Hockey Stick Studies

MM Published Articles
McIntyre and McKitrick, Energy & Environment, 2003 MM03 SI
McIntyre and McKitrick, GRL 2005a SI
McIntyre and McKitrick, E&E 2005b SI
McIntyre and McKitrick 2005c, Reply to Von Storch and Zorita
McIntyre and McKitrick 2005d, Reply to Huybers, GRL

Presentations
McIntyre, S., 2004, Verification of multi-proxy paleoclimatic studies: a case study, AGU Fall Meeting 2004, San Francisco CA, PP53A-1380.
McKitrick, R. 2005, What is the Hockey Stick Debate About? ‘
McIntyre, S. 2005a. More on Hockey Sticks: the Case of Jones et al [1998], U.S. Climate Change Workshop, Arlington Virginia., Nov 14, 2005 url
McIntyre, S. 2005b. Some Methodological Issues in Multiproxy Reconstructions, AGU Fall Meeting 2005, San Francisco CA, PP51G-06. url
McIntyre and McKitrick, Presentation to National Academy of Sciences Panel, March 2006 Detailed PDF PPT
McIntyre and McKitrick, Supplementary Presentations to National Academy of Sciences Panel, April 2006 First Second
McIntyre, Presentation to House Energy and Commerce Committee, July 19, 2006 Video July 27, 2006 Video
McIntyre, Presentation to Royal Institute of Technology KTH International Climate Seminar, Stockholm, Sweden, Sept 11, 2006.
McIntyre, S. 2006. Presentation to Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI), Sept. 14, 2006.
McIntyre, S. 2006. The Impact of National Research Council (NRC) Recommendations on Climate Reconstructions. AGU Fall Meeting 2006, San Francisco CA, U11B-05 url
McIntyre, S. and P. Holzmann, 2007. Mt Almagre and the “Divergence Problem”. AGU Fall Meeting 2007, San Francisco CA PP51C-0665 url
Pielke, R. Jr and S. McIntyre, 2007. Changes in Spatial Distribution of North Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, AGU Fall Meeting 2007, San Francisco CA. NG31A-07 url
McIntyre, S. 2008a. Climate reconstructions of the past millennium : statistical considerations. Georgia Tech EAS Seminar, Feb 8, 2008. url
McIntyre, S. 2008b. How do we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium?. Ohio State University Seminar, mAy 16, 2008. high-res
low-res

Unpublished Submissions:
McIntyre and McKitrick, 2004a, Nature Submission, posted on the Internet here
McIntyre and McKitrick, 2004b, Revised Nature Submission, posted on the Internet
McIntyre and McKitrick, 2004c, Revised Nature Submission, posted on the Internet
McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005e, Reply to Ritson, posted on the Internet
McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005f, Reply to Wahl and Ammann, posted on the Internet

Op Eds:
McIntyre, National Post, Feb 2005, Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence
McIntyre, Feb 2005 Bring the Proxies Up to Date
McIntyre, National Post June 2005, Re-visiting the Stick
McIntyre, National Post, June 2006, Response to NAS Panel
McIntyre, National Post, August 2006, Wegman Report
McIntyre, Prometheus, November 2005 Does the Hockey Stick Matter? also McKitrick and Vranes
McIntyre, National Post, August 2006, Wegman Report

Panel Reports
Barton Committee Letters to MBH Mann reply Bradley Reply Hughes Reply NAS: Cicerone Letter
National Academy of Sciences Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions, 2006 Report Press Conference Webcast
Wegman Report, July 2006
North Testimony to House Energy and Commerce Committee, July 19, 2006
Transcripts July 19 and 26, 2006
McIntyre Testimony to House Energy and Commerce Committee, July 27, 2006
Wegman Testimonty, July 19, 2006
Wegman Reply to Stupak

MBH and Other Commentary
MBH98; Corrigendum Nature version SI Original SI
MBH98 Code Snippets multiproxy.f Notes on Code Snippets here
MBH99
Zorita et al. 2003
Mann, Bradley Hughes, 2003
Response to MM03
Mann, Bradley and Hughes, 2004, submisison to Nature, posted on the Internet circa July 2004
Von Storch et al., Science 2004
McIntyre and McKitrick, GRL 2005a
McIntyre and McKitrick, E&E 2005b
Zorita and von Storch 2005 Mem Ital Astr Soc
Von Storch and Zorita, 2005, Comment on MM05
Huybers, 2005, Comment on McIntyre and McKitrick
Bürger and Cubasch, GRL, 2005
Bürger et al, Tellus 2006
McIntyre and McKitrick, NAS Panel Presentation
Wahl, Ritson and Ammann, 2006, Comment on Von Storch et al [2004], Science 2006
Von Storch et al, 2006. Reply to Wahl, Ritson and Ammann
Bürger et al, 2006b. Submission to Climates of the Past and Discussion. (rejected).

