Last night, Anthony alerted us to another sea level scare study. From EurekaAlert……
Significant sea-level rise in a 2-degree warming world
Sea levels around the world can be expected to rise by several meters in coming centuries, if global warming carries on.
While the findings suggest that even at relatively low levels of global warming the world will have to face significant sea-level rise, the study also demonstrates the benefits of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Limiting global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius and subsequent temperature reductions could halve sea-level rise by 2300, compared to a 2-degree scenario. If temperatures are allowed to rise by 3 degrees, the expected sea-level rise could range between 2 and 5 metres, with the best estimate being at 3.5 metres.
…… The new study is using a complementary approach, called semi-empirical, that is based on using the connection between observed temperature and sea level during past centuries in order to estimate sea-level rise for scenarios of future global warming.
That was parts of the press release. We had to wait for the study to be published. Today, you can find it here. The authors are
- Michiel Schaeffer, William Hare, Stefan Rahmstorf, & Martin Vermeer
Our friend Rhamy has been very busy lately. Recall he and Tamino came up with the insightful paper stating that if things were different, our temps would be different. And, that just because the thermometers aren’t showing a rise, it doesn’t mean we’re not getting warmer! I love that piece of work.
Today, I’m a bit torn, while I don’t think they’ve outdone Tammy and Rahmy, I think it is on par with it. I was especially interested in two things the press release stated. One, I wanted to know what “semi-empirical” meant, and I wanted to know how they could use the plural of century when discussing observed temps and sea level. I’m fairly familiar with the various records of thermometers and tidal gauges. There isn’t any data set of observed values which go back centuries which could have the necessary coverage.
So, now I’ve got the paper. To understand semi-empirical, I think it proper to review what empirical means. A dictionary puts it this way…..
em·pir·i·cal
- based on observation and experiment: based on or characterized by observation and experiment instead of theory
- derived solely from experience: derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory observation, and not derived from the application of logic
- based on practical medical experience: based on practical experience in the medical treatment of real cases, and not on applied theory or scientific proof
It lists some synonyms as observed, pragmatic, practical, realistic, firsthand.
In the main body of the paper, directly after the abstract, we see this……
Here we examine how emission reductions over the course of the twenty-first century may affect global mean SLR up to AD 2300. We assess a range of scenarios with emission reductions sufficient to meet the global warming goals in the Cancún Agreements with different probabilities. We then analyse the divergence in SLR and rates of SLR by 2100 implied by these and a broader set of emission pathways. The difference in rates of twenty-first century SLR is found to be an indicator for the divergence in post-2100 SLR, but is also important in its own right: higher rates of rise pose a greater challenge to adaptation by ecosystems and socioeconomic systems in the coastal zones.
Multi-century sea-level projections have previously been attempted by process modelling for only the steric component1, 6, by expert opinion7 and with a single-timescale semi-empirical model8. Here we present projections using a semi-empirical model2 for the total SLR, which accounts for multiple timescales of sea-level response and has been calibrated with sea-level proxy data for the past millennium, as well as with tide-gauge data for the past 130 years (Supplementary Sections S1 and S5). On this basis, sea-level projections beyond the year 2100 can now be explored with the semi-empirical method. The finite response timescale accounts for SLR gradually slowing down as it adjusts fully to a temperature change (see Fig. 1 of ref. 9). We used probabilistic parameter estimates derived from palaeodata sets of temperature and sea level over the past millennium (as in ref. 2) to estimate sea level over the coming 300 years (Supplementary Section S2). The sea-level projections are driven by temperature projections of the MAGICC6 climate/carbon-cycle model10, 11. Projection uncertainty ranges here represent 90% uncertainty intervals.
Okay, we have the answers to our questions. Semi-empirical means splicing paleo data to observed readings. They’ve done this with both temp and tidal gauge. So, they’re going back 1000 years using paleo, but adding the last 130 or so with observations. Now, this is funny. First of all, apparently, semi-empirical can mean ~1/8th observation 7/8th extrapolation and fantasy. I’ll explain in a minute.
But, this is what they’re attempting to do. They are projecting various emission scenarios. The problem arises, on this step, is trying to quantify the warming or lack of warming based on emissions. There is no agreed upon x amount of warming with y amount of GHG emissions(sensitivity). Then, they’re gaining a value by trying to establish a relationship between past temps and sea-level response to those temps. First, let’s discuss the instrument record going back 130 years. It has been well documented that global coverage of the thermometer record was too poor to have any useful meaning to any supposed global temperature. To give you an idea on how poor the coverage was for the Southern Hemisphere, here’s a map from GISS from 1880.
For expedience, I borrowed that from Bob Tisdale. Now, Schaeffer uses HadCrut, but there’s almost no difference in the coverage of stations of GISS and HadCrut, especially from the 1880 period. The sea level coverage is worse. One can’t even come up with a proper estimation of sea level using the tidal gauges of today. Here’s a map of the tidal gauges from 1981-2008 with only one year of missing data or less.
We can’t get a proper estimate from the last 30 years, we darn sure wouldn’t be able to get one for the last 130. It’s pure fantasy to believe one can get a global temp or mean sea level from mechanical readings going back this far.
