BlckWallaby’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The big hockey-stick cover-up

  Perhaps one of the worst things that the IPCC authorship did was waffle and obscure its demise.  Several expert reviewers requested reduction of the waffle in draft to perhaps a line or two, or its deletion, and/or an outright apology for ever using the hockey-stick.  Despite IPCC's common rejection of comments by expert reviewers on many other matters on the grounds of lack of page space, this unusually lengthy yet incomplete dissertation was finally published.  Notice that it does not mention any of the things that totally discredited the hockey stick, and some citations are cherry-picked or misrepresented in context.  They also chose to include it in the so-called spaghetti graph, which of course was a distortion of collective trend in better treated data

  ~~~~~~~~~~From Ch. 6, Pg 466 WG1, AR4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  The `hockey stick' reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies. Soon and Baliunas (2003) challenged the conclusion that the 20th century was the warmest at a hemispheric average scale. They surveyed regionally diverse proxy climate data, noting evidence for relatively warm (or cold), or alternatively dry (or wet) conditions occurring at any time within pre-defined periods assumed to bracket the so-called `Medieval Warm Period' (and `Little Ice Age'). Their qualitative approach precluded any quantitative summary of the evidence at precise times, limiting the value of their review as a basis for comparison of the relative magnitude of mean hemispheric 20th-century warmth (Mann and Jones, 2003; Osborn and Briffa, 2006). Box 6.4 provides more information on the `Medieval Warm Period'.
  McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verification of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).

  Since the TAR, a number of additional proxy data syntheses based on annually or near-annually resolved data, variously representing mean.....etc etc On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 8 months ago 65 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  CCE Just for you

  Diurnal temperature of Melbourne Australia.

  Since you seem to be quite the scientist, try this one:

  Yesterday, (Wed.) the daytime maximum was 24C but during the afternoon it fell to 16C, and during the night, the max was 13C.
  The day before, the daytime maximum was 35C, and the night-time maximum was 29C.  (Hot)
  This weather statement was centred on the ease of sleeping at night, and the night-time minimums were not mentioned in that report.
  In a NE suburb close-by to mine, it is usually about 1C cooler, and even 3C cooler after a hot SUNNY day, at night.  (Not if overcast and hot)

  The big sudden swings in temperature can result from a change of wind direction from southerly to northerly.  From the north, it comes from the hot dry inland, and from the south from ocean.  This is a CHAOTIC process, almost impossible to forecast more than a few days-out.  It is said somewhat in humour, that a butterfly flapping its wings somewhere, thousands of kilometres away may cause such things.

  Please work-out for me what you think the diurnal average max temperature for Melbourne was last Tues. & Wed, and tell me if you think it has any relevance to anything in particular.

  Thanking you in anticipation, Black Wallaby
  On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 8 months ago 65 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  More facts according to CCE

  By your point Numbers cce:

  1) I have no idea what you think I have "no excuse" for not knowing.  MBH99 was in the TAR.  MBH99 is in AR4.  The probability was 66% that recent decades were warmer than the last 1000 years.  That is not screaming by any definition of the word.

  RESPONSE: Seven or more `Battleships' and a single `Kyak' can all be described as boats, but they are different.  The former can be scary, the latter innocuous.  The battleships of 2001, were clarioned in every nook and cranny of the various reports, and at podia etc, and had a huge effect of scaring policymakers and media into believing that the current warming was not only unprecedented, but that there was virtually NO VARIATION in the last 1000 years. (Untrue)  The kyak version of 2007 (AR4) is barely perceptible, being hidden "amongst the reeds".

  2) The Hockey Stick was in AR4.  You admit that it was in AR4.  Stop saying it wasn't in AR4.

  RESPONSE:  There are lots of battleships in 3AR, and only a kyak, obscured by other stuff, both visually and in the text in 4AR.

  3) If you will look closely, Esper and Moberg are no more prominent than the supposedly "discredited" Hockey Stick, or Mann's 2003 update of it.

  RESPONSE:  IF you look closely amongst all that spaghetti, you will see that Esper and Moberg show a pronounced MWP.  Also the bore-hole data shows a very strong LIA.  This compares with a dead-straight "shaft" on the original hockey-stick.  The original grossly exaggerated up-turn at the end of UNSMOOTHED instrumental data ending at the 1988 spike is absent.  It also has a different smoothing in the proxy data.

