This is NOT a Hockey Stick

authordefault
on

In a desperate effort to distract attention from the real issue, Steve McIntyre and one of his more loquacious acolytes have renewed their attack on the fabled hockey stick โ€“ cheering themselves hoarse over their one, small โ€œvictoryโ€ in climate science debate, even while the science itself continues to pass them by.

mann4

Mannโ€™s Hockey Stick Graph

Michael Mannโ€˜s Hockey Stick graph, above, was placed prominently in the Third Assessment Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in part because it showed so clearly how temperatures over the last millennium rode along fairly steadily for hundreds of years and then spiked in the latter part of the 20th century (approximating the shape of a hockey stick).

Steve McIntyre, an amateur statistician and retired mining stock promoter found in Mannโ€™s work what he argued was a statistical anomaly, challenged Mann and was actually successful in getting Mann to submit a correction to the journal (I think it was Science) that originally published the graph. The excited chorus of โ€œAh ha!โ€ rang through the deniersphere. Mann, they said, had โ€œadmitted he was wrongโ€ (albeit on one small detail). And therefore, we could all go home and stop worrying about climate change.

This is stupid for a host of reasons. First, even Edward Wegman, the statistician who the (anti-climate change policy) Republicans โ€œinvitedโ€ to critique the โ€œstickโ€ agreed that Mannโ€™s original conclusions were reasonable, even if not absolutely verifiable beyond about 400 years.

But more obviously, the stick has been replicated time and again, using different termperature proxies and different methodologies. And guess what? In every instance, the image looks like a hockey stick. And in NO instance has McIntyre or any of his cronies so much as peeped about the credibility of these pieces of research.

So, even if you wanted to walk away from Mannโ€™s work (and we donโ€™t; it was good work overall), there is still an overwhelming body of evidence that the deniers fear or fail to recognize.

To whit: the image at the top is from a paper by Jones, et al , that appeared in the journal Science in 2001. Itโ€™s based on multiple proxies, including tree rings, ice cores, corals and historical records, and like the Wegman-approved Mann hockey stick, goes back 400 years.

darrigo

Dโ€™Arrigio, et al

But donโ€™t stop there. What about the next image above. Itโ€™s from a paper by Dโ€™Ariggo, et al, published in the Joutrnal of Geophysical Atmospheres in 2006, also uses tree rings, but extends for the full thousand years.

briffa2

Briffa, et al

Or the next thousand-year image (above), from a paper by Briffa, et al, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2001 and based again on tree rings.

oerlmanns2

Oerlemans

Then thereโ€™s the image (above) from a paper by Oerlemans, based on glacier records and published in the April 2005 issue of Science.

jansen2

Jansen, et al

But letโ€™s not stop there. What about the next graph (above) from Jansen, et al, published in the Fourth IPCC Review in 2007.

Moberg, et al

And as weโ€™re on a role, why not also look at the next graph, from Moberg, et al, based on tree rings and lake and ocean sediment and published in Nature in 2005.

wilson3

Wilson, et al

Then, we might reasonably consider the next graph, from Wilson, et al, more tree rings, different methodology, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research โ€“ Atmospheres in 2007.

jouzan

Jouzan, et al

Finally, why not look at Jouzel, et al, (Note that this graph goes in the other direction) which covers not 1,000 years but 800,000, and which seems to show a hockey stick shape for about 110,000 years. Oh yeah, this was published in Science in August of 2007, ample time for the climate โ€œexpertsโ€ at ClimateAudit to use their vast statistical skills to identify an anomalies or debunk that which bears debunking.

Alas, no. Despite itโ€™s quite pleasing new design, ClimateAudit is silent on all but the Mann graph and really has had NOTHING NEW TO SAY since 2003.

So, what do you say, Steve McIntyre, Bishop Hill, Chris Monckton and all the others who love to hold so closely to the Hockey Stick. Have you any legitimate criticism of all the other science that supports Mannโ€™s work? Any criticism at all?

Or would you prefer to huddle about like has-been high school football stars, forever reliving that one great play โ€“ imagining, even today, that it made a difference?

authordefault
Admin's short bio, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Voluptate maxime officiis sed aliquam! Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit.

Related Posts

on

During trial, judge refused to let Mannโ€™s lawyers present the jury with corrected data, then ruled that they intentionally lied about that data.

During trial, judge refused to let Mannโ€™s lawyers present the jury with corrected data, then ruled that they intentionally lied about that data.
on

Build Canada and oil baron Adam Waterous appear to be shaping energy policies endorsed by leader Pierre Poilievre.

Build Canada and oil baron Adam Waterous appear to be shaping energy policies endorsed by leader Pierre Poilievre.
on

The broadcaster has asked one of its leading current affairs hosts to stop presenting a show about heat pumps.

The broadcaster has asked one of its leading current affairs hosts to stop presenting a show about heat pumps.
on

An AI-fossil fuel axis is forming in the U.S. and Saudi Arabia as AI advocates pledge an endless need for energy โ€” spelling disaster for the climate.

An AI-fossil fuel axis is forming in the U.S. and Saudi Arabia as AI advocates pledge an endless need for energy โ€” spelling disaster for the climate.