Now we could stop there, but for completeness, why don’t we venture to see what paleo they used. …… this is where it sorta gets fun! You see, Schaeffer et al didn’t really do any of this historical temps to sea level work. They rely on another paper! The paper is Kemp et al 2010. Here are the authors of this paper….. Andrew C. Kemp, Benjamin P. Horton, Jeffrey P. Donnelly, Michael E. Mann, Martin Vermeer, and Stefan Rahmstorf Funny stuff.
Lol, whoa!!!! They’re using the oft discredited works of Mann! It’s fascinating. There has been a plethora of established information, which adequately disputes Mann’s work. But, the alarmists blithely ignore it and pretend this is a factual representation of our past temps. Hilarious. But, that’s not where the hilarity ends….. nope, not by a long shot. We still haven’t found out where they got their sea-levels from. Kemp et al state this in their abstract…..
We present new sea-level reconstructions for the past 2100 y based on salt-marsh sedimentary sequences from the US Atlantic coast. The data from North Carolina reveal four phases of persistent sea-level change after correction for glacial isostatic adjustment.
Okaaayyy… So, we find one place on the earth, based on proxy sea level measurements, (not forgetting the GIA) and then declaring we can know the relationship between sea level rise and temps and then the climate sensitivity to various emission scenarios and how sea level would relate to the precise temps around the globe. Lol, sure they can. On an aside, Kemp et al do run comparisons from their findings of North Carolina to other sea level reconstructions. And after applying different GIA values to the various sites, they say they’re in general agreement with the other sites. (LMAO!!)
Now, clearly, some may be a bit skeptical about the application of proxy temps to proxy sea levels to find such a clear relationship and clear findings as to the sea levels and temps. There should be an outside group look into this and validate the processes. And, there almost is! Here’s a paper………
Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections
In it, the authors find…… well I’ll let them tell it…….
We determine the parameters of the semi-empirical link between global temperature and global sea level in a wide variety of ways, using different equations, different data sets for temperature and sea level as well as different statistical techniques. We then compare projections of all these different model versions (over 30) for a moderate global warming scenario for the period 2000–2100. We find the projections are robust and are mostly within ±20% of that obtained with the method of Vermeer and Rahmstorf (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:21527–21532, 2009), namely ~1 m for the given warming of 1.8°C.
Well, that’s good the authors have validated the method of Vermeer and Rahmstorf……… cause they got mostly within +/-20%. Hey! It works for horseshoes! So, who were the fellows who validated the methods of Vermeer and Rahmstorf? Which would, in turn validate Andrew C. Kemp, Benjamin P. Horton, Jeffrey P. Donnelly, Michael E. Mann, Martin Vermeer, and Stefan Rahmstorf ? Which then would validate the most recent publication of Michiel Schaeffer, William Hare, Stefan Rahmstorf, & Martin Vermeer? Well, if you haven’t peeked yet, I’m sure you’ve guessed a couple of them by now, Stefan Rahmstorf, Mahé Perrette and Martin Vermeer.
Semi-empirical? No, you can’t even state that 1/20th of the data as empirical. Not that it matters. The use a highly questioned temp proxy, alongside one site on the earth, to gain the sea level. It agrees with other places when one applies a variable GIA, which ranges from 0 to 1.7mm/yr! FFFF……FFFF….. HAHAHAHHAHA!!!! But, all of this is okay, because Vermeer and Rahmstorf have deeply looked at the work of Rahmstorf and Vermeer and have determined that alls well.
This paper is so deeply flawed we can see there isn’t any pretense to objectivity, or diligence. The error bars on each study are so great that when you combine them we see the margin of error increase to the point that the paper is of no utility. The side issue of applying the GIA at such a range is another hilarious aspect of these papers.
The key word in the definition of “empirical” is “solely.” Now I guess “semi-empirical” means “partially solely,” or some other corruption of the language.
I think, as you most adequately point out, that corruption is the active process involved here, and the stench is becoming rancid!
Lol, dang, nice catch! partially solely,……. truly belongs with the warmcold posit!
But, to the paper itself, it is simply a labyrinth of absurd posits sustained only by more absurd posits, mostly made by the exact same people making all of the absurd posits. I don’t know what to call it. It isn’t even an academic exercise. It’s just insane drivel.
Wow I certainly hope no one on this board is engaging in this type of filth! So easy for some to sit behind a keyboard and attack people, while never actually doing any real research and putting themselves out there to the scientific community.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers
Not only is that sort of action openly condemned, it wouldn’t be tolerated.
Now, that said, there’s been a lot of accusations of such threats, have turned out to be false. http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/05/media-watch-investigating-abc-and-fairfax-over-anu-claims/
Warmists have attempted to marginalize skeptics and portray them as fringe for many years. Skeptics don’t behave in such a manner. But, that’s not saying there aren’t some nutjobs out there.
There certainly are all kinds of nut jobs out there. i can tell you from my own research which involves the occasional animal model (only mice), but our institution is regularly kept up to date from local law enforcement about FBI designated domestic terrorists who have made threats or actually harassed/assaulted researchers…
I’ve never understood that line of thinking. Or what would possibly run through a person’s mind as they seek to harm people over mice and such. Some things, I just can’t fully understand. But, I think I’m glad that I can’t.