Other Multiproxy PDFs
Jones et al 1998
Crowley and Lowery [2000]
Esper et al [2002]
Mann and Jones 2003
Jones and Mann 2004
Moberg et al 2005
D’Arrigo et al, 2006
Osborn and Briffa, 2006. Science.
Hegerl et al, 2006a. Nature.
Hegerl et al 2006b. Journal of Climate, accepted.

Correspondence
Crowley here
Mann 2003 leading up to MM03 here
Mann 2003 post-MM03 Start
Nature 2003-2004 Start Reviews
Ammann Review correspondence and review letter 2005

31 Comments

  1. fFreddy
    Posted Jul 11, 2006 at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve/John, the link to MM03 is bust.

    • Posted Mar 9, 2010 at 3:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I can confirm that the link us busted… :(

  2. bender
    Posted Jul 31, 2006 at 5:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The following NWH alpine temperature reconstruction is worth a look:

    Luckman, B.H. and Wilson, R.J.S. 2005. Summer temperature in the Canadian Rockies during the last millennium? a revised record. Climate Dynamics, 24: 131-144.

    I could not find it referenced on this blog. It concludes that: “Warm intervals, comparable to twentieth century values, are reconstructed for the first half of the eleventh century, the late 1300s and early 1400s.”

    http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rwilson6/Publications/LuckmanandWilson2005.pdf

  3. Glen Jarboe
    Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 7:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I have been engaged in a debate on another web site mostly centered on the hockey stick debate. I have generally taken a strong position in favor of M&M.

    One of the members sent me a recent study by Mann et al, Pulished in SCIENCE, 27 November, 2009. This person says that this paper addresses all of the criticisms by M&M. It does, in fact, show a more apparent MWP, but the peak temp is not nearly as high as others have suggested.

    I anxiously away M&M’s comment on this paper, or comments of others.

    Steve: Lots of other things in the queue first.

    • Alan R. Davis
      Posted Sep 25, 2011 at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

      While debating the actual science is good, sometimes it is much simplier to step back and take a high level look at what’s going on. That’s what I did while following the AEP – Dr. Richard L. Sandor conflict of interest story.

      I put together a timeline of events. One thing stood out. Prof. Mann released the first phase of his Hockey Stick shortly after the Byrd – Hagle Senate Resolution was passed. (interesting timing?) His second phase was released the following year. His Hockey Stick model wiped out both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, both of which were well documented in history, literature, art and science. All that happened with a few additional tree rings? Those flucuations were casuing many to doubt global warming and rsulted in the Senate’s unwillingness to act. His unwillingness to release his data and model so others could attempt to duplicate his results took it from the realm of science to mere political actions.

      I can send you the timeline if you have any interest.

  4. Posted Jan 1, 2010 at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dear Sir:

    You are doing a useful task. I am just now reading your papers. I will use these in my two courses (elementary and graduate level) on GCC this spring.

    My background is in planetary atmospheres and sensor development. Pimarily, I have done atmospheric models (relatively simple models for the outer planets and also some efforts using MODTRAN for atmospheric modeling in context of environmental studies). There, we were interested to ‘remove’ the atmosphere to get ground-truth. This was inaccurate enough and we were only fitting observations, not predicting anything.
    So, I am always astonished by any claim of predictive powers over extended periods of time for coupled global atmospheric and oceanic models. My own experience would lead me to believe it is pure snake oil.
    I have also spent much time measuring quantitative molecular parameters. The errors in these parameters alone, much less scattering parameters for particulates, ice, etc. etc. would make any predictions based on models very insecure.
    For example, we discovered that the grid for indices of ice crystals in MODTRAN was far too coarse to match our hyperspectral observations so we had to recompute the indices, applying a much finer grid. Then, agreement could be attained.
    Finally, since there is no long wave IR data, so we do not really know what is happening at the effective emitting levels. The data is all extrapolations, with extrapolation errors being certain and unknown. There is no data at all from 20-100 microns where nearly half the BB emission occurs from the Earth. Detailed radiative balance cannot be computed or compared with observation, if you have no observations, only computations from extrapolations, and insecure molecular and particulate data.
    Almost certainly, these Coupled GAO models do not include such minor or major improvements in dozens of input parameters, of which I mention only a few here. Every parameter, real or imagined, is taken as gospel truth. I find this same sort of faith in many of my students who never took a data point nor built a sensor, but they do write excellent, complex, completely opaque, computer programs. They also do not know that predicted values and associated errors are usually inaccurate and errors are always underestimated.
    As a result, any prediction would be the same as a flip of a coin.

