The Controversy Over the "Hockey Stick

Mann et al 1999 THE "Hockey stick" plot

Mann et al 1999 THE "Hockey stick" plot Good science

Mann et al 1999 THE "Hockey stick" plot Good science or

Mann et al 1999 THE "Hockey stick" plot Good science or Bad science

Mann et al 1999 THE "Hockey stick" plot Good science or Bad science You decide

Mann et al. 1998, 1999 & IPCC 3rd report 2001. The "Hockey stick" plot.

Innocent enough looking isn't it.

This plot " " climate over the last thousand years was stable. Therefore the recent " " global temperature rises be because of Simply this plot " " proves Man's guilt, and that we adopt a " " way of life as soon as possible. proved unnatural MUST Greener supposedly MUST man's effect upon the environment.

This plot " " climate over the last thousand years was stable. Therefore the recent " " global temperature rises be because of Simply this plot " " proves Man's guilt, and that we adopt a " " way of life as soon as possible. proved unnatural MUST Greener supposedly MUST man's effect upon the environment. To save the planet..

The IS important to " " it is also effecting you NOW. "Hockey stick" them

When this plot was first produced it is fair to say, it totally rewrote the past climate books / understanding of the time. Literally it replaced them. In the following series of slides I'll try to illustrate how the "Hockey stick" was made. You can then judge for yourselves whether it stands up to closer scrutiny or not.

Areas of this plot we'll look at.

Timescale no M.W.P. Temp. scale

Timescale no L.I.A. Temp. scale no M.W.P.

Timescale Deliberately misinterpretted data set Temp. scale no M.W.P. no L.I.A.

Timescale Deliberately misinterpretted data set Wieghting Temp. scale no M.W.P. no L.I.A.

There are a few other areas we'll cover as well.. This diagram however is a bit "overcrowded" with concerns for the time being...

First, we should look "back" to the previous best understanding of past climate. Paleoclimatology as it is called. Simply put it is merely our best guess / knowledge of what the climate was. Pre 1990, our understanding of paleoclimatology is probably well illustrated by the following examples.

The "old" Consensus.

a bit of background... Pre 1990 Most past temperature reconstructions looked something like

Untill about 1990, the old school "consensus" (wiggly-ness) reconstructions of the last 1,000 years of global temperatures were similar to that shown in this chart from the 1990 IPCC report. (Probably roughly drawn from Lamb 1965)

Some "wiggly-ness" temperature plots from the 1990 IPCC report... Original caption: Figure 2: Temperature variations over the last million years. Courtesy of the British Antarctic Survey Please note the use of the terms, and, Although not on these figures, (or indicated) the term (Hint - growth of civilization) was also used... "Medieval Warm Period" "Little Ice Age" "Holocene Maximum"

Let us look at the 3 timescales covered by this diagram. The following "blow ups" effectively show the previous "consensus" view of what past climate was thought to be.

Let us look at the 3 timescales covered by this diagram. The following "blow ups" effectively show the previous "consensus" view of what past climate was thought to be. (Untill the "Hockey stick" replaced all this with a mere 1 thousand year climate "reconstruction"..)

also please note, that human civilization has occurred in this WARM period.

Warm periods ARE GOOD for mankind, so our history tells us.

Put another way, name one human civilization from an Ice Age..

"Wiggly-ness" Regardless of the timescale from 1,000,000 to 1,000 years the temperature constantly appears to rise and fall perfectly naturally..

Perfectly natural climatic variation, or "Wiggly-ness"

The "new" Consensus some obvious differences.

THE "Hockey stick" graph from the 3rd IPCC report. If "old school" past temp. reconstructions could be described as "wiggly", this plot depicts temp. as the "past was flat".

THE "Hockey stick" graph from the 3rd IPCC report.

We will come back to this part of the plot later.. THE "Hockey stick" graph from the 3rd IPCC report.

No Medieval warm period. THE "Hockey stick" graph from the 3rd IPCC report.

No Little Ice age. THE "Hockey stick" graph from the 3rd IPCC report.

