backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 112 comment(s) - last by Jim28.. on Sep 5 at 12:57 AM


  (Source: USGS)

The new study uses a variety of evidence including ice cores, the result of painstaking data collection by NOAA and other research organizations. These data points provide a far more accurate picture than previous efforts derived from tree ring data.  (Source: NOAA)
More research supporting a warming climate continues to pile on

Despite record lows in solar magnetic activity, thought to influence the climate, trends continue to point to a clear rise in temperatures worldwide.  This is reflected by increased melting and other significant changes.

Now one of the more cohesive studies to date, published by
Penn State's Earth System Science Center, has offered up a factual analysis of exactly how much warming is occurring.  Rather than focus on creative modeling often considered a refuge of global warming skeptics and alarmists alike, Penn state instead analyzed historic and contemporary data.

It found that the last 10 years for the Northern Hemisphere were the hottest in 1,300 years.  They also asserted that if more controversial tree ring data were used, this range could be extended to 1,700 years, but the tree ring data is for the first time unnecessary, eliminating much controversy. 

Michael Mann, associate professor of meteorology and geosciences and director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center, states, "Some have argued that tree-ring data is unacceptable for this type of study.  Now we can eliminate tree rings and still have enough data from other so-called 'proxies' to derive a long-term Northern Hemisphere temperature record."

Among the extensive information used in the analysis were marine and lake sediment cores, ice cores, and coral cores.

The research is available in the Sept. 2 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).  Mr. Mann describes, "We looked at a much expanded database and our methods are more sophisticated than those used previously.  Conclusions are less definitive for the Southern Hemisphere and globe, which we attribute to larger uncertainties arising from the sparser available proxy data in the Southern Hemisphere."

Part of the paper's strength derives from its veritable who's who of climatologists and leading scientists -- Mann; Ray Bradley, university distinguished professor, geosciences and director, Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts; Malcolm Hughes, regents' professor, and Fenbiao Ni, research associate, the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona; Zhihua Zhang and Sonya Miller, research associates, meteorology, Penn State; and Scott Rutherford, assistant professor, environmental sciences, Roger Williams University

The study took place based on a National Research Council paper, "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years", which called for a fresh analysis using new techniques and verified climate record from Mann's influential 1990s paper on the topic.  In the 1990s using the most advanced techniques, the climate record could be traced back 1,000 years using the most advanced techniques, and farther using the contested tree ring data.  Today, the climate record can be traced back over 1,300 years to 700 A.D. thanks to more advanced techniques.  If the debated tree ring approach was brought in, scientists could detail global temperatures all the way back to 300 A.D.

One of the key reason why the study is avoiding the primary use of tree ring data was because of the so-called "segment length curse".  As trees age, their rings, typically dependent on temperature, experience a general shrinking.  This shrinking must be adjusted to accurately read temperatures, thus tree ring data is expected to be less accurate than other methods.  Fortunately, climatologists are doing fine without it.

Mr. Mann details, "Ten years ago, we could not simply eliminate all the tree-ring data from our network because we did not have enough other proxy climate records to piece together a reliable global record.  With the considerably expanded networks of data now available, we can indeed obtain a reliable long-term record without using tree rings."

The study provides perhaps the most conclusive proof to date that the world has been experiencing anomalous warming.  With sun activity thought to be on the decline, this leaves human influence and other remaining potential causes as likely candidates for the affecting agent.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By robaustin on 9/3/2008 11:24:54 AM , Rating: 4
I will wait until I see what Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit has to say on this. McIntyre and McKitrick were responsible for putting a stake through the heart of Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph of climate history. This famous (being featured in Al Gore's presentation and IPCC reports) graph was based on "climate proxies". I it will be interesting to see what proxies were added and how the data was processed in producing the latest climate reconstruction. Will it be something new and scientifically robust or will it be just the "same old" repackaged?




By 2Sun on 9/3/2008 11:40:37 AM , Rating: 2
McIntyre has posted 33 proxies at: <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3512">Mann 2008 Non-Dendro MWP Proxies</a> with preliminary comments on the Mann's novel statistical methods.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By CatfishKhan on 9/3/2008 11:42:16 AM , Rating: 2
Steve has already posted about this:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3512


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By masher2 (blog) on 9/3/2008 1:06:12 PM , Rating: 3
The largest problem seems to be Mann has (yet again) chosen to use data that he knows (and even admits) is corrupted by influences other than climate -- Lake sediment in Finland, for instance. Rather than tossing out the spurious data, he "adjusts" it, by a novel statistical method he invents himself, and one that doesn't remove the signal at all.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/3/2008 1:43:10 PM , Rating: 3
Again, Michael, if you disagree with Mann's findings, why don't you take them up in the scientific community like a respectable scientist by writing letters pointing out flaws in the study to PNAS or other publications or preferably publishing peer reviewed papers in the field suggesting alternative interpretations of the data yourself???