Apparently these deranged people think that we derived great pleasure in causing harm to animals for no good reason. As someone who has had several pets, and currently an aging dog who I care for dearly – I can definitively say I do my best to minimize any pain or suffering our lab mice must endure. Indeed, even now, years later I still feel bad having to sacrifice several mice. Then I walk past the poster of the bald 10 year old girl in the hopsital who says “Animal research helped save my life”…
And you should keep doing what you’re doing. I used to hunt. Not much, but, on occasion. I enjoyed it. I enjoyed providing. I enjoyed displaying that I could provide. The last time I went hunting and made a kill, I dutifully skinned and dressed the animal. We ate. But, as I was reflecting, and I decided that I wasn’t that hungry anymore. That’s been many years.
But, if I found that I was that hungry, or my children, or their children, then we eat venison or squirrel, or rabbit, or….. what ever is necessary.
The GUARDIAN reports something that MICHAEL MANN said?
So let’s see, how does this stellar team of truth seeking superheroes report about things that we know have happened?
“Among the tactics used against Mann were the theft and publication, in 2009, of emails he had exchanged with climate scientist Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia University.”
Wait a moment… Theft? Meaning, the mails were Mann’s property? Hm, we know that ain’t true; when he mails on his job, his mails are the property of his employer… which is the taxpayer… who can use FOIA to get the mails…
Well I’m not surprised by this piece of filthy agitprop, and I’m not surprised that you fall for it, PhD. Ever considered taking a course in logic?
When the Guardian printed the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables, did they ask the diplomats who wrote the cables for permission?
Are you kidding me Dirk? To say the guy hasn’t likely been harassed and had death threats made against him is disingenuous at best and possibly willful denial of the truth. We could probably get police records from his town and university to see if there are any reports of global warming “skeptics” harassing him – as those are also public records (just like his emails!)
And no I would disagree that all email exchanges between scientists are considered public domain. The public does not fund all of my research, some of it is funded by private organizations – can I separate out those emails which are public and private? Given the way “skeptic” organizations love to take any little detail out of context and blow it up into epic proportions I don’t think this is a reasonable assertion. Imagine if someone read everyone of your emails. Actually Nature just had something on this – in light of BP wanting all the emails of the researchers involved, I believe the court allowed access to some emails but not all of what BP wanted…
Ph, you do understand that most people here are skeptical until they see proof, right? Dirk, like many who have been involved in the climate discussion, has been at this for a while. While no one can truly know the character of the people we engage with, one gets a pretty good feel for it after a while. I’ll write it again….. skeptics don’t engage in such behavior.
I disagree – What you can realistically say is the vast majority of skeptics don’t engage in such behavior, just like the vast majority of animal rights/welfare people don’t engage in fire bombing the houses of medical scientists…Clearly a fringe group of people/skeptics do take this to an extreme. Just like a fringe group of radical Christians think it’s their God given destiny to shoot abortion doctors – or would Dirk say that’s never happened either?
The man who shot the guy in Wichita, I really doubt he was a Christian. Radical or not, Christians consider a church sacrosanct.
I can’t speak to the nutjobs of the “animal rights” people, but I’ve always assumed that’s just a cover for anarchists. Like I stated earlier, it doesn’t make sense to me. If a person values a rat as much as a human, then killing a human would be doing the same as what they’re so angry about. I’ve no doubt there are people who believe animals are as valued as people, but those aren’t the ones firebombing. Anarchists are.
As to the skeptics, to my knowledge, there’s only been two occasions where we’ve seen the actual “threats”. One I linked above, which were shown to be no threats at all. And the other was supposedly towards Phil Jones. After reading them, several were not death threats, just angry correspondence. One of them could be considered a death threat, but, it didn’t come from a skeptic. He referenced the emails as “hacked”. No skeptic does that.
So, Mike Mann says he’s received death threats. He should turn them over to the police. Most of us would assist in the vigorous prosecution of such a person. But the, more than half of the world’s population is skeptical of the climate catastrophe, so you never know……
Hahaha now if you believe that last sentence i’m really worried about who is deranged!
I’m also getting an insightful look into the way the skeptic mind works. We don’t like this persons actions, so we’ll call them an anarchist. Now never mind they were citing bible passages as their reasoning for shooting the doc because clearly one crazy citing bible passages as reason to commit murder is completely different than one slightly less crazy citing bible passages as mitigation for the murder. Oh got it! Clear as mud!
I also like the bit about “actual threats”. You do realize you “skeptics” take a lot of personal leeway in your own expertise?
Are you monitoring every police report ever filed by any climate change scientist? And even if one was filed, perhaps you’d be skeptical of it because it doesn’t fit the current agenda? And certainly you might look at the weight of the paper on which the complaint was filed and notice some inconsistencies – perhaps say the weight of the paper is not the same weight as what the penn state university normally uses for their complaint forms! AHA! Conspiracy to make the skeptics look bad – i knew it!
Oh please. Now we’re responsible for every thing that happens to a nutty alarmist. They’re totalitarian nuts! I’d be really surprised if they haven’t pissed someone else off!
Like I said, the only thing we’ve seen is one where even the entire press corp of Australia laughed at them, and the others highly questionable. What else can one say? We’re guilty because some unscrupulous nutjob says we are? As far as monitoring, you wouldn’t believe the extent some skeptics go through for a little sunshine law! FOI …..