Another obvious difference between "wiggly-ness", and flat earth temperature plots is.. THE "Hockey stick" graph from the 3rd IPCC report.

THE "Hockey stick" graph from the 3rd IPCC report. Or, more accurately,

Reborn THE "Hockey stick" graph from the 3rd IPCC report. "The Flat Earth society"

= 0.4 degrees celsius THE "Hockey stick" graph from the 3rd IPCC report.

Untill about 1990 the old school "consensus" (wiggly-ness) reconstructions of the last 1,000 years of global temperatures was similar to that shown in this chart from the 1990 IPCC report. (Probably roughly drawn from Lamb 1965)

= 1.9 degrees celsius Untill about 1990 the old school "consensus" (wiggly-ness) reconstructions of the last 1,000 years of global temperatures was similar to that shown in this chart from the 1990 IPCC report. (Probably roughly drawn from Lamb 1965)

IPCC 3rd Report (aka the new "consensus") Temperature reconstructions / plots. The beginning of the modern "flat earth society" (I wish that joke was funny... It would be if it were not so damned true.)

IPCC 1990 Figure 7c. Please note, not accreditied to anyone in IPCC report BUT, Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org found the following...

Figure 2. Black - Lamb 1965 CET (with update); red - digitized IPCC 1990 Figure 1c. Maybe the IPCC hoped no one would defend it.. Nobody dared. Steve McIntyre investigated though. " I recently re-read Lamb 1965. It's Table 2 provided a table of Central England temperature estimates in 50 year intervals."

In the "old school" past climate reconstructions, "wiggly-ness" abounded vitually everywhere.

In the "old school" past climate reconstructions, "wiggly-ness" abounded vitually everywhere. In the new versions, everything appeared very flat. Untill very recently of course.

In the "old school" past climate reconstructions, "wiggly-ness" abounded vitually everywhere. In the new versions, everything appeared very flat. Untill very recently of course. The Flat Earth society

In the "old school" past climate reconstructions, "wiggly-ness" abounded vitually everywhere. In the new versions, everything appeared very flat. Untill very recently of course. Seems appropriate. The Flat Earth society

Can natural variation still be found..

Can past (or present)climatic be found elsewhere, other than "old school" reconstructions. "Wiggly-ness"

Can past (or present)climatic be found elsewhere, other than "old school" reconstructions. "Wiggly-ness" YES, for example the sun..

Over the last 1,000 years, we see that (again using a reversed scale of C14 as a proxy) solar activity is highly correlated with long term temperature trends.

Look at the following reconstruction data by Judith Lean of the Naval Research Library and charted from her data at NOAA by Junkscience.com shows that interestingly, the sun's output does appear to be higher today than they have been in many, perhaps hundreds of years . Surely not "wiggly-ness" in the sun's output..

Look at the following reconstruction data by Judith Lean of the Naval Research Library and charted from her data at NOAA by Junkscience.com shows that interestingly, the sun's output does appear to be higher today than they have been in many, perhaps hundreds of years . Surely not "wiggly-ness" in the sun's output.. This is raising considerable concern at present, since the above was written the number of sun spots has considerably reduced.

An updated plot would show (and now do) a recent dramatic reduction. Solar Cycle 23 STILL has not finished If it continues.. (Solar cycle 23 was supposed to end in October 2007, typed May 2008)

An updated plot would show (and now do) a recent dramatic reduction. Solar Cycle 23 STILL has not finished If it continues.. The sun's output is not "flat" (obviously) and we WILL get colder. How much colder, for how long, nobody knows. How much human suffering, again nobody knows. (Solar cycle 23 was supposed to end in October 2007, typed June 2008)

An updated plot would show (and now do) a recent dramatic reduction. Solar Cycle 23 STILL has not finished If it continues.. The sun's output is not "flat" (obviously) and we WILL get colder. How much colder, for how long, nobody knows. How much human suffering, again nobody knows. BUT, it is obvious, preparing for warming alone WILL kill millions of the poor, the world over. (Solar cycle 23 was supposed to end in October 2007, typed June 2008)

I wish we would prepare (for cooling - just in case...) As surely as it was an iceburg that sank the Titanic, WE ARE LOOKING THE WRONG WAY.