Its easy to be an armchair critic, but if you want to debate an extensive scientific study performed by a number of top researchers (not just Mann -- you don't seem to criticize the others), comments on an online news site, or post blogs on the topic are a rather poor way to do it.

I don't mean this to be mean at all, just that if you truly believe you have superior insight, your talents are being poorly applied.


By littlebitstrouds on 9/3/2008 2:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. I'd love to read one of these such papers, instead of the usual post debasing stuff he usually puts out.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By masher2 (blog) on 9/3/2008 2:34:47 PM , Rating: 3
> "if you disagree with Mann's findings, why don't you take them up in the scientific community like a respectable scientist "

Because respectable scientists have already done so, and roundly condemned Mann's originally study as being inaccurate and biased. To help you understand the context, that is, in fact, why Mann devotes such much verbiage in *this* study to his reduction of reliance on dendrochronology. He's attempting to answer his critics.

However, it's already become apparent than Mann has again made many of the same mistakes he did in his original paper.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/3/2008 3:19:09 PM , Rating: 3
Again, you're singling Mann, out but he did not write this paper himself.

Ray Bradley, university distinguished professor, geosciences and director, Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts; Malcolm Hughes, regents' professor, and Fenbiao Ni, research associate, the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona; Zhihua Zhang and Sonya Miller, research associates, meteorology, Penn State; and Scott Rutherford, assistant professor, environmental sciences, Roger Williams University all wrote it, in addition to Mann.

If you've ever published, you know that just because someone is the lead author does not mean they were the primary writer or conductor of a study. Often it means quite the opposite -- the junior researchers do much of the work.

My point is here is a team of 7 top climatologists, whose work was reviewed by many others. If you disagree with their findings, my suggestion is to write a formal response not attack it in blog comments. Sure other people may attack it, but if you believe you have the logical basis to contradict it, why not try to see how your theories fare in the face of peer review.

I would have much more respect for that.


By ipay on 9/3/2008 4:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well said, Jason. Of course, some of us know exactly why Asher only puts forward his 'science' in blogs and comments....


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By borismkv on 9/3/2008 5:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
7 "top" climatologists? What? I see one actual professor and 6 assistant professors and research associates. This seems to me to be an explanation of *why* these guys are at the bottom of the ladder. As for peer review, I think that's actually suspect in this case. Just because a scientific study has been published does not mean that it has been scrutinized in any way by scientists. More often than not, the publishers of the journal will go over the data and make sure that the scientists are actually working right. It doesn't mean that their data is accurate or that their findings are concrete. It just means that someone thought it looked good and decided to publish it. Once the work is published, it is then scrutinized much more thoroughly by the scientific community. Just like what is happening in the articles linked higher up in this chain. The truth of the matter is that this study is already falling flat under the face of serious scrutiny. But hey, it gets published because it's a hot topic and we all know that hot topics improve circulation (right Mick?).

But let's look at this. Data gathered by NOAA, the most inefficient government association in the nation. They have too much money, no oversight, and are never held responsible for lapses in their data collection processes. People who work close with the organization (and many people who work for it) often reword the acronym to be No Organization At All. The data is put through a statistical method that is not widely accepted as accurate and was invented by the lead researcher of the study. In short, this study is horribly compromised by potentially suspicious data collection and extremely suspicious statistical modeling.

But then wait a second. Mick, how exactly would you know anything about the Journal publishing process anyway? I mean, 90% of the stuff you publish on here is reworded work written by someone else, anyway. In all honesty, you're not a person whose respect I'd actually *want* to earn.


By quickk on 9/4/2008 1:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because a scientific study has been published does not mean that it has been scrutinized in any way by scientists.


Have you ever published anything in a peer-reviewed journal? Peer-review means that the manuscript has been reviewed by other scientists with expertise in the relevant field (i.e. peers), and that they have deemed it worthy to be published.


By quickk on 9/4/2008 1:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
And one more thing: being an assistant professor does not in any way mean that you are somehow a crappy scientist. It just means that they are at the start of their career. Often it is the assistant professors that work the hardest and have the best ideas because they are fresh and need to prove themselves before getting full tenure (which is a long process).


By Jim28 on 9/5/2008 12:57:01 AM , Rating: 2
You touched on one of the many problems of the peer review process in general.

It is tough to ensure any quality/integrity from a peer reviewed paper as the peer review process is a "best effort" endeavor by people who are busy doing there own thing or whose interests closely align with the submitting author.

It is not the end-all be-all (or even a good) process many say it is. It is better described as merely the best we have at the time. If it were all that good, how did such a pletora of papers that had techinical or methodolgy errors make it through the vetting process of peer review?


