-
I did a bit more reading about it, this was interesting:
A final thing to consider is that Mann’s Hockey Stick was published in 1998. That wasn’t super early, but was fairly early in the young climate change field of research that I don’t believe it matters today and people are making a great deal of fuss over a 21 year old piece of research that has since been improved upon. Yes, Mann’s hockey stick was published in the preliminary report to the IPCC’s third assessment, but the people who find that objectionable, regularly quote far more doctored bits of research to support their “man made climate change is bunk” claims. People like Roy Spencer, Jo Nova or Lord Mockton practically lie for a living and none of them come close to Mann’s ethics or honesty in his work and that’s not because Mann sets the bar so high, it’s because the so called skeptics set the bar so low.
Wouldn't take too much from those graph comparisons. As I said Ball's one excludes a couple of the largest land masses on the planet.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
I did a bit more reading about it, this was interesting:
A final thing to consider is that Mann’s Hockey Stick was published in 1998. That wasn’t super early, but was fairly early in the young climate change field of research that I don’t believe it matters today and people are making a great deal of fuss over a 21 year old piece of research that has since been improved upon. Yes, Mann’s hockey stick was published in the preliminary report to the IPCC’s third assessment, but the people who find that objectionable, regularly quote far more doctored bits of research to support their “man made climate change is bunk” claims. People like Roy Spencer, Jo Nova or Lord Mockton practically lie for a living and none of them come close to Mann’s ethics or honesty in his work and that’s not because Mann sets the bar so high, it’s because the so called skeptics set the bar so low.
Wouldn't take too much from those graph comparisons. As I said Ball's one excludes a couple of the largest land masses on the planet.
This quote is garbage
Mann got upset when Ball made a joke about Mann so he sued Ball. This required that Mann released his supporting calculations etc. He refused to do so so the case was dismissed. So all Mann had to do was release his supporting calcualtion adn evidence to prove Ball wrong and win his case. Why do you think he refused to do this. After having 9 YEARS to do so
Is this someone who has ethics or honesty in his work (also consider the climate-gate emails)
And this hockey stick graph was given center stage in the IPCC's report. It replaced a Tim Ball type graph that clearly showed that based on the majority of ice core sample's and other samples the warm period was a lot warmer than today. There never has been a hockey stick. Its fiction.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Michael Mann did the first hockey stick graph. Where the medieval warm period was removed. So one of the leading climate 'scientists' refuse to divulge his original data.
James Matkin
James Matkin, former Deputy Minister at Government of British Columbia (1974-1983)
Updated Nov 18Yes. Many scientists oppose the action of Michael Mann erasing climate history to create a new theory. Dr. Tim Ball is one of the most vigorous. For his efforts Mann started a SLAP libel suit to shut down the criticism. Mann recently lost the suit in the Supreme Court of BC for inordinate delay. He also refused to abide by a consent order to divulge his original data.
Are the y-axes measuring the same parameter? Doesn't look like it. Anyone who thinks for themselves may want to check that.
Define what you mean by parameter in this context. Because the difference doesn't disqualify the comparism. So not sure what your point is.
One is purportedly "Temperature anomally Relative to 1960-1990" (complete with spelling error), with a range of -1 to +1 degree C, the other is "Climatic changes in europe Over the past thousand years", with range 8.5 to 10 degrees C.
My point is they are not showing two different calculations of the same parameter. Thus to claim that one negates the other seems to me like poor science.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@booboo I think you have misread the graph.
Happy to have it explained
-
They are both graphs covering roughly the same period and relative to similar time periods
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
They are both graphs covering roughly the same period and relative to similar time periods
Yeah I got that bit.
But what are they measuring on the y-axes?
One appears to be some sort of difference from an average for a 30 year period of 1960-1990, with the implication that it is a global measurement. (Although @Snowy suggest it's for the NH.)
The other seems to be limited to Europe only, being a variance from some sort of average for the entire 20th century.
The data seems to be displayed differently.
From my potentially naive perspective they seem to be different measurements.
If they are the same perhaps I need assistance to understand how they are.
-
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
They are both graphs covering roughly the same period and relative to similar time periods
Yeah I got that bit.
But what are they measuring on the y-axes?
One appears to be some sort of difference from an average for a 30 year period of 1960-1990, with the implication that it is a global measurement. (Although @Snowy suggest it's for the NH.)
The other seems to be limited to Europe only, being a variance from some sort of average for the entire 20th century.
The data seems to be displayed differently.
From my potentially naive perspective they seem to be different measurements.
If they are the same perhaps I need assistance to understand how they are.
Quite honestly I cannot be bothered. The bit about different locations is valid but your other critique is not.
-
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
They are both graphs covering roughly the same period and relative to similar time periods
Yeah I got that bit.
But what are they measuring on the y-axes?
One appears to be some sort of difference from an average for a 30 year period of 1960-1990, with the implication that it is a global measurement. (Although @Snowy suggest it's for the NH.)