I wish we would prepare (for cooling - just in case...) As surely as it was an iceburg that sank the Titanic, WE ARE LOOKING THE WRONG WAY. The present CO2 "obsession" is blinding us.

The new "Consensus" How it was "proved".

THE proof of AGW One of THE leading proponents of AGW, and realclimate.org founder member .nonsense Micheal Mann of the University of Massachusetts electrified the climate science world, and the political world as a whole, with his revised temp. reconstruction, shown here, (next slide) it's called The Hockey Stick.

THE proof of AGW 1950 a "bad" year...

THE proof of AGW YEAH RIGHT MANN...

So why was the Hockey Stick so influential ? - it appeared to provide a much more sophisticated statistical analysis than earlier efforts. It claimed to have "statistical skill", reporting highly significant verification RE and r2 statistics. It used - a much larger data set than had been considered in prior studies. Stephen McIntyre quote/s Ohio presentation, May 2008.

"Proofs" of the H.S. 1 - Wieghting

As an example of the "types" of statistical "methods" Mann et al employed, in making the Hockey Stick, I'll try to look at "weighting" simply.

An example of the effect of weighting. Imagine two data points, A = 10 and B = 2. The mean of these two data points is, 10 + 2 = 12 divided by 2 = 6 The mean of A and B is 6 If we decide we want to weight one of the data points by 390, for example (like Mann did..), how does this effect the mean of this example. (10x390) 3900 = (2x1) 2 = 3902 3902 divided by (390 = 1) 391 = 9.795 The (weighted) mean of A and B is 9.795

An example of the effect of weighting. Imagine two data points, A = 10 and B = 2. The mean of these two data points is, 10 + 2 = 12 divided by 2 = 6 The mean of A and B is 6 If we decide we want to weight one of the data points by 390, for example (like Mann did..), how does this effect the mean of this example. (10x390) 3900 = (2x1) 2 = 3902 3902 divided by (390 = 1) 391 = 9.795 The (weighted) mean of A and B is 9.795 Weighting can have a significant effect on what the data shows. Where used weighting should be realistically justified. If you like non-existent wild goose chases, try finding an explanation of Mann's justification of the weightings he used...

Data set A Data set B An example of the effect of weighting. Here is a plot showing two (imaginary) data sets, A (blue line) and B (green line),

Data set A Data set B Mean of A & B An example of the effect of weighting. Here is a plot showing two (imaginary) data sets, A (blue line) and B (green line), and, a black line for the mean of the two data sets.

An example of the effect of weighting. Here is a plot showing two (imaginary) data sets, A (blue line) and B (green line), and, a black line for the mean of the two data sets. The red (dashed) line is a weighted mean. Can you guess which data set I weighted by 390.....

Mean of A & B 390 weighted Mean of A & B An example of the effect of weighting. Here is a plot showing two (imaginary) data sets, A (blue line) and B (green line), and, a black line for the mean of the two data sets. The red (dashed) line is a weighted mean. Can you guess which data set I weighted by 390.....

Figure5: Two tree ring chronologies from the MBH98 data set. Top: Sheep Mountain, CA, USA. Bottom: Mayberry Slough, AR, USA. Both series are the same length, but due to the 20th Century trend in the top panel, Mann's algorithm gives it the weight of the bottom series in the PC1. 390 times

Steve McIntyre quote regarding weighting, " This shows about as vividly as one could imagine that the hockey stick made out of bristlecone pine. " IS

"Proofs" of the H.S. 2 - Algorithm and resulting data omissions

Some other examples of the "methods" or "statistical techniques" Mann et al used.

Figure 4 . Reproduction of a chart in MM05a. Histog ram of ‘Hockey Stick’ Indexes of PC1s from red noise under conventional PC algorithm and under Mann PC algorithm. use a “dodgy” algorithm.. What if you..