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By rsmech on 9/4/2008 1:43:46 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Its easy to be an armchair critic,

quote:
why don't you take them up in the scientific community


So why are you here? It's hard to take your criticism seriously when your own arguments can also be placed squarely on you.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By quickk on 9/4/2008 1:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
Jason is not criticizing the paper. He is responding to masher's criticisms. Masher has not published anything in a scientific journal (as far as I can tell).


By rsmech on 9/4/2008 7:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
So as long as you agree you have a right to comment/ blog? If you disagree you must be an expert or you have no right. You sound hypocritical.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By jiminmpls on 9/3/2008 12:14:50 PM , Rating: 1
Steve McIntyre is a retired minerals specialist with ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor. He has absolutely no credintials in climate science and has never published a peer-reviewed article.


By robaustin on 9/3/2008 12:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
Typical ad hominem attack rather than addressing the science. Climate science appears to be a small and inbred niche in the world of science and sometimes it takes someone outside the family to see the flaws. He handily slew the beast and his work was later verified by the noted statistician, Wegman.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By masher2 (blog) on 9/3/2008 12:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
> "He has absolutely no credintials in climate science and has never published a peer-reviewed article"

Eh? Quite wrong. McKintyre and McKitrick (a statistician), whom he has coathored papers with, have published several papers. Here's one:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/200...

Here's a comment on their expose of the Hockey Stick, from the MIT website (note the authors agree that McKintyre and McKitrick found serious flaws in Mann's Hockey Stick:

http://web.mit.edu/~phuybers/www/Hockey/Huybers_Co...

Here's another which agrees, by two climatologists at Germany's largest climate research center:

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/ABSTRACTS/2005_v...


By jbartabas on 9/3/2008 5:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here's another which agrees, by two climatologists at Germany's largest climate research center: http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/ABSTRACTS/2005_v...


It seems to me that you have misunderstood their conclusion. They state that the artificial hockey stick (AHS) does not have a significant impact and leads only to minor deviations.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By dever on 9/3/2008 4:02:09 PM , Rating: 1
Now, note that most of the scientists who preach AGW are wholly and currently reliant on government and the existence of the crisis they're spreading for their entire paycheck.

I'm sorry, but saying that being paid once by a private enterprise that requires constant approval by consumers for it's continued existance is much less damning than having your entire career funded by taxpayers without their consent.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By Bobington on 9/3/2008 4:34:23 PM , Rating: 4
You mean like Firefighters, Policemen, Marines and Soldiers who also have their "entire career funded by taxpayers without their consent"?


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By borismkv on 9/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By Yossarian22 on 9/3/2008 9:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you don't grasp the subtleties of logic either.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By borismkv on 9/3/08, Rating: 0
By slunkius on 9/4/2008 3:11:40 AM , Rating: 3
Why so angry? didn't your mommy love you?


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By rsmech on 9/4/2008 1:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
There is a difference between supporting something needed & FUD.
quote:
Firefighters, Policemen, Marines and Soldiers
are rarely debated as fairly tales.


RE: Another Mann climate reconstructiom
By Bobington on 9/4/2008 11:12:43 AM , Rating: 2
I was responding to an Ad hom attack against climate researchers sir.


By dever on 9/4/2008 11:56:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'm afraid that I was the one replying to the ad hominem attack. The AGW crowd is quick to point out if a researcher receives reimbursement for a travel expenses from a private company. How is that worse than a researcher who receives ALL of his money from government?

Do you think that the large increase in the number of climate researchers today has anything to do with their research that makes apocolyptic claims? If everyone believed that climate wasn't significantly affected by human activity, their careers would be hard to justify.


Why Can't We Just Agree
By DtTall on 9/3/2008 11:02:51 AM , Rating: 5
Why can't we just agree that it is a good thing to try and do our part to not pollute?

I mean if we found out for sure today that we are causing global warming, we should try and pollute less. If we found out today that we have no meaningful impact on global warming we should try and pollute less.

It seems like all this research is geared more towards winning an argument then anything else.




RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By othercents on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By Screwballl on 9/3/2008 4:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
I walk to work too... from my bedroom to the computer room/office (I work from home) /smile/

This is also why I am selling the work truck which is a 3/4 ton Suburban with a 454 V8 (10 mpg) in favor of something smaller for the little driving I do.


RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By mattclary on 9/3/2008 11:07:31 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it's more about exerting control. It is easier to control the populace in a crisis situation. They not only need to convince people we are warming, they need to convince them this will be bad. Well, I got news for them: Climate changes. There is no such thing as a stable climate. Now, you pick, colder or hotter. Colder means crop failure and mass starvation, warmer MIGHT mean seas that rise a mm/year.


RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By Lightning III on 9/3/2008 1:48:31 PM , Rating: 1
you left out hotter = drought = crop failure = mass starvation

also climate change means shifting wheather patterns so go ahead and throw that almanac away as well

so the floods in england last year aren't due to climate change the increase in tornadic activity in the midwest has nothing to do with it

why do yankees always think it's going to be a good thing

they think less heating oil to buy milder winters and so on

and then wonder why they are sitting on the roof of their house when all that snow melts at once


RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By borismkv on 9/3/2008 7:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
Economic crisis caused by instituting government controlled pollution controls = higher cost of goods = higher cost of food = mass starvation in the vast majority of the industrialized world = wars = more death = probably you dead...Alright! Let's go for more pollution controls! (Seriously. Why do so many people think that these laws are going to make the world bright and happy and good? There's just as much chance that instantly forcing industrialized nations to adapt heavy pollution controls will cause a world-wide depression)


RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By creathir on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 9/3/2008 12:06:17 PM , Rating: 3
Drive and live like you want. However, you should still be for cleaner air. With cleaner breathing air you will live longer, really nothing to debate there.

I believe, like many the environment is changing. However, I have not seen anything to show man is the main problem. I've actually saw a program on termites in South America and how they produce 10 time the CO2 output then all of man world wide. So, should we go to South America with bug killer?? No, killing the termites would case more problems then most people would understand (balance of life). However, if mankind can find a way to use cleaner engines, more miles per gallon, less damage to the over-all environment, well there is no reason to ignore or turn away from these improvements.


RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By creathir on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 9/3/2008 12:44:07 PM , Rating: 1
You think you have clean air. However, you do not. I'm been to San Antonio. It's a nice place and the air is cleaner there. However, the chemicals we (humans) put into the air spreads all over the planet. You and I can not see or smell most of them.

They claim if you talk a really deep breath of air. At least one of the billions of air molecules you will breath in and out would have come out Caesar mouth when he was stabbed by Brutus almost 2000 years ago. With this in mind you should get the idea on how we all share the same air and that it is re-used.


RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By creathir on 9/3/2008 1:26:13 PM , Rating: 1
Okay... I've been to LA, they have DIRTY air. Yes, they do. I do not though. Our air is clean. The problem is, "clean" is a relative term. No air on this planet is 100% "clean". My level of acceptance of dirty is just different than your's.

As for the Ceasar thing... I really doubt that...

- Creathir


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 9/3/2008 3:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
Never said LA had clean air, they probably have some of the worst air in the USA. We are more on the same page then I think you realize, I'm for you and I having the right to drive whatever we want. My point is, if we have a chance to make the air cleaner, then we should...If not for us then for future generations. I'm not saying you need to get into a hybrid, however if we can make a more efficient engine that puts out less pollution then we should build it.

As for the Caesar thing...well the Earth has been recycling since the start of time. Recycling is only new to man kind. I'm sure someone on this page knows the average number of molecules taken in on a deep breath. If you do not think that after some 2000 years those molecules can not be separated and spread out over the entire Earth by the winds and other people. Well maybe that's why you seem to not seem to think that the air quality all over helps or makes up the air quality in your home town. After all, know matter how good your air is, it can always be cleaner...


RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By Spivonious on 9/3/2008 1:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
I've realized that cloth bags are easier to carry and hold more items than plastic bags.

I've realized that I get around just fine in my hatchback, and if you fold the seats down it can carry just as much as a small SUV, while consuming 33% less gas.

Do I care about the environment? Sure, who doesn't? But my main motivator in making these changes is to SAVE MONEY.


RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By Lightning III on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By ZachDontScare on 9/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Why Can't We Just Agree
By rsmech on 9/4/2008 2:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
So what have you done? Don't tell me about what you have done with your home or car, how much have you willing given to these groups? Wait you don't need to because you have taken from me so you don't have to give for something you believe in.


confusion of time scales?
By jbartabas on 9/3/2008 11:37:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The study provides perhaps the most conclusive proof to date that the world has been experiencing anomalous warming. With sun activity thought to be on the decline, this leaves human influence and other remaining potential causes as likely candidates for the affecting agent.


Jason,

you should be more specific about what periods and time scales you're talking about. As far as I know, Sun activity is not thought to be on the decline over the last 150 years. Solar forcing was increasing up to mid-last century and thought to contribute in part to the warming. The second part of the century was fairly constant. So your statement is confusing to me.

I am assuming you are actually referring to the very recent period (with the new expected cycle lingering ...) and the near future. Is that what you meant, or are you talking about another period/time scale?




RE: confusion of time scales?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/3/2008 1:01:05 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly; you've identified one of the major flaws in the article. Up to the last year, the sun was at its most active in at least the past 1100 years.

It's declined only over the past year -- and, coincidentally or not, we've seen a dip in temperatures.