The other seems to be limited to Europe only, being a variance from some sort of average for the entire 20th century.
The data seems to be displayed differently.
From my potentially naive perspective they seem to be different measurements.
If they are the same perhaps I need assistance to understand how they are.
there are book on this if you want to read about it
The key though is Mann libel case was dismissed. Because Mann refused to releases his supporting data and calculations. The science is supposed to be so certain etc etc. yet a key part of this scary warming is based on this graph that Mann produced.
Why not release his data etc. after all the science is so certain. Then he can teach Ball a lesson. Unless ...
-
This post is deleted!
-
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Although @Snowy suggest it's for the NH.
The original 1999 was.
"The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999"
They overlaid it later on with global data which showed a similar trend.
I know some will continue to argue the point, and even Wikipedia as a source as below, but it does give some background as to the debate.
"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."
It is an interesting debate regardless, especially if you doubt the veracity of data and news sources. It makes it very difficult to make your own mind up because it is all conspiracy in spite of evidence to the contrary like temperatures in Aus and California. Some skepticism is probably wise, but I believe that there are bush fires in Aus and that temperatures are record highs. Draw your own conclusions.
-
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
They are both graphs covering roughly the same period and relative to similar time periods
Yeah I got that bit.
But what are they measuring on the y-axes?
One appears to be some sort of difference from an average for a 30 year period of 1960-1990, with the implication that it is a global measurement. (Although @Snowy suggest it's for the NH.)
The other seems to be limited to Europe only, being a variance from some sort of average for the entire 20th century.
The data seems to be displayed differently.
From my potentially naive perspective they seem to be different measurements.
If they are the same perhaps I need assistance to understand how they are.
I get what you're saying and anyone who understands the visual representation of data knows the picture in question is useless. While you can compare different data sets, you need to use at least one common axis (normally the x axis). Comparing two different data sets with different x and y axes is pointless.
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
While you can compare different data sets
Yes, if the data is taken from the same region of samples. Comparing data from a smaller sample (Europe) against Northern hemisphere or global only tells you that things in Europe were different to the rest of the planet and isn't an indication of the global picture being incorrect, which is is what is being postulated with the medieval warming being ignored.
@booboo As for the axes they are both around 1000 years on the x, but you got that. The title of the first is misleading as they are pointing to the 30 year period from 1960-1990 as the spike to highlight it I guess.
The y axis actually does make sense as a comparison if the data and geography were comparable, which they aren't. The top graph is using 0 deg temp change as a reference point and variance from there. The lower one uses 20th century average "European" temp as a reference (9.25 deg, call that 0 and it would work).
Having said that the scales look different anyway with 1 deg being much larger on the bottom one, so all of it is nonsense really. -
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
They are both graphs covering roughly the same period and relative to similar time periods
Yeah I got that bit.
But what are they measuring on the y-axes?
One appears to be some sort of difference from an average for a 30 year period of 1960-1990, with the implication that it is a global measurement. (Although @Snowy suggest it's for the NH.)
The other seems to be limited to Europe only, being a variance from some sort of average for the entire 20th century.
The data seems to be displayed differently.
From my potentially naive perspective they seem to be different measurements.
If they are the same perhaps I need assistance to understand how they are.
I get what you're saying and anyone who understands the visual representation of data knows the picture in question is useless. While you can compare different data sets, you need to use at least one common axis (normally the x axis). Comparing two different data sets with different x and y axes is pointless.
Cool.. except they havent done what you have claimed.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
While you can compare different data sets
Yes, if the data is taken from the same region of samples. Comparing data from a smaller sample (Europe) against Northern hemisphere or global only tells you that things in Europe were different to the rest of the planet and isn't an indication of the global picture being incorrect, which is is what is being postulated with the medieval warming being ignored.
The benefit of comparing them both properly is it can show that just because in one region the effect is A, that doesn't discount the across the world, climate is doing B.
The y axis actually does make sense as a comparison if the data and geography were comparable, which they aren't. The top graph is using 0 deg temp change as a reference point and variance from there. The lower one uses 20th century average "European" temp as a reference (9.25 deg, call that 0 and it would work).
Having said that the scales look different anyway with 1 deg being much larger on the bottom one, so all of it is nonsense really.Both scales given the data would be trivially easy to standardise. Given the first is relative to a time period, then the second should be the same.
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
The benefit of comparing them both properly is it can show that just because in one region the effect is A, that doesn't discount the across the world, climate is doing B.
Exactly what I was getting at. The comparison shows the difference but not a universal change. It doesn't make either incorrect.
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Both scales given the data would be trivially easy to standardise. Given the first is relative to a time period, then the second should be the same.
Yes it would, but they haven't.
-
I don't have access to temperature records from thousands of years ago so I did a simple graph showing Sydney's annual mean max temperature since records began. Records say the mean annual max temp has gone from 21 to 23.5. Not really a hockey stick but more an uphill climb?
Data link.
Climate Change