Sometimes the Mann Hockey Stick (1999) is eclipsed by another reconstruction which goes twice as far back and with even less statistical significance (if that’s possible) than the original.
Yes, it’s the "Mann Hockey Stick mark deux" produced by Drs Jones and Mann to widespread indifference in 2003. Steve has tried replicating this one as well, but guess what? Mann won’t give all the necessary statistical steps (including the weightings used) in order to replicate the graph. Quel surprise….
Thus we have (kudos to Michael Mayson for this one) yet another site linked to the Hockey Team (the one that Steve dubbed the "Kyoto Flames" some time ago): Dr Raymond Bradley, of the University of Massachusetts. It’s the succintly and modestly titled www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org
(My favourite long domain name that tells you all you need to know what the site is about: www.SweetJesusIhateBillOReilly.com – try it, its a hoot…)
And here’s the graph. Obviously no climate change has happened in the world in the last 2000 years, whatever everybody else may say.
Noticeably Hockey Stick mark deux doesn’t replicate the instrumental record very well (ie not at all) but hey! When you’re a famous climatologist, these things are just trivia….
Climate Audit 
27 Comments
So, Dr Bradley joins the list of those ‘convicted’ of ‘unclimateaudit activities’ by judge John A?
These lines from http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0824313.html are sadly telling imo:
“The committee’s methods included pressure on witnesses to name former associates, vague and sweeping accusations against individuals, and the assumption of an individual’s guilt because of association with a suspect organization. Witnesses who refused to answer were cited for contempt of Congress.”
Based on the number of hockey stick graphs showing up I predict that the climatology hockey teams are going to try and claim the Stanley Cup. It was always supposed to be a challenge cup for amateur hockey and this is about as amateurish as you can get. It’s not like the NHL will be needing it this year.
Another way to illustrate the hockey stick distortion that results from combining proxy data with actual temps after 1980 would be to do a variation of what Mann, et al. did. For example, the temperature record shows a cooling from 1940 to 1975. If you used the proxy data only up to 1940 and then grafted on the actual record from 1940 to 1975, the hockey stick method would likely show that the 1970s had the coldest temperatures in the last 1000 years!!
Ah, Peter, so glad you’re still here. Happened to look at the Briffa data review on this site ? Of course, more just plain knocking isn’t it, after all, no-one who really believes in AGW would ever apply arbitary adjustments to data to avoid the unfortunate facts like the apparent unresponsiveness of the trees they are studying to temperature. I mean, temperatures have gone up, and up and up, greatest increases ever seen ! So trees must respond, right ? Therefore if they don’t respond, then something is wrong with the data, not the theory, so change the data. Obvious, right ?
Your quote seems very apt, been reading Realclimate again have you ? Seems like a good description of their modus operandi. After all, to dismiss ones critics as worthy of intellectual contempt…
This is the way I exercise my McCarthyist tendencies: I post Peter Hearnden’s posts complete and unabridged.
I mean, how scary is that?
We have another outing of the hockey stick here, courtesy of professor Alan Thorpe and the institute of Physics. Dated 2005 no less – obviously nobody told him that the hockey stick was seven years out of date and therefore irrelevant, old science.
Alan is trying to convince us all that modelling is sound and critics of climate change modelling are “ill-informed”. To his credit, he mentions Lorenz and problems with predicting weather – but then falls into the trap of saying it doesn’t affect climate modelling thanks to averaging. Apparently Professor Thorpe has never come across multi-scale variability in fractals and chaotic systems.
John,
I have a vague feeling that the earth’s “global” temperature remains constant but that significant fluctuations occur on a regional basis. No proof for this of course, but the way the way the data seems to pan out seems to suggest this possibility.
This suggests that our Climate Scientists are extrapolating regional climates globally. Ie it we had a freezing winter in New Zealand, therefore the planet must have had also a freezing winter.
I’ve just finished re-reading Tommy Gold’s deep hot biosphere and if he is only partially correct, localised temperature variations on teh surface may have much to do with internal earth processes.
The problem is that the geosciences know little to nothing about this (mainly because it has not been studied in detail) but it bears considering when trying to explain local climate variation etc.
The Fat Lady has definitely NOT walked onto the opera stage to sing her last aria.
Re:#1:
cough, splutter!!…good lord, I almost choked reading this! Isn’t this from the guy who’s always at people to reveal their identities and associations? See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony
Louis Hissink wrote
“I have a vague feeling that the earth’s “global” temperature remains constant but that significant fluctuations occur on a regional basis. No proof for this of course, but the way the way the data seems to pan out seems to suggest this possibility.
This suggests that our Climate Scientists are extrapolating regional climates globally. Ie it we had a freezing winter in New Zealand, therefore the planet must have had also a freezing winter.”
OK, lets see the evidence.
TBH I think it’s not right to suggest anyone is saying that because New Zealand had a cold spell the whole planet was cold. It’s not been cold here in the UK much, globally both January and February were warm.
Ed, unlike several here, I don’t pretend to be a tree ring interpretation expert – I leave that to those who are both experts and trustworthy and whos’s work is part of a mass of evidence that supports the view the world has warmed and that it will warm much more.
Louis,
I think that’s extremely unlikely. The biggest input by several orders of magnitude upon the atmosphere is the solar flux. There are many, many studies of climate of the last tens or hundreds of millions of years to show that the earth’s mean temperature does not remain constant. Moreover the climate of the Holocene appears to be strongly correlated with changes in the solar flux, due to intrinsic solar variability as well as orbital and axial changes of the Earth.
Peter, that is your eternal comment. On a site where the issue is the reliability of the data, what is the point in popping up and chiming in the old “Trust them, they know what they are doing” line ? This is why I accuse you of having a religious outlook. You are content to be dictated to by people whose qualifications obviously impress you, and when given the opportunity to have a critical look and see if they are dealing the “truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, you refuse to look. Simple question, are you quite happy that, in this case, Briffa should make what appears to be an at least partly ad hoc adjustment to data without giving any solid rationale behind the adjustment. Then that he should refuse to share his data to see if it can be checked ? Is this the actions of people who are open and reliable ? Note that i am not saying that Briffa in this case is not being entirely credible with his treatment, but that it is damn hard to tell unless we can see what he did and why.
So if you think you are giving a “reality check”, don’t, because you are not. People are here at this site (or at least I am), to see what data supports the various papers commonly cited to provide the real data behind the AGW hypothesis. And there are too many holes appearing ! If much of the data is straight up and that conclusive as you seem to think, why won’t the authors disclose and defend ? It seems a lost cause, but Peter, open your mind and think for yourself for once, even if your conclusions are the same, you’ll at least have the satisfaction of having considered the issues. So try this one, look at what Briffa is doing, and try to make sense of it.
So, Ed, you question that Steve is right then? OK, put those question here!
Open you mind to the possibility that all the evidence (thermometers, glaciers, sea temperatures, rising ghg concentrations, the models (yes, the models), the climatologists, the IPCC, NOAA, Hadley Centre, Met Office) might be right and Steve and John perhaps not? No, I wont dismiss all that lot for the word of your good self and a few others – sorry. But I am SURE you dismiss them, absolutely sure!
When I was told at school that Carbon bonds in a certain way, or that Everest is the worlds tallest mountain, or that pi is 3.142…I accepted that. Was I of ‘a religious outlook’ so to do? NO, damn it, I wasn’t!
I say to you, if we’re going to question everything none of us will know jack s when we die – we’ll still be demanding to know why adding 2 to 2 isn’t 5 and demanding to see the details of why it isn’t publised and all the work of all the scentists over the past x thousand years likewise publised (in triplicate and to John a Steve’s satisfaction (since only they can be trusted)) to prove this. And if ALL the evidence isn’t forthcoming? Well then perhaps 2+2 really is 5?
Still, thanks for the lecture 🙂
Peter, a couple of comments:
1) I’ve never argued that the 20th century was not warmer than the 19th century. I’m quite convinced that it is. The issue that interests me is whether it’s warmer than the 11th century and, if so, how we “know” this and can say it with confidence. Many of the items adduced by you here – thermometers, sea temperatures, rising ghg concentrations – do not themselves prove this. The “evidence” is surprisingly slight: it is the multiproxy studies, which are the product of a very small group of authors, and which have a lot of hair on them.
One point that I’ve been meaning to ask you about: elsewhere you’ve said (citing Tim Lambert) that it’s been “proven” that my work is “riddled with errors”. I looked at Lambert’s article in question. It says relatively little about my work, although it cites a comment by Connolley (discussing Muller) that the our claim that Mann’s PC methodology nearly always produced hockey sticks was not “obvious” and needed to be checked. Since then, our findings have been published in GRL and some pretty eminent scientists (Zweiers, von Storch, Hubert) have confirmed that the effect exists, although there is no general agreement as yet on the impact of the erroroneous method (with Mann obviously arguing that this error, like so many others, “doesn’t matter”). But Mann’s claim that HIS error doesn’t matter hardly shows that I made an error. The cos-latitude error of Michaels and McKitrick has nothing to do with me. I would argue that it is evenly balanced by Mann’s square root of cos-latitude error anyway. Even though our recent work moves a long way past MM03, I tried to be evenhanded in the Scorecard on MM03 and it stands up pretty well. What exactly are these “proven” errors of mine that you talk about so freely elsewhere? Regards, Steve McIntyre
When I was told at school that Carbon bonds in a certain way, or that Everest is the worlds tallest mountain, or that pi is 3.142…I accepted that.
Why ? Because it was replicated by others. Nobody has been able to replicate MBH so far!
*OK, lets see the evidence.*
I don’t necessarily agree with Louis Re#9, but satellite temp readings which cover much more of the globe than surface-based readings show much less warming. It’s not unreasonable to theorize that the discrete surface-based measurements are subject to large amounts of regional variability.
*Why ? Because it was replicated by others. Nobody has been able to replicate MBH so far!*
Kudos, Hans!
Peter, its a basic tenet of science that experiments must be replicated by others. That is the whole purpose of publishing. Ignoring every other point that McIntyre and his colleagues have made, the very fact that Mann et al hide their data and their processes means by itself that they are not doing “science”.
Until you understand this, your comments are meaningless.
SPQR, I have to disagree with your comments about Peter’s comments. Peter does a very credible job of representing the general population and how they view science. They don’t understand the basics. Understanding is very rarely taught in today’s schools. They are spoon fed facts and figures and told to memorize it, not question it. They’re basically taught to trust the person with the most credentials. They then defend that position with a religious zealotry.
So, as frustrating as some of his statements are, Peter does serve a useful purpose here with his postings. He helps to keep the debate alive and relavent to the general population. You cannot fix a problem in understanding unless you know the extent of the misunderstanding and for this he is an excellent example.
Re #17 People accuse ME? of not sticking to the science! Just how condescending can you get?
Spqr, I know you’ll not accept this but I do know the basic tenants of science. I suggest a vist to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Images to see just how out of line the HS isn’t. Lets talk about the graphs – I bet no one (you oh so open minded lot) NO ONE accepts but one of the recent temperature reconstructions as valid and useful. But, hey, we’ll see.
Steve M. blimey some not unkind words :). I have explained that I did mistake M&M for the other M&M TL critiqued (which I accpet fwiw). My view of your work (and like all the views here, again, they’re fwiw views) are that the problems you have found (some seem to accept they are problems others not) don’t materially effect the general conclusion that this century and the present time are the warmest for, probably (that’s probably – no one uses strong language I think) two millenia.
Hans, so I wasn’t spoon fed? Well, please try to explain that to Michael B. will you?
Peter, uh, no. You don’t seem to understand the basic tenets at all. If you did, you’d realize just how irrelevant the Wikipedia link was to my comment.
Peter, you once again refuse to consider the data. That is what the “lecture” was about. I don’t take Steve, Michael Mann or anyone necessarily on their word or reputation, but instead, where possible, look at what it is they claim and how it is supported. On that basis, I am interested to see replication of results, and explanations. I remain open to there being a perfectly acceptable explanation as to why Michael Mann for example, uses an apparently non-temperature dependent set of tree rings to indicate temperature, but since he refuses to explain fully how he arrives at his results, and won’t explain his data usage, I remain skeptical of the correctness of his conclusions. Your approach is apparently different, and seems to consist of believing what you are told by people you know only by reputation because it fits your own beliefs.
Do we accept the temperature reconstructions ? Should we ? Well, I could accept them, but since the data that they are based upon has significant and apparently unexplained problems, why should I ? You should try reading John Brignell at Numberwatch just for his explanation of how he came to a skeptical viewpoint with regard to his field of research. He was set a research project to replicate some data, and found he couldn’t at least in part because of measurement problems with the standard equipment. He went on to design and introduce automated data gathering that improved the measurements and helped disprove the prevailing theory. But the interesting thing was, there were all these published papers giving results that fitted the old theory and with accuracies that, on investigation, were simply impossible to attain. The problem was that there was this theory, and to get your results accepted, they had to conform to the theory, so the experimental results were made to conform to the theory. This may not have been necessarily a very concious process, after all every “knew” that the theory was correct, therefore results that did not support the theory were mostly simply discarded as being badly executed, and the bits that did support the theory were published. Sound familiar ? And yet, the theory was wrong, and this was only uncovered because some people, JB amongst them, investigated the actual data, not the published and generally accepted concensus results. So, AGW may be correct in its essential elements, but unless the data, all the data, is examined properly, we cxan’t be sure. Your position though is that it is all settled, yet time and time again, such positions in science are overturned, not by those who accept, but by those who question.
Hence my challenge, for the nth time, look at the data and satisfy YOURSELF. Look at Briffa’s adjustments and say, as an intelligent layman (as I presume you would regard yourself to be), that the changes and reasons given make apparent scientific sense.
It would help if you were more specific about which graph you were referring to here Peter, rather than linking to a page chock full of graphs. Are you referring to this one? I think you’ll find it has already been discussed in this article on this site, I would draw your attention to comment 22 in which I try to make sense of this peculiar graph. It has all been discussed before on this site a few weeks back, please try to keep up. If you are referring to a different graph, let me know and I’ll pass comment.
re: comment 21
I believe Peter was trying to claim that because he was able to take lots of other people’s work and summarize it in pretty graphs, he was doing science. That and the fact that he posted a disclaimer to believing or not the data he posted. He’s obviously missing the whole point, but I think Michael in post 17 is correct in pointing out the value of having someone around who doesn’t know science but thinks he does. It lets critics know what ‘everyman’ is thinking.
Myself, I’ve banged my head against brick walls many times trying to make the same point to various warmers.
Re: comment 22
I know exactly what you mean. When someone puts forward such a pathetic straw man, I easily get suckered in to wanting to tear the straw man to shreds before pointing out the obvious logical fallacy. But this inevitably leads to rambling circular arguments.
There is a world of difference between those who want to understand, and get into the machinery and mechanics of science, in comparison to those who just cherry-pick science to add credibility to their indoctrinated views.
Another official Hockeystick spotted:
http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/sustainability/global_impact.html#climatechange
The tacking on of the experimental curve in such a way that it obscures the termination of the proxies is tendentious. It means that one can’t see if the proxies were higher in WMP or recently.
Maybe the hockey stick is correct! Check this study out: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V7/N2/C1.jsp
Ooops, I should have said “maybe the business end of the hockey stick is correct.” The shaft is extremely doubtful, since it doesn’t clearly show the LIA and MWP.