They’re totalitarian nuts? Isn’t that a game of “I know you are, but what am I”?
lol
Maybe you shouldn’t be so surprised – doing a little of my own research I found out it also happens to members of your cult err club
Better watch it Suyts, i’m coming for you hahaha!
Ph, I’m not sure you’re aware of some of the wonderful things these people were advocating for you and me. Nor, am I sure you’ve read some of the examples I’ve posted of their actions. Ph, they funded forced serializations of innocent citizens. They’ve purchased lands that weren’t for sale and then forced entire populations out of their homes! Children have been killed! Economies thwarted, energy has been deprived. People die in the heat and freeze to death in the cold and there is no cause for this! Costs of basic essentials for billions have skyrocketed.
These people advocate one governmental body. Their whole advocacy is based upon the many over the one.
I’m not advocating any of this. I’m not insisting on any of this, and neither are any other skeptics. In fact, most skeptics actually believe they’re discussing science. ……… We never were.
Ph, you’re confusing purpose, cause, action, and stimuli. I’m surprised. I’d thought you’d be more familiar.
So a person blowing up things is either a. a Muslim radical or b. a Christian fundy. Forget the millions of other maniacs with causes. Concentrate on the victim and not what happened.
Ph, do you study on the molecular level? If so, can you see opportunistic events occurring?
Hmm… Me thinks that is a convenient excuse when we don’t like to admit that perhaps some of our teachings might be the impetus for bad behavior. I’m not saying the abortion crazy wasn’t just that, crazy, but where did he find his justification for that behavior? When Fox News is calling abortion “murder” in every other sentence, you don’t think that has real-life consequences (especially when someone might already be a little unstable)? So under your logic the guys flying planes into tall buildings don’t really believe they’re noble soldiers in a holy war and that they will end up in heaven with some number of virgins?
(or perhaps they’re actually crazy because they’re Muslim, but people doing things in the name of Christianity (killing abortion docs, discriminating against any out group) aren’t actually Christians because we know Christians would never, ever do such a thing?)
Lol, Ph, You don’t actually read Fox, do you? To my knowledge Fox has never called abortion murder. Nor, to my knowledge has Fox ever taken a stance on abortion. They do, however, have both pro and anti abortion opinion articles from time to time.
I’ve formed my own opinion about Muslims and Muslim extremists. But, that’s only because I took the time to learn. Why don’t you start slow and just read Fox news on occasion. You’ll find that 70% of their stories are identical to the Huntington Post, which is a leftist rag.
You may also find a Fox opinion show a bit enlightening. Try RedEye. It’s late at night, but it’s most entertaining and provocative, and irreverent. And, sometimes informative. For you, it may even be instructional.
PS When it comes to Muslims I’m fortunate to have first hand experience. People working in my field come from diverse backgrounds from all over the world and I’m fortunate to have several good Muslim friends – some of the nicest and most generous people I know. And you know what’s funny to me, how similar they are to my Christian friends when it comes to their religion. These educated Muslims, like educated Christians, are somewhat judicious in deciding which passages from their book they consider exceedingly important to follow – i.e. we’ve shared some great bottles of wine
My dad had a great friend. He was a Turk, a Muslim. Dad liked him a lot. I had a few friends who were Muslim. Du Ali, was one of the nicest guys I’d ever want to meet.
See I told you phDouche was FOS
But I think you already know it.
Well it looks like ME is still around providing ever so useful and insightful commentary! LoL
Proud product of the “skeptic” community?
Lol, Ph, Me has developed a debate style which is fairly effective. He’s a nice guy, but, this is just his way of baiting. He’s also fairly well informed. Many take the bait and believe he’s shallow and become careless with their words. He’s very patient.
Hahaha I’m really not scared Suyts. From the posts i’ve seen he’s a complete moron, who rarely EVER says anything useful. So yeah i’m glad he’s working for you and not me!
Lol, Me doesn’t work for me. Like most who come here, we’re all rather independent. Usually, there’s a consensus with most of my posts, but, that’s only because of the content. Were I to write about some stuff they disagree, they’re very quick to tell me.
Oh i’m sorry you’re right Bill O’Reilly has only said “Tiller the BABY KILLER has KILLED thousands and thousands of late term fetuses without explanation”…I’ve seen enough O’Reilly to last me a life time!
Hmm, I don’t typically watch O’Reilly, but, you are aware there’s a thing called context? O’Reilly is an opinion show. He’s an OpEd. You’ve never seen an opinion that Bush or Cheney was a mass murderer? How do you bring those two together?
ThePhDScientist says:
June 26, 2012 at 7:41 pm
“Are you kidding me Dirk? To say the guy hasn’t likely been harassed and had death threats made against him is disingenuous at best and possibly willful denial of the truth. ”
Next you’ll tell me Mike’s Nature Trick *wasn’t* meant to deceive.