    But, MOST IMPORTANT, NO models are required to KNOW that a warmer Earth supports more people in a better life than a colder Earth.

    ‘Grapes growing in England again’ sounds pretty good to me. Remember what happened in Greenland to the poor Vikings who were destroyed by a cooling Earth.
    Where is the catastrophe in warming, even if it is correct?
    I would have thought these ‘scientists’ would be ecstatic that they were finding that the current interglacial might be extended a few decades by our puny efforts!
    My concern is not warming, but cooling, simply.
    Now, two of our very capable young faculty (but not conversant with atmospheric and oceanic models, etc. etc.) are proposing a Freshman seminar titled “Engineering the Climate”. I plan to sit in on this seminar if it occurs. I expect to hear about proposals to dump SO2 in the upper atmosphere, etc.
    Again, I appreciate your reanalysis of the data, in so far as it was provided to you.
    This aspect of data secrecy, in itself, stinks to high heaven! Even billion dollar NASA missions are allowed to hide the data only for a year. The idea is simple and correct: Let others see the data after the PI has had a first cut. The second view may not find the same and only result of those collecting the information.

    With Kindest Regards,

    William Hayden Smith
    Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences
    Washington University
    Saint Louis, MO 63130

  5. Murf
    Posted Jan 4, 2010 at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m fairly new to the climate debate and all the (somewhat confusing) data.

    I’m trying to do a little analysis for myself to see what the GISS data actually show, ignoring any and all issues of data quality–I just want to see what the data, as given and without any further adjustments, show in terms of a single global annual series.

    I’m hoping somebody here has done this and can help me a bit and possibly share their or others results or, at least, can refer me to where I can get some help doing this.

    Here’s where I am:

    If we look at the GISS dataset (I’m using [raw GHCN + USHCN corrections] at the moment) as a matrix of year-months x stations, how should one go about getting the data into a single global average annual series, given that there’s so many missing values?

    So far, I can think of two ways to produce a single global series (a row method and a column method, if you will):
    (1) average all the available data over all stations by year-month, disregarding any missing values, then average the monthly series by year to get average annual;
    (2) average each station by year, omitting any years for each station where there are one or more months missing in the station’s data, then average over all the stations by year.

    My questions then: What do you think of either of these methods? What are other ways to do it? How have others done it?

    Thanks if you can help me.
    M

  6. gallopingcamel
    Posted Jan 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Trying to understand the IPCC’s position I looked at the Copenhagen Diagnosis which is intended for the general public. The main issue is predicting future climate and in particular global temperature. All four of the supporting graphs are still based on variations of MBH98/99.

    Here are a few problems with these graphs from a layman’s point of view:
    1. No sign of the MWP
    2. The LIA barely discernible
    3. Declining trend since 1998 obscured

    If the IPCC’s “science” denies both the historical record and recent events why do you take it so seriously?

  7. William H. Smith
    Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 3:04 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Dr. Ballard:
    The Northern Hemisphere is the location of most of the land mass on the Earth and much of it (Canada, Alaska, Siberia) lies at high latitudes.
    If you believe the models quoted by IPCC (hadmCM3), then you believe that high latitudes would be far more affected by warming than Australia for which only small excursions are predicted.
    Chinese farmers will make good use of such improved conditions in Siberia, should they occur.
    You should also know that it can be quite cold in Siberia at times. I have experienced -50C there, which you have never seen in Australia, at least not in recorded history. I also have experienced +47C in our Western deserts many times.
    Trust me, +47C is better than -50C, by a large margin.

    • Dr Mat Ballard
      Posted Jan 28, 2010 at 9:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

      47 C is fine for a desert.

      It’s not fine for forests, or for prime agricultural land, or the townships in them.

      And for some funny reason, I don’t want southern and eastern Australia to turn into a desert.