It appears from the previous diagram that the algorithm Mann used would split a data set up into three bands (effectively) high, medium, and low. The high and low "sets" would give a similar shaped plot to the original dataset, but the temperature shown would be higher or lower than the complete dataset. The unused portions of the datasets were then (mostly) put into the censored files.

Figure 9. Removal of the bristlecone pines from the AD1400 network changes the results from the red line to the pink line, thereby removing the characteristic “hockey stick” shape and leaving behind mere noise. Source: Wahl and Ammann (2005) http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/recon/WEB_examples.jpg (unpublished). omit data… What if you..

The effect of an algorithm graphically depicted (6), the hockey stick and the corrected temperature curve (green line) by McIntyre between 1400 and 1980 (The green curve is not intended to indicate the true temperature, but to show a correct use of the data)

“it is interesting to examine the first 5 PC series in the CENSORED file at Mann's FTP site." These PC series have been calculated from the 50 non-bristlecone pine series and obviously there is no 20th Century hockey stick shaped series among them. These PC series have presumably been calculated with Mann's flawed method, but even this method could not mine a hockey stick shape without the bristlecones.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2153#more-2153 “censored” data… Whatever next. "Restricted" data....

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2153#more-2153 Yes "R" rated tree ring data... Many climate audit readers will remember Mann's "CENSORED" directory, in which Mann calculated principal components on a network that excluded bristlecone pines (which needless to say didn't have a HS shape..) Now Juckes et al introduce us to a new type of climate data: "restricted" data. The Team has introduced a novel classification system - PG and R. Juckes et al say that the Indigirka series is R - rated and so it can't be used in their reconstruction.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2153#more-2153 Here are their exact words from the Euro Hockey Team for excluding the Indigirka series: " The Indigirka series used by MSH2005 is not used here because IT IS NOT AVALIABLE FOR UNRESTRICTED USE. "

Fortunately, this CO2 “obsession” has not taken over the whole world YET. (It is close to doing so however.)

Fortunately, this CO2 “obsession” has not taken over the whole world YET. Some research is still done in climate science that shows (It is close to doing so however.)

Fortunately, this CO2 “obsession” has not taken over the whole world YET. Some research is still done in climate science that shows (It is close to doing so however.) "Wiggly-ness"

There still is good reason to hope this mess can be turned around. Regardless of the (so called) "Settled science"

There still is good reason to hope this mess can be turned around. Regardless of the (so called) "Settled science" Time

There still is good reason to hope this mess can be turned around. Regardless of the (so called) "Settled science" Time will

There still is good reason to hope this mess can be turned around. Regardless of the (so called) "Settled science" Time will tell

There still is good reason to hope this mess can be turned around. Regardless of the (so called) Time will tell Put another way, mother nature batted first, is still batting, and will continue to bat, way after man has left the field. We still have not even got hold of the bat, it is still firmly in her grip. "Settled science"

There still is good reason to hope this mess can be turned around. Regardless of the (so called) Time will tell Put another way, mother nature batted first, is still batting, and will continue to bat, way after man has left the field. We still have not even got hold of the bat, it is still firmly in her grip. However some try to delude themselves (and us) of reality. "Settled science"

Other examples of recent natural variation supporting research (Tree and none tree studies)

CLIMATIC CHANGES IN SUBARCTIC EURASIA BASED ON MILLENNIAL TREE RING CHRONOLOGIES Olga V. Sidorova, Mukhtar M. Naurzbaev, Eugene A. Vaganov V.N. Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS, Krasnoyarsk, Russia. Source - http://www.holivar2006.org/abstracts/pdf/T3-016.pdf

The Eurasian long-term tree-ring chronologies have revealed the global climate fluctuations (Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, current warming.) As last as a current temperature changes are characterized the spatial heterogeneity - different value of temperature fluctuation in different subarctic sectors. Current warming started at the beginnig of the 19th Century and presently does not exceed the amplitude of the medieval warming. The tree ring chronologies do not indicate unusually abrupt temp. rise during the last century, which could be reliably associated with greenhouse gas increasing in the atmosphere of our planet. The current period is characterised by heterogeneous warming effects in the subarctic regions of Eurasia. Conclusions (of this study)

Fig. 2. Combined northern Eurasia tree ring chronology. Source - http://www.holivar2006.org/abstracts/pdf/T3-016.pdf

Fig.4.Comparison of large-scale temperature reconstruction (1) and Eurasian tree-ring chronology(2).