RE: confusion of time scales?
By tyanlion on 9/3/2008 1:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
can dt send a correspondance letter to them to tell them about that cause I was so pissed when i heard abouth "sun being lowest blah blah blah"


By foolsgambit11 on 9/3/2008 2:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
I thought solar output had been declining since 2002, or thereabouts. Either way, I agree that the effects of a change in solar forcing could take a few years to be felt.


RE: confusion of time scales?
By jbartabas on 9/3/2008 5:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exactly; you've identified one of the major flaws in the article. Up to the last year, the sun was at its most active in at least the past 1100 years. It's declined only over the past year -- and, coincidentally or not, we've seen a dip in temperatures.


I am not sure you could really see that in the data. There's enough variability in the climate at a few years temporal scale to mask the signal of a slight decline in solar activity over such a short term. What kind of numbers are we taking about here (regarding the solar activity)?


how does an ice core...
By kattanna on 9/3/2008 11:02:13 AM , Rating: 2
tell me if its 80 or 85 degrees 1000's of miles away?

curious as to the science behind that?

and how many of these ice cores are used to "tell global" temps?




RE: how does an ice core...
By thomp237 on 9/3/2008 11:14:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It found that the last 10 years for the Northern Hemisphere were the hottest in 1,300 years.


They are not talking about Global temperatures. They are only claiming that the Northern Hemisphere is warmer. Gee, I wonder why they didnt include Antarctica in their data? Could it be because Antarctica is colder and bigger than ever and as such GLOBAL data wouldnt support their flawed hypothesis?


RE: how does an ice core...
By Polynikes on 9/3/2008 11:26:37 AM , Rating: 3
You can't scare the pants off people if you include that kind of stuff.


RE: how does an ice core...
By foolsgambit11 on 9/3/2008 2:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
Possibly.

Or it could be that you needn't have asked the question if you'd read the entire article.
quote:
Conclusions are less definitive for the Southern Hemisphere and globe, which we attribute to larger uncertainties arising from the sparser available proxy data in the Southern Hemisphere.

If you wish to refute their claim as to why they could only produce conclusive results for the Northern Hemisphere, please provide some evidence. Something like a researcher or statistician saying, "hey, using the same original data and methods as this study, we found that we could come to conclusions about the Southern Hemisphere, and that it's been cooling over the past millenium." I'd settle for even, "hey, using additional data that the scientists didn't consider, or discounted for insufficient reasons, we can reach conclusions about climate change in the Southern Hemisphere."

Trouble is, data on the Southern Hemisphere has been traditionally lacking. Maybe it has to do with the smaller land mass. Or a Eurocentric viewpoint. Or AGW bias. I don't know. But anti-AGW forces have suffered from the same data problems when it comes to their conclusions about solar forcing and the Maunder Minimum, which is responsible for a 'mini-Ice Age' only in parts of Eurasia and North America. Data for the Southern Hemisphere is less conclusive, if not contrary.

In the end, don't we really only care what happens in the Northern Hemisphere, anyway? Who cares if Apia, Buenos Aires, or Colombo are underwater. </sarcasm> (Yeah, Colombo's technically in the Northern Hemisphere. But Canberra's not on the coast, and I needed a capital that started with a 'c'.)


Come now, Jason
By masher2 (blog) on 9/3/2008 12:26:08 PM , Rating: 3
Who authored this study? None other than the infamous Michael Mann, creator of the famously debunked "Hockey Stick".

For those of you who don't know, The Hockey Stick was the graph showing exponential temperature growth in the last century, compared to a flat temperature record of the preceeding millennium.

Only one problem. It was all bunkum. Mann didn't use raw temperature data, but a highly suspect group of proxies, adjusted by a "special sauce" statistical method he didn't reveal in his original research. He fought releasing the algorithm for years, but once he did, the problems immediately surfaced. No matter *what* data his algorithm was fed, it always generated a hocky stick at the end.

Researchers such as Ross McKitrick repeatedly fed Mann's algorithm random data, only to see "hockey sticks" pop out on a regular basis. This is the reason why Mann's original research is roundly considered one of the most discredited papers of the past generation.

Anyone interested can read more about it at:

http://www.climateaudit.org




RE: Come now, Jason
By cochy on 9/3/2008 12:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
So is this not the "Most accurate climate study to date" as the title suggests?

Cause if it is not, I really do not appreciate misinformation being spread around here. It's a pretty absolute title.


RE: Come now, Jason
By Sulphademus on 9/3/2008 1:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
My reading of the article wasn't "heres how we got our readings" but more of "we got these readings without using tree rings!". Really not much material on what they DID use, just everything on what they DIDN'T.


RE: Come now, Jason
By jbartabas on 9/3/2008 5:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mann didn't use raw temperature data, but a highly suspect group of proxies, adjusted by a "special sauce" statistical method he didn't reveal in his original research. He fought releasing the algorithm for years, but once he did, the problems immediately surfaced. No matter *what* data his algorithm was fed, it always generated a hocky stick at the end.