      The other half of the problem is that we are experiencing the worst drought for at least 1000 years – over 10 years now. Rainfall across southern and eastern Australia has halved.

      Siberia might become a nicer place to live in a warmer world, but Australia won’t.

  8. John D.
    Posted Feb 4, 2010 at 2:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hi, just an occasional non-scientific reader here…. I’m greatly impressed with your work, and this is a very tiny thing but I thought you would want to know of a bad link for one of the items on your site:

    when I clicked on “Hockey Stick Studies” under “Pages” at upper left of the the home page I came to this helpful page:

    http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

    However, the URL which is linked for

    “McKitrick, R. 2005, What is the Hockey Stick Debate About”

    seems to have been left untended by by someone without re-registration b/c now the URL simply invites visitors to purchase that URL:

    http://www.climatechangeissues.com/

    Presentations
    McIntyre, S., 2004, Verification of multi-proxy paleoclimatic studies: a case study, AGU Fall Meeting 2004, San Francisco CA, PP53A-1380.
    McKitrick, R. 2005, What is the Hockey Stick Debate About?

    Steve: The blog got moved in Dec 2009. Change climateaudit.org to climateaudit.info.

    • AnonyMoose
      Posted Jun 17, 2013 at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

      There is still a bad link for “What is the Hockey Stick Debate About”.

  9. Posted Feb 7, 2010 at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    There is a hockey stick graph at http://www.arcus.org/synthesis2k/synthesis/ purporting to be based on high Northern latitudes. What I find most fascinating about the graph is:

    1. The proxies show 75% of the twentieth century warming before 1930, and almost all of that between 1910 and 1930.

    2. The instrumental data runs up to 2036. These guys are amazing!

    • JE from paris
      Posted Feb 9, 2010 at 3:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Well, if you read, this is a comparison of data (blue line) and models (red line) – we can run those beyond today – in the computer.
      Maybe you should read some more serious blogs about climate (RealClimate for example) and not the trash of the McIntyre & co that only like to pick at small things as they are not able to shoot down many years of solid scientific research.

      All the allegations in these blog are demonstrated wrong (even if they do not appear here, of course).

      SIncerely – a scientist amazed by the stupidity of people that take information from blogs instead of peer-reviewe scientific papers.

      • Posted Feb 9, 2010 at 4:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

        It states on the graph that “The red line shows the recent warming based on instrumental temperatures”. It does not state that this is a model.

  10. Tony Pang
    Posted Mar 3, 2010 at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I am not a rsearcher. I am an ordinary citizen who wants to learn the facts for himself. I teach high school chemistry in the United States. Can you please explain to me why the Bristle cone pine is a bad proxy for temperature? How did Mann et al. use the rings to determine when the temperature was high or low? I am trying to educate myself by a self imposed research paper on the topic of global warming. I hope to share it with my coworkers when I am finished. Thank you for your time.

    • Q
      Posted Mar 13, 2010 at 7:37 AM | Permalink | Reply

      I would recommend you read A. Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, a very accessible & highly rated (e.g. by science writer Matt Ridley) book. You will find a clear explaination of why there are issues about the different proxies.
      I believe it is now available in the US.

  11. William H Smith
    Posted Mar 9, 2010 at 1:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Mr. Ballard:

    The present strong El Nino is responsible for your present drought in Australia, as well as the heavy rains in our SW, colder weather in our East and South-East, etc., as you should know if you are a long time inhabitant of Australia and have previously experienced the El Nino of 1982 and of 1998. These are the typical consequences of a strong El Nino.

    Unfortunately, the IPCC climate models do not predict El Nino climate events.

    This failure is not mentioned by the IPCC.

    On the other hand, looking at the longer term predictions of the IPCC climate models which you write that you accept, BOTH warmer AND wetter climates are predicted in the USA and Canada.

    Along with higher CO2 from consumption of fossil fuels, a more vigorous biology would follow. The glass half empty crowd will decry this because some invasive species will also benefit. There is no free lunch in this world, a fact which escapes them.

    There would tend to be more flooding along with more rain, but flooding renews the land in flood plains and reduces the need for fertilizers. My ancestors knew this since they farmed the flood plains when possible.

    Government intervention removed these farms when dams were built to flood the plains permanently.

    IPCC models predict sea levels to rise 0.3 – 0.5 meters over the next 100 years. If this happens, people will need to move from the river estuaries to a few miles inland. Governments can solve the problem of moving a few million people over the coming 100 years! The Chinese government had no difficulty to remove many millions in a few years when it was in the interests of the Chinese government to build the Three Gorges Dam.

