New Study Confirms Accuracy of "Hockey Stick" Global Warming Graph
New research now supports the infamous “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere beginning to skyrocket around the time of the Industrial Revolution, illustrating the link between human activity and global warming. When the graph was first developed in 1998, scientists had to rely primarily on tree ring measurements to estimate the temperature in earlier centuries, and the graph is routinely criticized by climate skeptics who question the science it is based on. For the new study, scientists were able to examine many other temperature indicators in the natural record—including coral reef skeletons, ice cores, sea-floor sediment, stalagmites and stalactites—and they reached the same conclusions. The hockey stick stands.
According to climatologist Michael Mann, who helped develop the original “hockey stick” graph and is lead author of the new study to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "We now have enough other sources that we can achieve meaningful reconstructions back a thousand years without tree ring data, and we get more or less the same answer."
Comments
Nice try, but the fact remains that in his original paper, Mann WEIGHTED data to fit his needs. He lied. Why should we think he hasn’t done the same here?
Everybody else seems to think the data shows that we’ve been progressively cooling off since the Holocene Optimum, with the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period also being warmer than now. To the myopic, the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 seems to be unusual. It’s not.
“Nice try, but the fact remains that in his original paper, Mann WEIGHTED data to fit his needs. He lied.”
This is the lie. Issues were raised about Mann’s methodology and a variety of difficult issues surrounding the weighting of data but these are scientific issues that have long since been addressed by Mann and others. There is no reason to inpugn his integrity.
As the AGW crowd continues to see their grand scheme unravel before their very eyes, we can expect more of these distortions and falsehoods.
A great article about this “resurrection” of the hockey stick (also called hokey stick) can be found in the “Jesus Papers.” I don’t have the URL handy, but just do a Google and it’ll pop up.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
And fossil fuel industry funded climate change research is completely unbiased, right?
Why are you all so afraid of change? We’re going to have to decrease dependence on fossil fuels sooner or later. We might as well start now while we still have some fuel left.
It’s really sad how ignorant some of you seem to be.
Science (and commmon sense) shows us absolute proof of climate change. So stop denying it and start doing something about it.
Great analysis dear! To discuss similar issues and much more on environment… checkout http://www.its2hot.in – A 2 Z of Environment.
We do not have “climate skeptics.” We have boobs. The “jury” on climate disruption has been in for some time: see Naomi Orestes’ article in Science a few years back. See the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC, the reports by military experts. By pretending there’s a debate you do real scientists a disservice. There is a gullible section of the public and there are some genuinely evil people at places like Fox News and in the oil industry. But there is no scientific debate and there hasn’t been for some time.
No one is questioning climate change. The debate is who or what’s causing it.
I say solar activity (even icecaps on Mars are melting). Others insist it is oil companies. Oh really?
Wasn’t the Sahara a verdant jungle millions of years ago–long before the first environmentalist was swinging from branch to branch?
Even IPCC has admitted–after a lengthy tale of doom and gloom–there’s nothing man can do to control climate change.
Even if humans ceased to exist (an idea that has a lot of merit in the eyes of leftwing/environmental circles) earth would continue to go through climatic changes as it has done for millions of years.
DRILL, I say, and envirofascists be damned!
The comment above about the Sahara once being a rainforest ignores that the Romans slashed and burned it. Anyway, the bottom line regarding global warming is that although cycles of heat are out of our hands it can not be good to dump our fuel into the sky and then breathe it. Every short ton of coal contains three thousand cubic feet of natural gas and one barrel of oil. Vapor carbs burn the fuel whereas modern injectors and carbs blow the fuel out the tailpipe into the sky. Even underarm deoderant uses propane as a propellant rather than air.Why do the oil companies fight belief in global warming, because they make money dumping fuel into the sky. Even if historical warming cycles are true is the environment of Venus not a greenhouse blanket holding in the heat? The point is we CAN do something about NOT dumping carbon into the sky. Does it really bother you that some of us want to explore running cars on hydrogen from water which has more power than gasoline?
The Romans desertified the Sahara, eh? I can’t help noticing the historic parallels here. Inasmuch as Roman Empire policies are (according to you) to blame for climate change in North Africa two centuries ago, USA is to blame for climate change now. I’m sure your run-of-the-mill environmental theorist, with a dint of zealous research, will be able to track down this evil and truly stupid man by the name of Gorgeous Bushus, scion of the Scipio Americanus family. This guy, aided and abetted by a shadowy and sinister organization called Halliburtus, really screwed up the environment then by slashing and burning his way through North Africa, denuding the place purely for personal gain. He was primarily responsible for the existence of the Sahara Desert instead of Sahara Jungle.