  4) The corrigendum was to correct the descriptions of the data.  It had nothing to do with the calculations that went into the Hockey Stick, nor is it relevent to the findings of the IPCC.

  RESPONSE: The omission of 35 SERIES of data (not 35 data POINTS) that were claimed to be used but were not, and which required the intervention of Nature to compel Mann to own-up is not a minor matter.   Bad data in = bad result out.

  5) The NRC panel disagrees with your assessment of the Wahl and Ammann paper.   [Which one BTW?]

  RESPONSE:  I have not given my assessment of W & A, but have quoted a SINGLE expert review comment which was vindicated by Nature, and ignored by the IPCC.  The NRC is not the only source of information.

  BTW, you don't offer your wisdom on the ludicrous use of Bristle Cone pines or the serious "Divergence Problem" also ignored by the IPCC.... or the other problems I mentioned.

  I get the impression that you must get all this nonsense from reading RealClimate website.  This was set-up by the inventors of the hockey-stick, and in the opinion of many rationalists, they are an insult to science.

  Oh, and notice Dr, Andrew Dessler's opinions above in a couple of posts concerning the Hocky-stick.  Please read them very carefully, and don't put into them what you WANT him to say.  While you are at it, why don't you read my earlier post more carefully too?  It's a puzzle how you could get it so wrong!
  On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 8 months ago 65 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  FACTS according to CCE

  It seems that you, cce, have some knowledge of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports, and therefore you have no excuse for NOT knowing what THE hockey-stick WAS in 2001.  It was a minor modification of that appearing in MBH99 in GRL. AKA Mann et al 1999.  It was "screamed" in every conceivable area in the various sections of the 2001 report, as a warhorse.  It was NOT included in the 2007 report for obvious reasons that later developed. This was due to the exposure of the gross and multiple falsities of it.  Nevertheless, there are still some people who treat it as manna, and deny or don't know the facts.  Now let's examine your wisdom on this:

  CCE:  "The Hockey Stick is in Chapter 6 of WGI, page 467 along with a dozen newer reconstructions."  [You mean 4AR or 2007 presumably]...  Then you agree that the Hockey Stick is in AR4, was not "expunged," and not a single reconstruction therein shows a MWP warmer than today"

  Now that's a bit garbled, but what I actually said, IN PART, and what you misrepresent was:

  Black Wallaby:  "If you look carefully [in the 2007 report] you can find a pale shadow of the hockey-stick buried under some of the spaghetti all with nice pastel colours hard to distinguish.  If you look carefully you will see that Esper and Moberg who come from a different club from the manna crowd show a distinct MWP, and the borehole data in particular shows a strong LIA"

  I don't know if this language of mine is complicated, but if you actually look at figure 6.10b and cross reference my words, you should be able to work-it-out....try!

  You also wrote:

  CCE: "None of the statements that you say were "ignored" is in the final version of chapter 6"

  Yes, that is true, for instance, there is no mention of the embarrassing corrigendum in Nature, where Mann was forced to admit that 35 SERIES of data claimed to be used were in fact not used, or that Wahl and Ammann's related claims were false, or the ludicrous use of Bristle-Cone Pines, or the inability to calibrate the proxy data since ~1960, where there is a sharp down-trend, not up-trend as would be expected. (after some 10 years, it is still called "The Divergence Problem" ....unsolved)   Need I add more?

  If this is to be the standard of debate to be used by you, there does not seem much point in continuing.

  When Max Manacker returns from his break, he may have the patience to talk to you about some of your other misrepresentations, but right now, I've lost interest.  
  On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 8 months ago 65 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  CCE's major error

  CCE wrote:

  "One major error from the First Assessment Report that reverberates to this day, was the use of HH Lamb's temperature reconstruction for Central England to represent "Global Temperature Variations of the last 1000 years."  This was the graph used in "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It's used in Singer and Avery's "Unstoppable Global Warming."  It's used all over the internet by a great variety of skeptics."

  The IPCC in its various reports can only use the best available data to hand to demonstarate what those thousands of scientists want to say at the time.

  Dr, Andrew Dessler will tell you that the IPCC only uses peer reviewed information, and that the guesses based on these data, cannot be wrong, since they do not cherry-pick.

  As for skeptics using very old or historical interest data, it depends on how white they are. A lot of rationalists are grey, and consider their data very carefully On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 8 months ago 65 Responses