    Fossil fuel consumption rates will slowly diminish over the coming decades as fossil fuels are gradually depleted, and the resultant atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is predicted by IPCC modelers to END glaciation cycles and thus, to open much of Canada and Siberia to greatly improved agriculture and forestry. The IPCC 2007 policy report shows a graph of the model as proof of the durability of atmospheric anthropogenic CO2 to effect this result.

    The IPCC report does not mention the beneficial side effects of CO2.

    The PREDICTED new climate is a marvelous development, if turns out to be true.

    Humans will have fortuitously provided the exact climate situation in little populated lands that can relieve population issues and optimize our future as a species. One seventh of the Earth’s land mass is in Siberia alone. This more than replaces lost productivity in Australia.

    If Australia is severely disadvantaged by a drier climate (you should check to see if this is, in fact, predicted by the IPCC climate models which you believe to be settled science), then the same models predict that Canada will soon have a huge area ready for new settlers. Your course of action is clear. You will not have to leave the British Commonwealth and can continue to speak English!

    In Siberia, you WILL need to learn Russian, an interesting and pleasant language, if you select that land for immigration.

    Я желаю Вам превосходную удачу и состояние в этом будущем!

    W. H. Smith

  12. Q
    Posted Mar 13, 2010 at 7:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Tony Pang

    I would recommend you read A. Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, a very accessible & highly rated (e.g. by science writer Matt Ridley) book. I believe it is now available in the US.

  13. Posted May 9, 2010 at 5:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re my earlier comment on the graph at http://www.arcus.org/synthesis2k/synthesis/ and it showing instrumental records up to 2036 …

    I see that the red part of the graph has now been replotted and no longer runs past the present time.

  14. William H. Smith
    Posted May 11, 2010 at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The following is the latest WJS article concerning climategate. It is worth reading, although, it is what we already undertand in the debacle. The problem is geting our politicians to pay attention since it is really a means to tax and control that is in question, not climate warming.

    http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704448304575196802317362416-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwMTExNDEyWj.html

    W.H. Smith

  15. Posted May 17, 2010 at 7:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It is worth reading, although, it is what we already undertand in the debacle. The problem is geting our politicians to pay attention since it is really a means to tax and control that is in question, not climate warming.

  16. Posted May 18, 2010 at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Reply

    There, we were interested to ‘remove’ the atmosphere to get ground-truth. This was inaccurate enough and we were only fitting observations, not predicting anything.
    So, I am always astonished by any claim of predictive powers over extended periods of time for coupled global atmospheric and oceanic models. My own experience would lead me to believe it is pure snake oil.
    I have also spent much time measuring quantitative molecular parameters. The errors in these parameters alone, much less scattering parameters for particulates, ice, etc. etc. would make any predictions based on models very insecure.

    • whsmith
      Posted May 18, 2010 at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

      dresy:
      Your comments and my own extensive experience in atmospheric modeling are in accord. Fitting observations to understand the physics is a useful to constrain models. In return, the models often suggest new measurements.
      The entire enterprise of climate prediction is a distraction from the REAL problem of energy production. At present, energy is obtained from fossil fuels to a very large extent, but fossil fuels are a finite resource. We reached the maximum petroleum production about 6 years ago and have not increased since. The production of petroleum is fluctuating about the maximum now. The inexorable decrease begins next as exploration has not replaced used oil for many decades now. Coal and natural gas are in better coindition, but the problem is ultimately the same.
      Climate change issues are secondary to energy production issues. CO2 production will decline as fossil fuels decline, solving the problem, if any, of anthropogenically induced climate change. If we are so fortunate to have warmed the planet temporarily, then the subsequent glaciation may be delayed, acccording to some MODEL PREDICTIONS. I would not rely upon these predictions.
      Our focus necessarily SHOULD be on the transition from fossil fuels to alternate energy resources. Solar power is still a remote fantasy, providing less 1% of our energy. Less palatable energy from nuclear sources is essential for civilization to be sustained without catastrophic collapse. In this Iran is correct, if they are really building power plants and not bombs. The two enterprises are practically indistinguishable.
      Contraction of civilization will occur as liquid fuel costs rise sharply over the coming decade or two during depletion.
      We are a crucial time in human history. How well we can adapt to meet the coming changes will test humanity’s mettle. I am hopeful, but there is NO guarantee. Governments are solving the previous crisis while being clueless about the present one. Thus, all Presidents since Carter have largely ignored the energy depletion looming closer each day. They can see a tax in Cap and Trade, so favor this, but to dedicate our efforts to the solution of approaching energy deficit is not politically acceptable. The modelers provide cover for these actions. So, in fact, models are a plague on humanity; not susceptible of confirmation and taken as ‘scientific consensus’ where none exists. In addition, the institutes were the models are computed have become corrupted and no longer act in the benefit of the society which feeds them but as propagandists for the IPCC perspective. It is an affront to science.