There are other “wiggly-ness” science studies in present climate research.

There are other “wiggly-ness” science studies in present climate research. (Your shocked, arn't you..)

There are other “wiggly-ness” science studies in present climate research. Multi proxy ones at that. (Your shocked, arn't you..)

There are other “wiggly-ness” science studies in present climate research. Multi proxy ones at that. (Your shocked, arn't you..) (Now your worried..)

There are other “wiggly-ness” science studies in present climate research. Multi proxy ones at that. DO NOT BE, (Your shocked, arn't you..) (Now your worried..)

There are other “wiggly-ness” science studies in present climate research. Multi proxy ones at that. DO NOT BE, ALL the proxies in the next study have been verified (independently checked) as to their validity and robustness. The sources are given, and can be checked as well. (Your shocked, arn't you..) (Now your worried..)

There are other “wiggly-ness” science studies in present climate research. Multi proxy ones at that. DO NOT BE, ALL the proxies in the next study have been verified (independently checked) as to their validity and robustness. The sources are given, and can be checked as well. (Your shocked, arn't you..) (Now your worried..) THE STUDY, using 18 dif. proxies & no weighting issues

There are other “wiggly-ness” science studies in present climate research. Multi proxy ones at that. DO NOT BE, ALL the proxies in the next study have been verified (independently checked) as to their validity and robustness. The sources are given, and can be checked as well. (Your shocked, arn't you..) (Now your worried..) THE STUDY, using 18 dif. proxies & no weighting issues IS

A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON NON-TREE RING PROXIES By Craig Loehle, Ph.D. and J. Huston McCulloch 2008 by Craig Loehle, Ph.D. 2007 "corrected", post pier review, - wink, wink, nudge, nudge...faired better than Mann... http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf source

[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],What did Craig Loehle do (Some quotes from the study)

Craig Loehle Relatively easy to understand what and how was done in this study. If you wanted to check it, it would not be too difficult. Open, as good science is meant to be. Unlike Mann et al.

Figure 2. Corrected reconstruction with 95% confidence intervals. Data for this graph is online at <http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/> A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies

Figure 2. Corrected reconstruction with 95% confidence intervals. Data for this graph is online at <http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/> Mann et al Time period. A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies

A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies “The main significance of the results here is not the details of every wiggle, which are probably not reliable, but the overall picture of the 2,000 pattern showing the MWP and LIA timing and curve shapes." The study concluded, amongst other points, that, (Please note the above "every wiggle". You thought I was being "unscientific" using "wiggly-ness".)

Let us make a Hockey stick plot from the Greenland ice core data to illustrate

How to make a hockey stick… There are many, many ways to get a graph or plot to "show what you want". Here, we will use just 5 of the "techniques" Mann et al used. Let us employ them one at a time, with the Greenland ice core data set.

Data set choice. I have only used one simple data set, the Greenland ice core data records that go back 49,981 years before present (BP), "present" being 1997. This record consists of, temperature in degrees celsius for central Greenland for a given time, expressed as years BP. Simply a two number entry for each data point. Choosing a data set is a difficult task, it should be, "relevant" yet "impartial" accurate and unbiased. A complex minefield in short, open to question, but science should always question.

The complete Greenland ice core data set plotted “as is”

Timescale. This can have great influence on the choice of data set. Too short a data set has obvious problems, how do you study what is not recorded. Too long a set of data is not an issue, it is just where do you cut the data off. This sounds "inoffensive" enough, cutting off a data set, but can have dramatic effects. You can "cut out" what you do not want. (Intensionally or not.) Let us see if we can effect what is “shown” by timescale choice.