You discuss two points here: the selection of proxies and the algorithm. The algorithm issue has been showed to be have no significant impact and to lead only to small deviation, in an article you have linked to yourself. The artificial hockey stick (AHS) resulting from the method has only a small impact on the temperature reconstruction.


It's cooling, it's warming...
By KaiserCSS on 9/3/2008 11:47:33 AM , Rating: 3
So let's see.

The earth is warming due to "the human factor". But then solar activity also impacts the climate (go figure) and according to another article on DailyTech, the sun's activity has been at a recent low:

http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+S...

http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes...

But then the ice is melting in polar regions. And yet other climatologists say the earth is experiencing global cooling:

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Repo...

http://www.dailytech.com/Another+Scientist+Predict...

http://www.dailytech.com/Australian+Researchers+Wa...

http://www.dailytech.com/So+Much+For+Flooded+Citie...

And then there's a study that states CO2 is not responsible for global warming:

http://www.dailytech.com/Report+CO2+Not+Responsibl...

But, global warming is supposed to cause 120+ degree heat waves in 100 years?

http://www.dailytech.com/New+Study+Indicates+Deadl...

I don't know about the rest of you, but personally, I'm sick of this crap. Study after study after study of conflicting claims and "new research" indicating blah blah causes this and that. I used to be very opinionated about global climate change, but lately, it's gotten so out of hand it's not worth defending. I can't possibly take sides in a debate like this.

I'm not saying that I don't believe humans are responsible for part of these issues, but after having seen so many politicians and corporate big wigs twist and warp the facts to further their own causes, I've honestly stopped caring as much as I used to.

At any rate, I gotta go prepare for evacuation from MCAS Beaufort. Hurricanes don't give a damn about global warming, apparently.




By FITCamaro on 9/3/2008 12:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm here in Charleston. Not really worried.

But you make a good point. They don't know what the hell is happening or what is going to happen. So they'll just act like they do to get us to follow their agenda. The impact on everything else be damned.


RE: It's cooling, it's warming...
By ipay on 9/3/2008 4:14:38 PM , Rating: 1
Stop getting your science from a sideshow website with articles written by a dishonest and deluded 'journalist' who believes himself capable of disproving decades of scientific research with a few paragraphs of idiotic analysis.

Asher has an agenda and is quite comfortable telling lies to further it.

Get your science from scientists.


By KaiserCSS on 9/3/2008 6:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
That's not the issue. Every time I see an interesting article here, I always check the sources. As far as I can tell, every article posted here aside from blog entries have credible sources. Therefore, I'm not concerned with how the author warps the story, the fact of the matter is the studies are real. And even now, as I return from USCB, I see another article about massive ice gains in the Arctic, even though mere months ago it was supposedly melting at alarming rates.

I don't understand this at all.


Another scientific study...
By BernardP on 9/3/2008 11:13:17 AM , Rating: 2
Michael Mann a.k.a. hockey stick Mann.

...Which Scientific Method?

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comici...




RE: Another scientific study...
By Jim28 on 9/3/2008 11:31:45 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly,

He has way to much bias.
He has so much invested into proving AGW that he is going to "discover" what he is looking for in 100% of his "studies".

At least he is consistent unlike hansen, whom is known to have developed models that showed global cooling in the 70s before flopping to global warming today.


RE: Another scientific study...
By SlyNine on 9/4/2008 1:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see a problem with flipping your stance as long as you are uses real unbiased data ( is there such a thing?) as a bases.

The problem that I have with all of these claims is that people seem to stick to one side or another despite evidence to the contrary. Both sides seem to ignore the other at times. I'll just say its not great science. At the same time it is important to have opposing views.


so what?
By omnicronx on 9/3/2008 11:33:03 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see the point of this article, one fact that we do know about climate change on earth is that their are ups and downs. Even throughout the past 2000 years, we have seen our climate raise and lower in temperate. Saying that the earth will see hottest temperatures in 1300-1700 years is like saying it is going to rain some time next month.




RE: so what?
By omnicronx on 9/3/2008 11:35:43 AM , Rating: 2
Grr.. wish there was an edit button
quote:
Saying that the earth is seeing its hottest temperatures in 1300-1700 years is like saying it is going to rain some time next month.


Data term
By BarkyMcWoof on 9/3/2008 3:17:26 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe it's just me, but after reading the article in pdf form, I don't see any data covering time periods after 1995. They do extend the graphs to 2000 in any event.

What's the best guess as to the time period they are discussing as the last decade?




By rudolphna on 9/3/2008 1:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
... If you read the Article on teh sun the other day, maybe that has something to do with it? Im a firm believer of GW, but I have to admit, maybe the fact that the sun has been very active the past 10 years, more so than ever in history, has something to do with it? Just a thought.