  17. Roger Peck
    Posted Jun 6, 2010 at 5:31 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Has anyone done a paper on the hisorical evidence (extant documents / evidence of known agricultural practices / known historical events) from around the world that demonstrates MWP and Roman Warm Period ect…

    • thefaulkrum
      Posted Feb 8, 2011 at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

      There is still evidence in London of a warmer climate during the medieval period. It is commemorated in structures like St Paul’s Cathedral and street names like ‘Vine street’ where they used to make wine.
      can anyone add to this? know any other street names?

  18. Posted Jul 9, 2010 at 7:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

    One of the members sent me a recent study by Mann et al, Pulished in SCIENCE, 27 November, 2009. This person says that this paper addresses all of the criticisms by M&M. It does, in fact, show a more apparent MWP, but the peak temp is not nearly as high as others have suggested.

  19. William H. Smith
    Posted Sep 25, 2011 at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

    By now, even the global warrming folks quote a grand total of only 0.7-0.8 C warming over 150 years (an unreliable figure, to say the least). Predictions are going down each year: no overwhelming hurricanes, no sea pouring into Bangladesh, no disappearance of Arctic sea ice and polar bears, etc. etc. etc., so only those with a political and financial agenda are STILL pushing global warming. Nowadays, as many global COOLING scenarios are being promoted, especially with the on-going low solar cycle and the CERN findings in regard to cosmic ray initiation of cloud cover. So, the question why tree rings might show global warming can be asked. It is found that trees are growing faster for the past thirty years or so, sequestering CO2 naturally, perhaps in response to the increased “plant food” available. It is another, but more pernicious example of “polywater” and “cold fusion”.

  20. William Hayden Smith
    Posted Dec 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The SCIENCE articles Volume 334 pp 1360 and 1385, 9 December, 2011, are another nail in the coffin of dramatic global warming disaster. These articles show that climate sensitivity is is smaller than previously found in earlier models. Inclsion of further ocean effects should decrease this yet again. These are IPCC scientists saying this. The conclusion was that the problem was overblown.

  21. geek49203
    Posted Feb 25, 2013 at 10:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The link to
    McKitrick, R. 2005, What is the Hockey Stick Debate About? ‘
    is dead:

    http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

36 Trackbacks

  1. […] work, as he is one of the major contributors to the realcimate.org blog. A link against the graph. Climate Audit – by Steve McIntyre » Hockey Stick Studies This is the webpage of one of the two guys who basically started the controversy (Steven McIntyre). […]

  2. […] has not been properly accounted for. Some of the curve has been taken off the Hockey Stick with his studies, but this has not prevented it from remaining in widespread use. The OET must be valid as these […]

  3. […] "What is the Hockey Stick Debate About? http://www.climatechangeissues.com/f…5mckitrick.pdf Climate Audit – by Steve McIntyre » Hockey Stick Studies While wiki has been shown to be somewhat unreliable with regards to climate studies, due to bias of […]

  4. […] McIntyre and Ross McKitrick demolished the hockey stick graph in a number of papers that established that almost any numbers would produce […]

  5. […] i en mapp han döpte ”censored data”. (Länklista till dokumentation om kurvan här och till artiklar här. Bra artiklar här och här och om kurvans lansering […]

  6. […] temperatures reconstructions showing the former case have been rebutted (MBH 1998 – see especially Mcintyre 2008b and Briffa 2000), but also the total temperature reconstructions that show the medieval period was […]

  7. […] and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit Excerpt: […]

  8. […] and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit Excerpt: […]

  9. […] Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit Excerpt: Quote: […]

  10. […] http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res…gmanReport.pdf Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit nzclimatescience.net – SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC An Open Letter to the Community […]

  11. […] http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res…gmanReport.pdf Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit nzclimatescience.net – SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC An Open Letter to the Community […]