An “inoffensive” timescale cut off effect simile. Imagine you find a long lost favourite family recipe for Sheperd's pie. The recipe is not complete though, part of the page/s is missing. You do not know how much of the page, or pages, is missing, but you can read. “Now put the pie under the grill until the cheese topping is browned, maybe even a little charred in places." Would you know enough to make the family it’s favourite meal ? Would you know the oven setting, or how long to cook the dish, or what ingredients to use, the proportions or weights of the ingredients. (and as for those "secret" ingredients that make all the difference...) No, obviously.

49,981 years BP is obviously too long a time scale for the purpose here. We will reduce it to a more reasonable 10,500 years BP. First though, a note about data points.

The “as is” plot, please note the time scale along the bottom. It is skewed. This is because the number of data points varies for different time periods (I do not know why). Below is a plot of the number of measurements per 1,000 years BP.

How should this datasets timeline be split up..

To show part of the last ice age,

to show the transition between them.

Certainly the last thousand years, or less, would not seem to tell us much of particular interest, or relevance. That however, is a mute point, "relevance". What is wanted here is a timescale to produce a result, nothing more. A "hockey stick" plot.

Certainly the last thousand years, or less, would not seem to tell us much of particular interest, or relevance. That however, is a mute point, "relevance". What is wanted here is a timescale to produce a result, nothing more. A "hockey stick" plot. So, let us reduce the timescale to see if we can produce the “desired” result.

Omitted time period of ice core record. On this plot what is the new time scale.

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 10,500 years.

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 10,500 years. This time period has “removed” the ice age, so the scaling of temperature needed to include ice age temperature variation can (has to) be reduced.

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 10,500 years. The temperature scale needed to plot this smaller part of the data set can be reduced from, (including ice age) Full plot = -28C to -54C = 26 degrees. to, (present interglacial or Holcene) 10,500 = -28.5C to -33C = 4.5 degrees.

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 10,500 years. The present interglacial period, called the Holocene.

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 4,016 years. Less than half of the Holocene.

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 2,006 years. Less than 2 tenths of the Holocene.

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 2,006 years. A longer time period for Mann et al would of presented another "problem" period.

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 2,006 years. Rather than just the one.

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 2,006 years. Choosing a shorter timescale meant less “processing”….

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 2,006 years. Reducing the time scale to a mere 751 years has an effect though.

Reducing the timescale to 751 years... 751 divided by 10,500 times 100 = 7.152 % of the Holocene time period.

Reducing the timescale to 751 years... 751 divided by 10,500 times 100 = 7.152 % of the Holocene time period. RIDICULOUS.

Mann et al's timescale 1,000 years... 1,000 divided by 10,500 times 100 = 9.523 % of the Holocene time period.

Mann et al's timescale 1,000 years... 1,000 divided by 10,500 times 100 = 9.523 % of the Holocene time period. Not much less RIDICULOUS.

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 751 years. Timescale alone though can “deal” with it..

The complete Greenland ice core data set of 49,981 years Before Present, down to the last 751 years. Mann, what happened to the “wiggly-ness”.. Timescale has quite an effect on the plots. I doubt it effects the climate much though.

Temperature Scaling Always useful to emphasize or hide want you want or do not want to "show" in a plot or graph. If, for instance you have picked or used (or "made" by "processing techniques") a data set that shows little variation. Then careful scaling can create the impression it shows variation, when really there is too little... (Hint - Watch the vertical scale)

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 751 years. This can become..

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 751 years. this

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 751 years. Just by altering the scale.

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 751 years. Given a more realistic “holocene” scale

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 751 years. it becomes…

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 751 years. this, again.

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 751 years.

The complete Greenland ice core data set for the last 751 years. What have we omitted in this plot.

Combined timescale and scaleing differences to original data.. On the 751 year plot this is

Combined timescale and scaleing differences to original data.. the new time & scale.

4 - Algorithm use. (We will not actually omit data, we are better than that.)