Oh right his hockey stick graph that has now been reproduced by at least 10 other publications, using multiple different modalities? I guess all of those 11 or more publications validating the hypothesis are part of the international conspiracy going on about climate change? Perhaps similar to the time George W Bush flew planes into the WTC so that he could take out revenge on Saddam for trying to kill his father a decade earlier? “
Let’s stay with that theme for a moment. The original Hockey stick with its flawed math and Mike’s deceptive splicing of tree ring data with instrumental records still told the truth, notwithstanding its broken construction, you say? So it was, coincidentally, RIGHT even though it was fraudulently constructed? Let’s just assume that in some bizarro alternative reality that were correct,and the MWP never existed.
Would that make MBH 98, the original Hockey Stick, any less fraudulent? Would that turn Mike Mann suddenly into an honest man?
The Guardian has pondered the question under which circumstances scientists should lie for the common good.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/peter-gleick-heartland-institute-lie?INTCMP=SRCH
Are they lying now? Maybe they feel that the urgency of Global Warming is now so great that they need to present Michael Mann as an honest guy?
As you are defending these people, PhDScientist, I must suppose that for you, the ends justifies the means, just as it is with the Guardian and all other leftists I talked to in my life, and that your science – the science that YOU are doing – follows the same principle.
Meaning, you will omit data, omit variables, use every trick in the book to get the result you need to instigate the changes you want.
That can be a quite effective means of personal enrichment. But of course it has nothing to do with science.
See the problem Dirk is you make all of these sweeping accusations about Mann with no credible data to support your testimony. And this, Dirk, is why people, especially highly trained scientists are so skeptical of the “skeptics.” Mann, to the best of my knowledge, has never been found guilty any scientific wrongdoing. In fact, what I do know is the hockey stick graph was highly politicized because of it’s assertion that the last century had an uptick in warming. Interestingly, I read that a contrarian paper hit the stands shortly thereafter and was cited by Jim Inhofe in typical Republican fashion with his corporate sponsorship. Low and behold these contrarian papers, were deemed not credible by most scientists working in the field. So what happens next…Mann’s graphs is such a hot button issue that congress takings the ASTOUNDING step of establishing panel of scientists selected by the National Research Council to investigate Mann’s findings. What does this panel of scientists find??? Well low and behold they find their is some credibility to the contrarian claims that Mann’s paper had some statistical failings. NONETHELESS, THEY FIND THIS HAD LITTLE EFFECT ON THE RESULTS AND CONFIRM THE VALIDITY OF THE PAPER (at this point it’s not looking good for the conspiracy theorists, err “skeptics”). Then what happens? Something like 12 subsequent papers using a variety of different statistical and proxy methods are published in peer reviewed journals supporting Mann’s original work.
Now Dirk, you see therein lies your problem in trying to convince highly educated scientists that this is all a big scam. The scientific enterprise is certainly not perfect, but it probably does the best job of any field at validating and repudiating claims. It happened in my own field, remember the South Korean guy who claimed to have cloned the dairy cow and then showed the world how he could create embryonic stem cells from human eggs? If not look up Hwang Woo-suk. Within a matter of months it was blazingly clear this guy was a fraud and his papers were quickly retracted as other scientists in the field could not reproduce his work and found out-right fraud upon closer examination of these embryonic stem cells he had supposedly created – i think he ended up in jail…
So Dirk, think about it from my position as a scientist working within the field, publishing papers, watching as a small minority of scientists commits fraud and seeing their papers quickly retracted and their careers ended. To me it seems that we have a pretty effective system for rooting out the wrong-doers. FAR FAR better than the US financial system!
Now I come here and a vocal minority has taken issue with a very highly politicized topic. As far as I can tell almost none of the posters have formal scientific training or have any experience working in the field, publishing papers etc. It’s very clear all of the posters follow a certain political ideology and the idea of man made climate change certainly does not fit within that political ideology. We know corporations who also don’t wish man made climate change to be real have poured bucket loads of money into an effective disinformation campaign. Why would someone like me, not be just as convinced that someone like you is simply falling for the disinformation that the corporate world is feeding you? Is that not just as likely a scenario, as the one which you want me to believe that this is all a major conspiracy within the scientific enterprise? I mean to me it seems non-scientists would be much easier to fool than scientists, when we’re discussing science..
I honestly don’t mean this as an attack (though I gladly await the stones that will be hurled this way
) I simply want you to understand where I am coming from…
PhdScientist,
Mann used decentered PCA and cooked up some algorithms of his own to chew the data; and it took McIntyre a while to reproduce it as Mann was not publishing his self-made statistics code.
Were he an honest scientist, he would have let statisticians, whether McIntyre, McCitrick or any recognized statistician analyze what he has done. He did not.
You have no problem with that. For you, everything’s fine. For you, that’s how scientists should behave. You call yourself a scientist. So you probably behave that way yourself. That is what I said, and you confirm my opinion once again.
You are against openness in science. You are against reproducibility. You are against publishing of algorithms used in the production of the results. That’s what I take home from your justification; so my conclusion stands:
For you, the ends justify the means.
I expected nothing else.
Oh come on now Dirk – I was giving you more credit than that…. I thought maybe you would offer some real, valid points, not baseless assertions and name calling…Don’t go down the Phil Jourdan road…
P.S. IN OTHER NEWS…WOOHOO SUPREME COURT – Now I guess Republicans will be forced to make an honest effort with Democrats in helping to improve our health care system..
I expected that a word like “decentered PCA” would be over your head; and that you have no concept of scientific integrity. But I thought you would be better at pretending you have.
Haha well Dirk that proves it, you’re really no better than those young earth Creationists who look at the overwhelming evidence for evolution and then call it all make-believe. They never do any of their own science. No, rather their tactics are to say look at the fossil record and then proclaim some important transitional species is missing and proclaim, “AHA” you see that is missing and therefore ALL OF EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
Get a clue DIRK…Start by addressing just one of the points in my earlier, lengthy address to you…
Lol, uhmm, Ph, could you be a little more specific as to which hockey sticks have been produced by what different modalities? I’ve never seen one which didn’t have some very serious problems. But, nearly all of the problems arise from determining the outcome first. If you check the dendro studies, the sampling of everyone I’ve seen did exactly that. The most recent one, from down under, has been withdrawn.
PhD says, “In fact, what I do know is the hockey stick graph was highly politicized because of it’s assertion that the last century had an uptick in warming.”
Ph, this is only partially true. The controversy wasn’t about the last century uptick in temps. But, rather how Mann illustrated it. In fact, 1/2 of that century was where Mann had spliced the thermometer record to the dendrochronology. The tree rings don’t match the thermometer record in the last 1/2 of the century. This was the trick. The graph doesn’t show the tree ring divergence. Mann cut that out and placed the thermometer record in it’s place. This is acknowledge by Mann. It is poor behavior and an act of deception, but Mann and others, of course, claim otherwise.
The controversy arises not from the recent uptick in his graph, but the flatness of the period of time prior to the uptick. It asserts that our climate has been stable in the centuries prior. This, of course, being in direct conflict with historical accounts. The Hockey Stick wars don’t have anything to do with the recent temperatures, it has to do with the elimination of the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age.
Upon further examination, we see that the selection process contained a huge amount of screening. Even with his invented statistical processes, Mann had to be very selective with his samples. This too, is acknowledged by Mann. Some of the tree rings just didn’t fit his narrative.
Great, so now explain away the results of the congressional investigation into the study – which in case you hadn’t heard – found some statistical problems, but asserted the conclusions remained unchanged – his findings were correct.
Is there one of you who man enough to admit that just maybe you could potentially see how this might cause some people to question the skeptic argument that Mann is a total fraud, that all of his work is $hit etc etc etc…? Anyone?
PS to your point about the substitution about substituting the tree ring/thermometer record – it seems to me that issue has been resolved?
I don’t know the information presented here, to use Fox New’s term, just seems more fair and balanced..
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Lol, SS is a nasty little site. Most of the reconstructions mentioned by SS were simply reproductions using nearly the same samples as Mann. Like minded ideologues using similar methods and similar samples have similar results. That astounding! Robert Reich and Krugman are both economists advocating the same thing, that we should spend more. Does that make them right?
SS is more biased than I am. They leave out information the unsuspecting reader would want to note. For instance, they mention McIntrye and McKitrick, but did they tell you they broke other hockey sticks as well? Or that another group of independent statisticians, McShane and Wyner(?) Demolished the whole of it?
But, the most fantastic part of this, is that the very posit of reading temperatures from tree rings doesn’t withstand scrutiny when regarding the physical processes. It only occurs when finding the appropriate rings and discarding rings which don’t fit. Mann’s foray to alternate paleo samples was even more egregious. The Tiljander series was collected, but the sediments had been turned upside down by a bridge construction. Mann used it anyway, and failed to retract and said it made no difference to the outcome….
Think about that for a second.
Lol, you’re kidding right? The work is entirely statistical. And, I’m not sure if you understand that politicians voted on this. PhD, if you really want to get into the merits of Mann and his cohorts’ work, I’m happy to do so. But, I promise not to invoke what Inhofe says about it if you don’t invoke Barbara Boxer. What the hell? We can’t talk science if you invoke political processes. Besides, the report which found some “statistical problems” as you put it, was a scathing review of Mann’s work. I’ve a copy of it here, but I don’t have link for it at the moment. I can find you a link to it if you wish. Or just search the “Wegman” report.
And, this is the entire problem. The political process has infiltrated climate science. People speak of consensus, and congressional committees as if suddenly science is conducted by a show of hands. Worse, they never count the hands! PhD, I don’t want you to take me at my word or anyone else’. I want you to look and see for yourself! I am certain any objective look into the body of work comes to the same or nearly the same conclusion as myself and a host of others.
Yes the work is statistical…and yes Im familiar with principle component analysis, not in the context of Mann’s work, but as a way of analyzing gene expression data from microarrays. I’m not talkin about the politicians I’m talking about all the “real” scientists who found “barring some statistical problems, the studies basic conclusions are unchanged”
Your problem, as I see it, is few credible scientists agree with your statistics. Even worse you don’t put forth any science to make your point. The last century is not warming, the models are wrong, the statistics are invalid, this changes all the conclusions of the studies…fine contribute those ideas to the literature, let’s seem them debated in Nature. Tell us what’s really happening, but sitting in the background simply nitpicking other scientists work and having the self-proclaimed superiority to call it all crap is pathetic megalomania!
That’s crap. I should take what I know and what I say to a crap rag like Nature? Yeh, I’d submit, and Mike Mann, Phil Jones and Peter Gleick would be the reviewers. Don’t believe me? Steig reviewed a paper refuting his own paper! It was submitted by bloggers. It was accepted, in the end, but that was only after a year of crap. This is the way they operate.
Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass what some feeble minded academics think. They don’t hold the key to knowledge and they wouldn’t know truth if it slapped them in the face. Again, anyone is welcome to come here and attempt to refute.any of my posits. The door is always open. Participating in corruption isn’t a positive goal.
For climate science, that small cabal is no longer recognized by most of the world. In fact, they’re ridiculed and scorned, as they should be. There have been several “bloggers” submit papers which were accepted and published, but then ignored.
But, in my case, the facts are, I don’t come up with anything original. Everything I state is already established, or demonstrably true. What should I submit? 1+1=2 ? Or, that Rutgers demonstrates that the snow extent hasn’t changed? Or that satellite sea level data is in a constant state of flux? Sure, you wanna help me write that? I can write it and you can put it in terms the guardians understand. For me, it is of little import. Skeptics don’t have to go to the ideologues, they have to come to us.
In the past, skeptics tried, but, they wouldn’t allow skeptics to engage. So, here we are. If they want to come play with papa, here it is. But, they won’t, not with me (who is an easy target!) and they won’t with anyone else. http://climateaudit.org was created because Steve McIntyre wasn’t allowed to participate in a blog which was criticizing his work. All they had to do was to allow him to defend himself. But, it was refused ….over and over again. That happened to me as well. And, just about any skeptic who raised a proper question. But, that was years ago…. they still behave in the same manner.
So, let them twist. I enjoy their tears and discomfort. I’ll continue to do so until their whimpers fade from my ears.
The review process only works when everyone is anonymous and the field is so large as to ensure anonymity. When pals review their pals work, then science died….especially when their subject matter is an ideological issue.
Again, anyone can come here, and are welcome to refute whatever I’ve stated, but, I’m not unique. Anthony Watts has had over 100,000,000 hits. Anyone is welcome there as well ….
There it is again with the “whoa is me” they won’t us play ball. Bull $hit! Submit some real science, do your own studies. Don’t simply look at the work of real scientists then sit there and criticize them after you and a team of baboons sat around for months trying your hardest to find a statistical anomaly or an uncrossed t. Carbon dioxide didn’t cause the latest uptick in global warming, fine – show us some good science to suggest an alternative. OH WAIT! That’s way too hard… Skeptics don’t engage in any real or difficult scientist they only function to criticize the work of others.
Wow where can I get an easy job like that?
Ph, that’s a faulty premise. We don’t need to find an explanation for 1/2 degree rise in temps. And, it’s quite likely no one ever could. Were I to engage in such an endeavor, then I’d be just as bad as the people who think CO2 is what done it.
And, you’re misinterpreting what I’m stating. It isn’t a “woe is me.” I’m poking the eyes of the people who view refereed work as analogous to truth. Unless it is a skeptical paper. In which case, it gets ignored.
I’ve long advocated ignoring those journals. Participating in one would present a moral dilemma for me. I’m not sure I’m ready to weigh that even if I had thoughts worth publication.
ThePhDScientist says:
June 28, 2012 at 4:48 pm
“Tell us what’s really happening, but sitting in the background simply nitpicking other scientists work and having the self-proclaimed superiority to call it all crap is pathetic megalomania!”
Somehow I knew that mentioning scientific integrity is way over your head. You work with genes? I fear for mankind. Just kidding. I don’t think you get anything but bogus results. You’re not a danger.
Yes, PhdJanitor, I’m sitting in the background, watching the warmist rent-seekers produce their crap science and their silly pronouncements of impending doom, and I’m having a great old time.
Let other people reduce their meat consumption, drive less, shell out big bucks for electric noddycars, thank you, I’m CONSUMING, I’m fine, leave a little more for me will ya… Suffer, warmists, suffer, it might help the planet…
Mass delusion is a great thing when you’re having none of it…
By the way, I know I’m too gracious and you don’t really deserve it but why don’t you just go and google Miskolczi…
By the way is Wegman the guy who recently had a paper retracted for plagiarism then blamed it all on his poor graduate student? Any scientist who puts his name to a document reads what his graduate student writes! There’s this great site called retraction watch you should check it out! http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/
Nice (NOT) cheep shot on Wegman. It took the “team” endless hours in support of the “cause” to find the meaningless plagerism you describe, which was totally irrelevant to the work. You could not expect Wegman to know it was copied. Cheep “I gotchas” are indications of a troll. Wegman has a stellar reputation in his field. Anyone that delights in ideologically motivated con-men trying to destroy an honorable man, shares in their mendacious crime.
Sutys says, “…PhD, if you really want to get into the merits of Mann and his cohorts’ work, I’m happy to do so. But, I promise not to invoke what Inhofe says about it if you don’t invoke Barbara Boxer.”
We must always remember what the team says about Mann’s work. Do you remember PhD?
How about these other e-mails?
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/priceless-climategate-email-682-tom.html
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-scientists-on-michael-mann.html
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2002-briffa-email-mentions-mann-support.html
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-case-you-missed-it-hockey-stick-co_24.html
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/phil-jones-to-mann-of-us-think-that-you.html
PhD dude, in the words of the authors of the teams study, “you are defending the indefensible” Give it up, or you will lose what is left of your shredded credbility.
Oh Tom Nelson’s blogspot is now the authority on climate change – never mind the 12 publications regarding the hockey stick graph that supported it’s major conclusions! OH ok. If Mann is a fraud than Wegman is an outright liar and cheater – and Mann has never been found guilty of any plagiarism. Actually his plagiarism was very easy to detect – there are software programs now that a lot of journals are using to detect just his. I’m assuming he was publishing in such low impact journals that they didn’t employ any of these safe guards…
More to the hilarious and hypocritical part of the whole skpetic community…the attacks on Wegman are just “cheap shots” and so totally untrue, he could never have done this. But of course all the potshots at Mann are validated by all the non-expert BS spewing from your mouthes. I was trying to giv you all the benefit of the doubt, but in the last day (with maybe the exception of Suyts) I highly doubt any of you care about science. It’s blatantly clear you have very little understanding of the scientific process and have no formal training or understanding. At best, you’re political ideologues with an agenda, trying your best (worst?) to discredit the science that doesn’t fit that agenda. Problem is you don’t actually contribute anything useful, no one takes you seriously and so you’re relegated to the blogosphere. You’re basically no different than the religious fundies who propel the 6000 year old earth, Adam and Even nonsense in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence for evolution.
Ph, the “plagiarism” accusation was, IMO, overblown. It was for the report to Congress. Wegman didn’t state that the report was completely his work. Nor, was that the purpose of the report. Go here for the full report…. http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
The instances in question were “boilerplate” material. Go here for a discussion on the plagiarism controversy. http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/12/copygate/ Oddly, Wegman did indeed reference Bradley, but, not in the manner which is acceptable for typical academic work or journal submission. But, the report was neither.
In a nutshell, here’s what happened. Congress asked Dr. Wegman, an outside party, to look into the HS controversy. He did. Clearly, the warmists didn’t like what he told Congress. But, they couldn’t refute it. Wegman thought the work was pretty good, (it was), and so he added a bit to it and submitted as work towards a statistical approach to social networking or some such. In what can only be described as background information, a student copied and pasted commonly used information in the report to Congress. If one reads the report, what is clear, is that Wegman never tries to portray the passages as works of his own, nor did he seek to take credit for that background information.
Personally, I feel bad for Dr. Wegman. He unknowingly stepped into a whirlwind. His crime was responding to Congress’ asking for clarity in the matter. In doing his civic duty and having an opinion which differs from some alarmists, he get’s pilloried. Dr. Wegman had not, before, nor since, engaged in the greater climate discussion. It was an unfortunate ordeal for him.
PHD, from top to bottom, all the way down, your comment has zero qualitiy argument and did not address , not what I said about the proxy climate studies, (not just the hockey stick”), but did not address what the authors of those papers said in non public e-mails about Mann’s work, and their own work. Did you know that that Dr. Gerry North, who was head of an NAS panel reviewing climate reconstructions testified under oath that he agreed with the conclusion of the Wegman report). Dr. Jonathan Jones, Professor of Physics, Brasenose College, Oxford University made on the Bishop Hill blog ( http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/12/2/tim-barnett-on-the-hockey-stick.html ) at December 3, 2011 at 6:11 PM. Professor Jones makes an unequivocal condemnation of the “Hockey Stick” and much of climatology.
Cocerning your calling everyone who disagrees with your an idiot, (really quite troll like) have you seen the paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society by Dr. Judith Curry (head of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, and Dr. Peter Webster of the same university, who is the incoming president of the atmospheric science committee of the American Geophysical Union) where they concluded “…”The large uncertainties in both the observations and model simulations of the spectral amplitude of natural variability precludes a confident detection of anthropogenically forced climate change against the background of natural internal climate variability”. (BAMS, Dec, 2011, p. 1686-7).
Concerning your poor attempt to discreditWegman’ Edward Wegman, a St. Louis, Missouri native, received a B.S. in mathematics from Saint Louis University in 1965, he then went to graduate school at the University of Iowa where he earned an M.S. in 1967 and a Ph.D. in 1968, both in mathematical statistics. He held a faculty position at the University of North Carolina for ten years. In 1978, Wegman joined the Office of Naval Research, in which he headed the Mathematical Sciences Division.[1]
Later, Wegman served as the first program director of the Ultra High Speed Computing basic research program for the Strategic Defense Initiative’s Innovative Science and Technology Office. He joined the faculty of George Mason University in 1986 and developed a master’s degree program in statistical science.[1]
Wegman is credited with coining the phrase “computational statistics” and developing a high-profile research program around the concept that computing resources could transform statistical techniques. He also has been the associate editor of seven academic journals, a member of numerous editorial boards, and the author of more than 160 papers and five books. Wegman is a member of the American Statistical Association, a former president of the International Association for Statistical Computing, and a past chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics for the United States National Academy of Sciences.[1]
Wegman received the 2002 Founders Award from the American Statistical Association, for “over thirty years of exceptional service and leadership to the American Statistical Association.”[2]
In 2006 he came into the field of climate science innocent and uninvolved, at the request of Congress.
“In 2006 he came into the field of climate science innocent and uninvolved, at the request of Congress.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SNAP!
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.