warmer than today then we still have a warming trend.

The answer is we don't know. Why is that so hard to grasp?

[wyly]

Well, that's not really the question to my mind. If it were warmer than today then we still have a warming trend.

true the MWP is totally irrelevant, the planet is warming and the rate of warming is critical to the ecosystem that feeds us...

[lukin]

true the MWP is totally irrelevant, the planet is warming and the rate of warming is critical to the ecosystem that feeds us...

What a load of garbage. The sky is falling...oh my!!!

Wyly, what are you personally doing to combat the supposed doomed planet? You do know that flying is one of the worst things for the environment, right...you do know that. This is the fifth time I asked you this simple question.

[Michael Hardner]

The answer is we don't know. Why is that so hard to grasp?

You asked for evidence, and I gave some. I'm going to ask again for a link to a paper refuting the ones I posted. You saying "we don't know" doesn't prove it.

[TimG]

You asked for evidence, and I gave some. I'm going to ask again for a link to a paper refuting the ones I posted. You saying "we don't know" doesn't prove it.

Why a paper? Would you even read paper?

Here is one that makes the point: http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/14/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/

We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.

Now you can go running to your favorite alarmist blogs and find various nit picks about the details. Here is a post that discusses main points and addresses the minor points of criticisms:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2773

The basic conclusion is the proxies tell us nothing useful.

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Why a paper? Would you even read paper? Would you even understand it if you did read it?

Here is one that makes the point: http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/14/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/

Now you can go running to your favorite alarmist blogs and find various nit picks about the details. Here is a post that discusses main points and addresses the points of criticisms:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2773

The proxy reconstructions are useless.

No, I don't use blogs - I linked to published papers. I'll have at your link later... thanks...

[TimG]

No, I don't use blogs - I linked to published papers. I'll have at your link later... thanks...

Blogs are really the only way to get a complete picture of the science today because the publishing process takes an extraordinary amount of time and rebuttals to papers are often rejected or not given enough space to make the case.

Here is one story that illustrates the problem:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18773744/How-to-Publish-a-Scientific-Comment-in-1-2-3-Easy-Steps

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

oh baby… let me preface with an earlier post from a parallel running thread… from earlier today referencing the same MW2010 paper that TimG now drops a link to in this thread:

as always, comic relief from those dispensing the 'gospel according to McIntyre'... the self-appointed (but most selective) climate auditor... the guy who does no research, has no climate science background, has limited (targeted) education, and publishes no papers. Oh wait... he was recently given a token co-authorship to a much failed paper... a gimme co-authorship as the decades old crescendo calling for him to put-up (publish) or shut-up, simply became too much to handle!

it's also quite illuminating to see how silent McIntyre has gone over McShane & Wyner (MW2010) - hey? Don't bother to tout his most recent blog drivel... where he absolutely fails to even attempt to address the criticism of MW2010 coming forward. You know, McIntyre's much hyped introduction of MW2010... where, finally, "real statisticians", had managed to expose all the denier claimed failings of MBH (Mann et al). Oh ya - big time! As always, rather predictable, after his blog hype and the resulting denialsphere run with it, sanity begins to settle in and legitimate rebuttals to MW2010 begin to came forward... hence... the silent McIntyre (oh nooossssss... auditor gone mute)

Why a paper? Would you even read paper?

Here is one that makes the point: http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/14/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/

Now you can go running to your favorite alarmist blogs and find various nit picks about the details. Here is a post that discusses main points and addresses the minor points of criticisms:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2773

The basic conclusion is the proxies tell us nothing useful.

No, I don't use blogs - I linked to published papers. I'll have at your link later... thanks...

Michael, btw, if you’re not aware, Briggs is one of McIntyre’s favoured go-to statisticians (we could have some real fun with that guy on his own). Of course, predictably, fanboy TimG trots out disinformation from his mentor, McIntyre. In any case, what follows is a little help highlighting some of the initial formal response coming forward to debunk TimG's linked example paper (McShane & Wyner - MW2010), highlighting problems with their methodology, their poor understanding of climate science, their improper use of the referenced data, etc., etc., etc.

=> A COMMENT ON “A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TEMPERATURE PROXIES: ARE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS RELIABLE?” BY MCSHANE AND WYNER

=> Spurious predictions with random time series: The LASSO in the context of paleoclimatic reconstructions. A Discussion of “A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?” by Blakeley B. McShane and Abraham J. Wyner.

quite naturally, TimG will really like the authors of the above first link’s paper … the second link’s paper is from a noted statistician with a publication cv that has significant emphasis on proxy/paleo reconstruction – examples here:

TimG... minor points of criticism... that's what you're calling the initial formal response coming at MW2010? (notwithstanding, of course, despite all their difficulties, misunderstandings, improper methodology, improper data use/selection and outright politicized wording within their paper, McShane and Wyner still managed to reproduce a 'hockey stick'... oh my! Denialtown somehow... somehow... managed to gloss over that little tidbit.

[Michael Hardner]

As I said, Waldo, I'll look at this later - but published papers are the currency of real science in the end.

[ToadBrother]

Blogs are really the only way to get a complete picture of the science today because the publishing process takes an extraordinary amount of time and rebuttals to papers are often rejected or not given enough space to make the case.

Here is one story that illustrates the problem:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18773744/How-to-Publish-a-Scientific-Comment-in-1-2-3-Easy-Steps

Oh nonsense. Blogs are utterly unreliable. Even science journalism (groan) beats out blogs. Scientists don't debate by blog. Pundits use blogs.

Would you apply your extraordinary blog claim to biology or physics? My goodness, it takes so much time to wait for peer review, clearly we have to go linguistics blogs to find out the latest research on the relationship of Sumerian to Elamite.

You're a real card, Tim, a real card.

Edited October 2, 2010 by ToadBrother