Algorithms and other statistical techniques These are the least obvious and sometimes the most powerful ways to show what you want, rather than what the data actually portrays. Modern computers give the oppotunity to calculate the data so many ways and with such subtlety that it can be well nigh on impossible to detect it, let alone know what has or has not been "calculated"... I have not omitted any data, I have just subtracted a couple of tenths of a degree from about a dozen data points, IT'S THAT EASY...

As shown earlier Mann’s algorithm “moved” the data points.

I “just” subtract a couple of tenths of a degree here and there,

and a few “peaks” are removed.

As shown earlier this is exactly what Mann’s algorithm did.

Two data points further moved 629783(-0.05), and 51961 ( + 0.1). One or two more are further moved for good measure,

Two data points further moved 629783(-0.05), and 51961 ( + 0.1).

RESULT. If they are now joined up.

We have a nice, flat base for our “hockey stick”

5 - Mixing of data sets, and the deliberate misrepresentation of data

Mixed or mixing of data sets Never a good idea this, but the Greenland data set is complete to about 1900, so we'll add known temperature variations since, as seems generally agreed by most people. ie, O.7C rise over the 20th Century, and a fall back of about 0.6C (including a 3 to 4 year stasis) since then to now (May 2008). Before adding modern measured temp. increases, first we'll return to Mann's mixing of data sets. Mann used 112 data sets of the 300 + the study had access to. One data set specically had quite an effect..

The last part of the data set Mann et al used was taken from a record that stated that the increased ring width was due to other factors than temperature. Mann used the increased ring width to infer increased temperature, a clear, and dishonest use of the data set. This was done by Mann knowingly.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause a quote from, " What were those bad numbers Mann plugged in to get his fake results? Modern bristlecone pine tree-ring data in which recent tree rings showed the widths that would normally mean unusually warm weather. However, these trees were located near temperature recording stations that showed lower than usual temperatures. So, instead of being a sign of warmer temperatures, the trees are actually responding to the increased CO2 levels."

Put another way, CO2 is an atmospheric plant fertilizer, NOT A POLLUTANT.

increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere means plants grow better. Ever wondered why plants were so big in dinosaur illustrations. Higher CO2 levels meant bigger plants. Yes, REALLY,

increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere means plants grow better. Ever wondered why plants were so big in dinosaur illustrations. Higher CO2 levels meant bigger plants. Yes, REALLY, It's that simple.

The data set Mann inferred temperature from, that the original author said, THE "Hockey stick" graph from the 3rd IPCC report.

This is the effect of one data set that Mann deliberately misinterpreted.. It is obvious why he did so. THE "Hockey stick" graph from the 3rd IPCC report. DID NOT represent temperature had quite an effect.

This is the effect of one data set that Mann deliberately misinterpreted.. It is obvious why he did so. THE "Hockey stick" graph from the 3rd IPCC report.

There are many, many other ways to get plots, graphs, histograms, etc, etc, to show what you want them to show, REGARDLESS OF THE DATA. In short, before you can understand what a plot shows, first you must understand the assumptions behind the statistical processes used that created the plotted data..

Now we can plot our Greenland Hockey Stick.

Having “carefully” selecting data, and timescale, We can now mix in modern instrument records of temperature. In the last century, (ice core records stop 95 years BP) these records show,

a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius.

a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows.

My Greenland ice core Hockey stick plot a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows.

In only the last century or so.. a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows.

O.M.G. a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows.

O.M.G. Look at that go. a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows.

We are a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows.

We are DOOMED. a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows.

We are DOOMED. We are killing the planet. a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows.

so "they" are telling us... Politicians mainly, ie Al Gore, and one or two "scientists" ie Mann et al. a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows.

Usually just before clobbering us with new "Green" taxes... a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows.

Who is the "vested interest" in this.. a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows.

Since 1998 however temperature has fallen. a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows.

Since 1998 however temperature has fallen. So if we plot that as well, what happens.. a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows.

a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows. Since 1998 however temperature has fallen. So if we plot that as well, what happens..

Are you a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows. Since 1998 however temperature has fallen. So if we plot that as well, what happens..

Are you shocked a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows. Since 1998 however temperature has fallen. So if we plot that as well, what happens..

or a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows. Since 1998 however temperature has fallen. So if we plot that as well, what happens..

are you a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows. Since 1998 however temperature has fallen. So if we plot that as well, what happens..

are you surprised a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows. Since 1998 however temperature has fallen. So if we plot that as well, what happens..

are you annoyed a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows. Since 1998 however temperature has fallen. So if we plot that as well, what happens..

by being taken in by such an obvious a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows. Since 1998 however temperature has fallen. So if we plot that as well, what happens..

by being taken in by such an obvious a rise in temperature of 0.7 degrees celsius. This can be added to the plot as follows. Since 1998 however temperature has fallen. So if we plot that as well, what happens.. HOAX

Call it what you will. It is still the same thing.

I hope I’ve shown how easy it is to produce something that is nothing more than a fraudulent figment of my imagination. (It’s useless, but it hopefully illustrates the point..) “THE GREENLAND HOCKEY STICK PLOT” (Modern climate science is not what it should be.)

An observation. Mann et al used “error bars”, the grey areas in the plots of the hockey stick. This was to show possible errors in the data, both positive and negative of the value plotted. Interestingly, if you “imagine” periods of positive and negative errors in the data as plotted, you can see what follows could be plotted from their data.... (Even when done very roughly.)

The error bars in this plot, what do they show.

Periods of positive and negative errors…

known or unknown errors in the data…

Is there any similarity to Lamb 1965…

Had Mann et al always built in a “get out” clause ? ?

Given the size of the error bars is there any way

this plot can be described as accurate or reliable.

No wonder then, it has been dismissed as

Scientific fraud. No wonder then, it has been dismissed as

Mann et al’s “Hockey stick” plot of the “consensus” view of our planet's past 1,000 year climate "history" was (and some still regard as IS) one of the first building blocks of what has become the biggest scam in human history so far. “Man made” Global Warming Richard S. Courtney summed it up best for me as, the attempted justification of, “taxes you HAVE to pay”

Sources used. http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3072 http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/NAS.M&M.pdf http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=21 http://www.holivar2006.org/abstracts/pdf/T3-016.pdf http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2153#more-2153 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

Sources used. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html http://www.klimanotizen.de/html/newsletter_13e.html http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 My excel sheet - available via email, - just join the forum at globalwarmingskeptics.info and PM me (Derek) your email address, I'll send you a copy of the Excel sheet as used here.

MUST READ Sources. http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf Stephen McIntyre Presentation at the Ohio State University 16th May 2008

MUST READ Sources. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html Civilization Watch First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC By Orson Scott Card March 4 2007. All in a Good Cause

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html Some quotes from, All in a Good Cause "Here's a story you haven't heard, and you should have." "This means that Mann knew exactly what he was doing." "This was not an accident." "What he (Mann) published was the results that made his ideological case."

"Anybody who cares to can verify the story." "Where's the press?" "This story is true."

Original title ideas for this presentation, that'll never be presented..

A Greenland (Ice core) "Hockey stick" plot.

(how to make one simply..) A Greenland (Ice core) "Hockey stick" plot.

You decide Bad science Good science or

"Hockey stick" GLOBAL confidence trick. Mann et al 1998 &1999, & IPCC 3rd Report 2001. The a plot

"Hockey stick" GLOBAL confidence trick. plot Mann et al 1998 &1999, & IPCC 3rd Report 2001. The a

"Hockey stick" GLOBAL confidence trick. Mann et al 1998 &1999, & IPCC 3rd Report 2001. The a

With a "subtitle" sequence as follows..

Global warming or, climate change. Man made

The biggest and politically motivated scientifically "proven"

The really amazing "achievement" of this scam is that it does not matter...

Left Whether you are or centre Right

The end. Or maybe just the beginning for you..

The Controversy Over the "Hockey Stick

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à The Controversy Over the "Hockey Stick

Similaire à The Controversy Over the "Hockey Stick (6)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

The Controversy Over the "Hockey Stick