Yes every ton of ‘vapor carbs’ (whatever that is) that’s pumped into the sky does a lot of environmental damage. But then a volcano dumps many times that quantity of pollutants into the atmosphere every time it goes off. Maybe we should ban volcanoes,
No one is against alternative fuels. And, yes, it is our responsibility of be good stewards of the earth God gave us. But even as planet Earth now enters a cooling phase, we’re not only unfairly demonizing carbon (to our peril), but also preventing America from withstanding the onslaught of global cooling (which is almost upon us) by outlawing drilling. Speaking of which, if we’re currently importing so many oil tankers of oil from people who hate us just to keep our economy going, what can be so wrong about pumping an equal amount from, say, Alaska—just so as to lose that dependence? Naah! The mindset of the Democrats who run Congress is obvious: why should average, smelly (because they doesn’t use deodorant), ordinary Americans, struggling to make ends meet, be happy!
In short, what Nancy Pelosi is saying is, “They don’t have gasoline? Let them inhale hydrogen.”
Drill!, Drill!, DRILL! Shut your faces, environazis!
Well it is clear you are a disrespectful smart elic. I vaporize fuel and double gasoline. I have built large alcohol plants and ran cars on farm byproducts, and I have seen research showing that hydrogen can be made on the fly from water. You keep manipulating words and manipulating minds and sounding cute and defending your oil investments. I am not for the Remocrats or the Depublicans, both lead to big government.I am , however, for truth. Sounds like you probably have a lot of Iraqi blood on your hands as well.
Why reduce everything down to silly quarrel ‘oil companies vs eco fascists’?
There are people out there disliking the often unscientific style of the IPCC while finding several reasons not to burn remaining fossil fuels apart from the highly disputable influence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on climate.
Whether warming or cooling, it is a challenge but possible in both cases to adapt to changes. The problems mankind faces are anyway more likely social ones rather than scientific ones.
I just dislike the reductionist view that is prevalent in climate discussion. Example: Reports about flooding in Bangladesh nowadays tend to find a single culprit in global warming ignoring e.g. changes in land use upstreams like massive deforestation.
Just someone concerned about environment while being a so called ‘climate sceptic’ for scientific reasons.
The world certainly is more divers than ‘oil companies vs eco fascists’.
Thank you for your post, Zorro: you’re an excellent example of the thought processes of the partially educated Tree-Hugger.
a) The Romans never ventured more than about 10 miles from the coast in Africa. They didn’t “slash & burn” the Sahara. It was a desert when they got there.
b)The Sahara was verdant 6 millenia ago when the axis of the Earth was much different: at that time the Sahara was in a position equivalent to the temperate zones of today: copious rainfall. Deserts exist due to their position around 30deg lat. today where there is falling dry, cool air (Hadley Cell Circulation), so little rainfall.
c) Can’t compare Earth & Venus: Venus has much more CO2, is twice as close to the Sun, and it’s the clouds, not the CO2 making it so warm.
d) The coal used to produce electricity to run a car produces more CO2 than the equivalent gasoline. Elec cars only help if we go Nuclear.
e) Review the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics: the energy used to produce H2 exceeds the energy you’ll get back in burning it: there is no easy, magic solution to the energy problem.
We do need a long term solutions to save our race, but we need short term solutions also, to save the economy.
OK. You guys are living in a mind control cult where you are your own cult leaders. Allow me to say this clearly. When I spoke of vapor carbs I was talking about existing technology which vaporizes the fuel. Liquid doesnt burn only vapor does. I have such an invention and it doubles mileage. Thus the vapor coverup. More uneeded oil in the sky is the coal coverup. The government paid Lewis Kerrick to show that you get all the oil free if you take it out of the coal rather than blow it into the sky. You are missapplying the thermodynamics law. Hydrogen is being removed from water like cave men boiling it with high amperage. It has been shown that you can drive a car entirely on hydrogen made from water using water vapor and high voltage and resonant frequencies. There is far more energy in water than in gasoline. Now go spread some more gloom and doom and lies.
The below is direct excerpts from a University professors’s lecture about deforestation. I did not make it up:
“The Ancient Greeks destroyed their forests to power the warships that enabled them to maintain a colonial empire and also to stave off the attempts at conquest from the Persians. Their bare hillsides were quickly eroded with the damage being finished off by goats.
The Romans caused Northern Africa to become a desert by deforestation so that they could grow wheat. They needed to do this to buy off the poor peasants in Italy and stop them becoming a threat to the ruling class in Rome. They also needed a wheat harvest to feed their armies so that they could maintain control of their empire.”
You word fascists can continue to demonize tree huggers but with the rainforests goes two thirds of the species of life, arguably one half the worlds fresh oxygen and on fourth of the worlds fresh water. Manipulative intellectuals who despise life are misanthropic, malthusian haters of life itself. I can only pray for such hatred of knowledge and answers. Did you notice not one person said send me info on how I can double my mileage, or proof that cars can run on water. These are snide lovers of the problems and haters of proveable solutions or either hirees of Chevron or Exxon or some such.
Zorro- your post #14 shows a lack of knowledge of automotive technology. Vapoized gasoline cannot be used in an internal combustion engine. Carburators and fuel injectors aerosolize fuel. Ever hear of Vapor lock? You also insist Using H2 obtained from electrolysis of water will work: it can be done, but due to the heat loss of the process, it takes more energy to produce the H2 than you can get back by burniing it in the engine.