By 2Sun on 9/3/2008 1:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
Roger Piele Sr. responds:
http://climatesci.org/2008/09/02/north-hottest-for...
quote:
If the scientists are quoted correctly in the news release [which is always a question!], then they have failed to examine the substantive issues that have been raised with the surface temperature record. The Reporter certainly neglected to properly investigate the claims of the authors and, as a result, has presented the public with yet another biased news article on climate.




variations
By Screwballl on 9/3/2008 1:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
its getting hotter
its getting colder
its been the hottest decade
its been cooling for 30 years

come on.... people are tired of it... give us facts, not theories... oh wait you can't so you have to play politics and take one side or the other and make theories to support your political stance on the issue...




So what happens?
By aguilpa1 on 9/3/2008 2:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
So what happens when the sun goes back to normal activity or even higher than normal activity? Will that cause the climate to go super hot with weather crazy?




Worth looking into
By clovell on 9/3/2008 2:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
> The study provides perhaps the most conclusive proof to date that the world has been experiencing anomalous warming. With sun activity thought to be on the decline, this leaves human influence and other remaining potential causes as likely candidates for the affecting agent.

While your conclusions bear further study, Jason, don't you think it may also be of interest to investigate further why this phenomenon is affecting the Northern and Southern Hemispheres differently?

Furthermore, your article doesn't specifically address the conclusion that the warming shown was anomolous.

Would you be able to shed a bit more light on either of these?




This is getting silly
By sgw2n5 on 9/3/2008 3:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
So let me get this right...

Obviously, the global climate goes through periods of cooling and warming naturally. If humanity never existed, the global climate would deviate as such.

However, by many of your assertions, humanity introducing billions of metric tons of previously sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere (the US releases 2.2E9 metric tons yearly by itself), and an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 35% since the beginning of the industrial age CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE GLOBAL CLIMATE???

I'll have some of whatever you guys are smoking.




By DanoruX on 9/3/2008 3:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
that it was penned by the Mick'ser.




Cutting through the politics...
By LTG on 9/3/2008 4:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
I've concluded that Masher2, who made most of the critical comments on this thread is either politically biased or does not have balanced information on this debate.

I think the best we can do to cut through the politics is understand where the most scientifically credible people sit on this.

Try this for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

After wading through it seems there are legitimate criticisms on Mann's methods, and legitimate criticisms about what level probability his claims should have - But no refutation of his general conclusions. In fact the majority of scientists (even those against him) seem to believe his theories have merit.

As for this ClimateAudit guy (Stephen McIntyre), his Internet audience seems to be much larger than his list of scientific credentials. How many *citation listed* papers has he published in *peer reviewed* journals? Much less than most of the other scientists in the news on *both sides* of this debate.

Not to say McIntyre didn't have some valid concerns, but when he complained about not getting credit, the response as to why he was left out was this:

"This was on purpose, as we do not think that McIntyre has substantially contributed in the published peer-reviewed literature to the debate about the statistical merits of the MBH and related method..." Oh that's gotta hurt his ego.

And guess what? The guy who dissed McIntyre in the statement above is scientist who has published papers criticizing Mann big time, yet this is still his opinion on the "Climate Audit" author.




Wow
By borismkv on 9/3/2008 4:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
That's got to be the first time I've ever seen "Painstaking data collection" and "NOAA" in the same sentence.




Cue Itchy & Scratchy Theme
By BruceLeet on 9/3/2008 5:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
Its the Mick & Masher Showwwww




By 2Sun on 9/3/2008 6:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
Mann et al. ignore evidence of historically higher temperatures. See: Timo Hameranta
quote:
They also note that "a study based on oak barrels, which were used to pay taxes in AD 1250-1300, indicates that oak forests grew 150 km north of their present distribution in SW Finland and this latitudinal extension implies a summer temperature 1-2°C higher than today (Hulden, 2001)."
citing:

Tiljander, Mia, Matti Saarnisto, Antti E. K. Ojala and Timo Saarinen, 2003. A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated sediment of Lake Korttajärvi, central Finland. Boreas, Vol. 26, pp. 566–577. Oslo. ISSN 0300-9483, December 2003

See: Climate Audit, Mann et al 2008: Korttajärvi
by Steve McIntyre on September 3rd, 2008
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3536




What?
By rsmech on 9/4/2008 1:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
trends continue to point to a clear rise in temperatures worldwide.


This has been the mildest (coolest) summer I have ever experienced in the upper northwest. I guess this warming seems to always take place somewhere else. How convenient!




How much hotter?
By rsmech on 9/4/2008 1:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rather than focus on creative modeling often considered a refuge of global warming skeptics and alarmists alike,


How can we not be skeptics? How much hotter this decade? If scientist were to look at the historical records I would also guess that what would be considered the second hottest decade probably also had cooling after it. You accept the premise that if it's getting hotter it just keeps getting hotter. You ignore the records from your own data that other hot decades also have cooling after them, not hotter & hotter. It's cycles. We could also interpret the records to pick the coldest decades & say doom & gloom if we ignore the whole picture. But one eyed studies have one eyed results.




What about...
By onwisconsin on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: What about...
By KingofL337 on 9/3/2008 10:50:11 AM , Rating: 3
It's related to the lifespan of the proxys tested.


RE: What about...
By arazok on 9/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: What about...
By othercents on 9/3/2008 11:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
They are not saying that 1300 years ago it was more warm, they are just saying that between now and then it has never been this warm. It could be 10,000 years ago was the warmest, or it has never been warmer than now. There is not enough accurate data to show past 1300 years.

Other


RE: What about...
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/3/2008 11:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
The study does not indicate that a similar decade occurred 1,300 years ago.

Rather, that figure comes from the the limits of the accuracy of current scientific measurement techniques, which is approximately 1,300 years.

Past that we really have no idea, but for the entire history of accurately measurable decades, this past one has been the hottest on record, without equal.


RE: What about...
By daftrok on 9/3/2008 12:02:45 PM , Rating: 2
I've GOT to get out of Phoenix...


RE: What about...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/3/2008 12:35:11 PM , Rating: 4
Unfortunately, Mann's work has been discredited before. This study has similar problems-- splicing a thermometer-based record onto the end proxy data with a large number of spurious "adjustments", failure to adjust for UHI (urban heat island) effects, etc.

Mann, the alarmist inventor of the "hockey stick" graph has shown his propensity to fiddle with the data before. Worse is that he has repeatedly ignored calls for transparency in the statistical methods he uses to generate his results. It took years to discover the flaws in his earlier paper, simply because he refused to disclose the details for so long.

Some of the problems in this new study are already coming to light. McKintyre and McKitrick -- the two credited with exposing the original hockey stick as fraudulent -- have already identified a few at climateaudit.org


RE: What about...
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/3/2008 1:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
His previous work was based largely on tree ring data, which is obviously of poor accuracy.

However this new study comes from a wide variety of recognized climatologists, not just Mann. Care to criticize them?

And to say that because a well known skeptic site has pointed out a couple possible omissions in a study of such massive scale is hardly evidences of anything. I'd expect any study of this scale to have minor oversights, even if the general conclusions are true.

I don't claim to be anywhere near a versed enough climatologist to write such papers, and thus I'm likely not going to challenge studies based on experimental evidence, such as your sunspot one you reported on or this one, unless I see a glaring omission (not some minor oversights). If I were to challenge them, the only sensible way to do it would be to write letters challenging the study to the publication, and to other publications.

These "faulty adjustments" in this study which you purport, if you have details on this, I suggest you release them in a letter to a scientific journal.

And if you truly have a superior analysis to Mann and his team of recognized scientists, for God's sake, why are you complaining about it in a bunch of blog/article comments? Write some papers on the topic and get published in peer-reviewed journals. Its easy for armchair observers to point possible flaws in analysis, while not contributing to the field of study themselves.

I don't mean this in a mean way in the slightest, I just think if you truly believe you have superior insight, your talents are being poorly applied.


RE: What about...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/3/2008 2:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "His previous work was based largely on tree ring data, which is obviously of poor accuracy."

And yet, who has he added to this new study? A research associate from the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research.

> "However this new study comes from a wide variety of recognized climatologists, not just Mann. Care to criticize them?"

Oops! Bradley and Hughes were the same two who collaborated with Mann on the discredited "Hockey Stick" research.


RE: What about...
By littlebitstrouds on 9/3/2008 2:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately, Mann's work has been discredited before.


It's like saying because someone was wrong once they can never be right. Unless of course you're actually debasing Mann's sense of character and ability to study something without complete bios? I mean if that's the case, then maybe you should make sure everyone knows it so he stops getting funded... the horror.


RE: What about...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/3/2008 2:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
> "It's like saying because someone was wrong once they can never be right"

When someone makes a major error that wholly invalidates their conclusions, it's prudent to ask if they've made the same mistake once again, especially since they've reached the same conclusions.

And by early accounts, it does appear that yes, Mann has made many of the same errors as his earlier study.


RE: What about...
By underqualified on 9/4/2008 2:22:30 AM , Rating: 2
"When someone makes a major error that wholly invalidates their conclusions, it's prudent to ask if they've made the same mistake once again, especially since they've reached the same conclusions."

I couldn't have said it better myself. So why is it you keep making mistakes with your sources? Don't you consider yourself subject to your own rules?


RE: What about...
By deeznuts on 9/3/2008 1:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't the title to this entry then be "hottest in at least 1,300 years?"