Climate Audit

Glen Jarboe

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.

William Hayden Smith

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

gallopingcamel

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?

Tony Pang

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.

William H Smith

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

Ray Tomes

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.

Marcin

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.

William H. Smith

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”.

geek49203

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

Click to access conf05mckitrick.pdf

• Duke C.
  Posted Feb 26, 2013 at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Reply

  Try this one:

  Click to access APEC-hockey.pdf

John Bills

another Gergis try

https://theconversation.com/how-a-single-word-sparked-a-four-year-saga-of-climate-fact-checking-and-blog-backlash-62174