Your post #15 suggest your professor ought to learn to read Latin and verify his sources. The Sahara has been a desert since before recorded history, and thus, since before the Romans got to Africa. The Egyptian civilization predated the Romans by 3000 yrs and the desert was there for them, too.
Mr. Guido,
I am leaving this thread for other haunts. I am an automotive engineer. We have switched the concern from vapor lock in a liquid system to liquid lock in a vapor system. You posture yourself and your words as if you know what you are talking about but liquid doesnt burn only vapor does. That is why high mileage carburetors are real. That is why some entrants in the X prize 100 mpg competition vaporize the fuel. So that it is burned and not blown out the tailpipe as pollution to add to the blanket of carbon in the sky. God bless all you know it all word meisters who can spin anything to sound good. We are running cars on vapor now.
It’s tuff to be accurate in short posts, so let me clarify: of course gasoline can be vaporized (by ADDING energy to the system) and used in a car engine. Propane, afterall, is a gas and can be used, but the energy savings will be minimal. Aerosolized gasoline is now used conventially (for safety’s sake), and minimal gas “goes out the tail pipe”. (Check your emission testing record.) It’s true wasted energy, as heat, does go out with exhaust and thru the radiator. THAT’s the key to high mileage: minimize heat loss. E = 1/2 mv^2 + heat. To minimize E, you MUST minimize one or more of the elements of the right side of that equation. Because the carburator is “pre-ignition”, it will have little effect on that equation. Look elsewhere if you want to win that prize. (BTW- the “water vapor” carburator has been around more than 50 years and significantly improves mileage. There’s evidence it has been suppressed by “big oil”.)
Forget the hockey stick obsession and listen to this. The concentration of the CO2 gas in the air should be currently around 380ppm (0.038%) compared to the 180ppm (give or take) or 0.018% when the industrial revolution kicked in. Could this tiny change ie an increase in the CO2 levels from 0.018% to 0.038% be causing all the temperature rises?
If you have the gear try and do what Prof. Ian Stewart was demonstrating in his first programme on the BBC. Get a 2ft or so tubular glass container, fill it with air, average moisture, and 0.018% of CO2. Place a stable heat source at one end of the tube, and a sensitive temperature gauge at the other. Switch the heat source on and measure how much of it gets through the tube. I hope you can guess what should come next. What do you reckon the final result in comparing the heat absorption in the two chunks of air will be? Will you see a noticeable difference in heat absorption when the mixture in the vessel is 0.038% as compared to the 0.018% mix. I reckon you will be hard put to notice any difference.
The climatic swings the earth has gone through are very likely to be by far more complex than any hockey stick could reveal. It all probability there’re a number of mechanisms that combine to engender the end result. Since we are NOT 100% certain what is it that drives climate it would be smarter to figure how to accommodate to it rather than to impoverish ourselves by attempting to stop it by closing plants and walking.
Lets get back to what comment 4 says, we’re going to run out of fossil fuels. Probably within my lifetime judging by various estimates I’ve seen. And there are better things to do with oil than burning it. Forget the warming, how about just for the sake of reducing pollution and changing our political interactions with a bunch of countries that don’t like us.
Boris: your final comment is very wise: it’s better to adapt to the rising tide than to futilely try to stop it from rising.
Your experiment isn’t quite analogous to the Earth’s situation. Better to use a heat source that gives off less heat than the heat saturation capability of the control atmosphere. Then increasing the [CO2] won’t cause an increase in temp. That’s our situation in nature: all heat available was already being trapped by the pre-industrial 280ppm. Higher CO2 can’t trap heat that’s not there.
whats really killing this world is greed. There is another energy source, who’s time has come of age about 70 years ago. However, due to mans greed and praise to the almighty dollar, people will have to come together to make it happen.
Tim says:
“It’s really sad how ignorant some of you seem to be. Science (and commmon sense) shows us absolute proof of climate change. So stop denying it and start doing something about it.”
Michael says:
Science has also shown that “global climate change” is a useless term. Climate is VARIABLE, it NATURALLY changes over time. If it NEVER changed, it would be time to worry…
Dinosaurs had to contend with it. There was likely rapid “warming” during the time of Lord Nelson (according to weather and surface temperature reading from the British navy during the time; look it up), and subsequent cooling. There was “warming” during the medieval warm period.
They seem to be cherry picking their starting dates for the current “warming” trend and/or “smoothing out” the warming trends of prior ages to make today’s natural climate variable appear more ominous than it really is.
The issue pointed out with Mann’s hockey stick was that the statistical methods used “looked” for warming trends and accentuated them, even in pure noise with only pseudo-trends.
“Climate change” is not the same as “global warming.” Stop trying to conflate the two things and/or shift to alarmism over “climate change” since so many artifacts of “warming” have already been debunked by McIntyre, Watts, McKitrick, et al.