  12. […] http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res…gmanReport.pdf Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit nzclimatescience.net – SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC An Open Letter to the Community from […]

  13. […] […]

  14. […] graph, which purported to show a sharp increase in recent temperatures. That work has been thoroughly discredited by researcher Stephen McIntyre. Yet, in June 2009, the National Science Foundation awarded Mann a […]

  15. […] Stick” graph, which purported to show a sharp increase in recent temperatures. That work has been thoroughly discredited by researcher Stephen McIntyre. Yet, in June 2009, the National Science Foundation awarded Mann a […]

  16. […] graph, which purported to show a sharp increase in recent temperatures. That work has been thoroughly discredited by researcher Stephen McIntyre. Yet, in June 2009, the National Science Foundation awarded Mann a […]

  17. […] graph, which purported to show a sharp increase in recent temperatures. That work has been thoroughly discredited by researcher Stephen McIntyre. Yet, in June 2009, the National Science Foundation awarded Mann a […]

  18. By Blog - Dept of Homeland Spending on Jan 15, 2010 at 9:30 AM

    […] Stick” graph, which purported to show a sharp increase in recent temperatures. That work has been thoroughly discredited by researcher Stephen McIntyre. Yet, in June 2009, the National Science Foundation awarded Mann a […]

  19. By Patronage Act | Ken Nelson on Jan 15, 2010 at 11:11 AM

    […] Stick” graph, which purported to show a sharp increase in recent temperatures. That work has been thoroughly discredited by researcher Stephen McIntyre. Yet, in June 2009, the National Science Foundation awarded Mann a […]

  20. […] climate “scientists” manipulated the data to show today is warmer than the past.  See Climate Audit to educate your self on the details behind this manipulation of the data and science. To […]

  21. […] Stick” graph, which purported to show a sharp increase in recent temperatures. That work has been thoroughly discredited by researcher Stephen McIntyre. Yet, in June 2009, the National Science Foundation awarded Mann a […]

  22. […] reconstructions showing the former case have been rebutted (MBH 1998 – see especially Mcintyre 2008b and Briffa 2000), but also the total temperature reconstructions that show the medieval period was […]

  23. […] of the doubt that the data engenders. Compare the arguments of the climate sceptic Steve McIntyre (McIntyre S, 2008b is a readable introduction.) with a 2005 consensus view. This is basically a cross-check. If there […]

  24. […] is previous form in the climate community, as Steve McIntyre has noted. McIntyre has the following graphic (at page 28 of McIntyre, S. 2008b. How do we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of […]

  25. […] stonewalling on a Freedom of Information Request for emails from Michael Mann, the creator of the much-disputed “Hockey Stick” reconstruction of historical global […]

  26. By AAAS’s Selective Outrage on Jul 5, 2011 at 3:45 PM

    […] Freedom of Information Act request for thousands of emails from Dr. Michael Mann, creator of the disputed “hockey stick” reconstruction of historical global temperatures. Notably, the AAAS board […]

  27. […] […]

  28. […] get folks looking at the statistical methods used and finding them badly designed and poorly used. “Broken” comes to mind. I took it […]

  29. […] get folks looking at the statistical methods used and finding them badly designed and poorly used, even “broken”. I took it on myself to look […]

  30. […] of Mann’s unethical cherry picking of evidence and withholding of key metadata for his graph. Prominent statisticians have already proven that Mann’s methodology was flawed. But an objective analysis of his […]

  31. […] Mann analysis has been attacked for statistical errors by ClimateAudit.org’s Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph and others. But a number of independent analyses […]

  32. […] skeptics. An honest approach would be to interview Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKittrick, who first broke Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”. Or Joanne Nova, or Anthony Watts, the creator of Watts Up With That. Or Judith Curry, a scientist […]

  33. […] 3. see http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf and more http://climateaudit.or… […]

  34. […] http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/ […]

  35. By Michael Mann’s Hatchet Job on Keystone XL on May 13, 2014 at 3:00 PM

    […] warming pause, the epic failure of climate models, and the growing popularity of skeptic blogs, Hockey Stick inventor Michael Mann still tries to pull rank and tell policymakers what to do because, after […]

  36. By Our man: Michael Mann | Citizensjournal.us on Oct 27, 2014 at 3:34 PM

    […] the author of the “hockey stick” theory, which has been disproven by McIntyre and McKitrick , http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/ but Mr. Mann soldiers […]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,420 other followers

%d bloggers like this: