Nov 11, 2018 at 1:13 PM | tomo
From your link, this is how Green Enironmentalists destroy lives and homes.
●Mike Mitchell
@Tangomitteckel
Replying to @3Therealgio @tan123 @JWSpry
"We need to divorce forest management from politics. The clear solution is controlled burning to reduce the dead wood fuel load during damper/cooler weather - not expecting suppression to stop it in high/dry conditions after the fuel has been accumulating for decades."●

Australia has suffered terrible problems. Country Bumpkins around the world know this stuff.
The fires MAY have been started by arsonists, but they still need flammable material to spread.

In climates hotter than the UK, a "shade tree" adds value to a house, and in modern leafy suburbs cuts down Air Conditioning run times.

Fire Breaks in UK planted forestry used to be kept clear of flammable scrub, but concerns raised by the Green Blob give excuses for cost cutting, and Global Warming can now be blamed when it all goes up in flames.

I admire and like Brett Stephens but how can Whitaker be impeached if he hasn’t committed treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors?

Twitter

Stewgreen,

So Watts Copy-and-Pasted an inaccurate tabloid article and - because it supports his agenda, he left it in place to mislead even after commenters pointed out it was wrong.

I call this propaganda.

I call this propaganda.

Nov 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM | Phil Clarke

Mann's Hockey Stick was dropped by the IPCC. Shall we call that a step towards honesty?

Mann's Hockey Stick was dropped by the IPCC. Shall we call that a step towards honesty?

Is there any myth that you will not parrot?

The IPCC reports are an assessment of the current science. It would be remarkable if they were still relying on work that is now 20 years old. The 'hockey stick' studies (Mann, Bradley, Hughes) were published in 1998/9, and they were cited in numerous IPCC reports. Over the intervening 20 years, other improved reconstructions have been published. These all reproduce and reinforce the original work. Dr Mann and colleagues published an updated reconstruction in 2008, which is cited in the most recent IPCC report (5 times) alongside many other paleoclimate studies by Dr. Mann and the work of Wahl and Amman, which vindicated the 'hockey stick' and invalidated the criticisms of the Auditor.

Reconstructing NH, SH or global-mean temperature variations over the last 2000 years remains a challenge due to limitations of spatial sampling, uncertainties in individual proxy records and challenges associated with the statistical methods used to calibrate and integrate multi-proxy information (Hughes and Ammann, 2009; Jones et al., 2009; Frank et al., 2010a). Since AR4, new assessments of the statistical methods used to reconstruct either global/hemispheric temperature averages or spatial fields of past temperature anomalies have been published. The former include approaches for simple compositing and scaling of local or regional proxy records into global and hemispheric averages using uniform or proxy-dependent weighting (Hegerl et al., 2007; Juckes et al., 2007; Mann et al., 2008; Christiansen and Ljungqvist, 2012).

"The IPCC reports are an assessment of the current science. It would be remarkable if they were still relying on work that is now 20 years old.
Nov 12, 2018 at 9:55 AM | Phil Clarke"

Science still relies on Newton. Why does Climate Science rely on Mann? Steve McIntyre is far more dependable.

Totally bonkers numbers coming out of US elections.

"Broward Florida seems to lead in the absolutely epic pisstaking .... "

"That wholesale electoral fraud has been going on is utterly beyond doubt .. "

"The across the board silence on the subject from UK media esp. the BBC is positively eerie."

Nov 12, 2018 at 3:57 AM | tomo

It is similar to Climate Scientists pre selecting data before analysing it, and then making stuff up to replace the inconvenient bits

Stewgreen - good luck with that ;-)

Science still relies on Newton.

Relies? Any discussion of Newtonian mechanics will also mention later work, notably Einstein's Special and General Relativity and more recently quantum mechanics.

I find this fixation on a 20 year old study and one of it's coauthors more than a little bemusing. Other reconstructions are available.

The bust between CO2 GCMs and observed CO2 is one example

Huh?

Science still relies on Newton.

Relies? Any discussion of Newtonian mechanics will also mention later work, notably Einstein's Special and General Relativity and more recently quantum mechanics.

Nov 12, 2018 at 1:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Don't be a dipstick, Phil. While I have myself used quantum mechanics in calculating the properties of molecules, you only need Newtonian mechanics to build bridges, houses, reservoirs, car engines etc etc. It works very well for most human activities. Higher levels of theory don't offer much in most areas, and are often prohibitively expensive in terms of CPU time
And isn't this on the wrong thread anyway?

Newtonian mechanics indicates that once Trump stops supporting Climate Science, it will fall like a brick.

William Connolley will rewrite Wikipedia, again, while Lewandowsky redefines the public's understanding of a brick, and Mann will turn any photographic evidence upside down knowing his approved Peer Reviewers won't notice.

Higher levels of theory don't offer much

Bridges yes. But your phone contains billions of transistors, you need quantum mechanics to understand the behaviour of electrons in a semiconductor. Also your satnav depends on the GPS satellite clocks set to tick slower than the ground reference to compensate for the effects of both General and Special Relativity.

I use my phone more often than I cross a bridge ;-).

Phil if you don't know then your claim to any kind of authority here is at an end

Well, I don't lay claim to much in the way of authority for myself. But it would not kill you to provide a link. I am not sure what a CO2 GCM is?

So, you' are declining to expand on your claim - but I am the one who lacks authority.

Got it.

 Mann will turn any photographic evidence upside down

Assuming that's a reference to the Tiljander lake bed proxies in Mann et al 2008, the authors noted potential data quality issues in the paper (long before anyone else notices the problems) and performed the reconstruction with and without Tiljander and other potentially low quality proxies:

Potential data quality problems. In addition to checking whether or not potential problems specific to tree-ring data have any significant impact on our reconstructions in earlier centuries (see Fig. S7), we also examined whether or not potential problems noted for several records (see Dataset S1 for details) might compromise the reconstructions. These records include the four Tijander et al. (12) series used (see Fig. S9) for which the original authors note that human effects over the past few centuries unrelated to climate might impact records (the original paper states ‘‘Natural variability in the sediment record was disrupted by increased human impact in the catchment area at A.D. 1720.’’ and later, ‘‘In the case of Lake Korttajarvi it is a demanding task to calibrate the physical varve data we have collected against meteorological data, because human impacts have distorted the natural signal to varying extents’’). These issues are particularly significant because there are few proxy records, particularly in the temperature-screened dataset (see Fig. S9), available back through the 9th century. The Tijander et al. series constitute 4 of the 15 available Northern Hemisphere records before that point. In addition there are three other records in our database with potential data quality problems, as noted in the database notes: Benson et al. (13) (Mono Lake): ‘‘Data after 1940 no good— water exported to CA;’’ Isdale (14) (fluorescence): ‘‘anthropogenic influence after 1870;’’ and McCulloch (15) (Ba/Ca): ‘‘anthropogenic influence after 1870’’. We therefore performed additional analyses as in Fig. S7, but instead compared the reconstructions both with and without the above seven potentially problematic series, as shown in Fig. S8.

Of the two statistical techniques used in the paper one (CPS) requires a local correlation to temperature before the data can be used, the other (EIV) does not. In CPS, the local correlation requirement fixes the orientation of the proxy. In other words, if you want to use Tiljander it has to be in the orientation found by the correlation (imagine the outcry if they had arbitrarily reversed the sign for one time series). Or you can leave it out, as they did for Fig S8. The resulting reconstruction still has a pronounced hockey stick profile. As Gavin Schmidt noted (Consequences of all this)/(amount of time devoted to discussing it in the blogosphere) = a very small number.

Phil Clarke, Steve McIntyre provides an unbiased opinion

https://climateaudit.org/2009/04/15/more-upside-down-mann/

●"Previously, we discussed the upside-down Tiljander proxies in Mann et al 2008. Ross and I pointed this out in our PNAS comment, with Mann denying in his answer that they were upside down. This reply is untrue (as Jean S and UC also confirmed.)

Andy Baker’s SU967 proxy is used in Mann 2008 and is one of a rather small number of long proxies. With Andy’s assistance, we’ve got a better handle on this proxy; Andy reported that narrow widths are associated with warm, wet climate.

I checked the usage of this proxy in Mann 2008. Mann reported positive correlations in early and late calibration (early – 0.3058; late 0.3533). Thus, the Mannomatic (in both EIV and CPS) used this series in the opposite orientation to the orientation of the original studies (Proctor et al 2000,2002), joining the 4 Tiljander series in upside-down world."●

Why should Trump waste further US Taxpayer Funding when Climate Science Expert Peer Review cannot correct itself?

Phil Clarke, Steve McIntyre provides an unbiased opinion

Ho Ho. Nothing McIntyre says contradicts what I wrote. As ever he misses out the impact of his criticisms, which is negligible.