Klimaforskeres hæderlighed

N A Nielsen skrev:
Jeg afleder ikke Bugge, det var dig, der ankom og afledte tråden fra dens emne. Jeg har forsøgt at få den tilbage på sporet. Du insisterer på at excellere i dine let gennemskuelige ad hominem og på at fortsætte i det uendelige indtil du får det sidste ord. Vi prøver lige igen:

N A Nielsen skrev:
Robert Way forsvarer altså Mann offentligt i SkS's kommentarer:

I think that mann's "hockey sticks" are a contribution to the scientific literature. I think that some individuals (who will remain unnamed) have taken aim at Mann far to much for his previous studies really tried to develop novel techniques and was ripped apart for doing so regardless of the amplitude of millennial to centennial scale changes in the earth's climate cycles even our best measurement techniques show that the greenhouse effect is increasing.

Efterfølgende i det hemmelige SkS-forum, får vi så at vide, hvad Way virkelig mener. Også udover den sønderlemmende undsigelse af Mann og hans metoder, som jeg allerede har gengivet i indlægget:

The Tiljander debate showed that Mc was right on that issue. Kaufmann had to fix his series because he also used it upside down. Didn't make too much of a difference but Mann's response of "Bizarre" was pretty lazy if you ask me. The original Tiljander series people even said Mann and Kaufmann used it wrong. That being said Mc is a conspiracy wackjob...

Nevertheless I think that O'donnell and Condon and them are probably more right than Steig statistically and I'm a little shocked to learn that Steig et al. made the same principal component mistake that Mann et al 1998 did but nevertheless the statistics in all this aren't the lesson to be learned.

What should be taken from this little issue is that tone is very important. If Steig et al remained curteous (even with the attacks) then for those watching on the sidelines it would be obvious that the science is in good hands. To react somewhat snarky just brings us down to their level. Keep talking the science and stay away from personal stuff and you will win in the hearts and minds.

to be clear in all this, steig is wrong. CA is right in terms of their reconstruction and their subsequent response. They included way too much snark over at CA but that doesn't detract from them being right statistically.

Personally I think that if you are curteous and deal with the guys like Ryan O and Jeff ID properly then they will respect you. I watched the initial response and I remember thinking that some of the comments steig made in response to Ryan O were snarky and belittling. I'm not shocked they fired back, not shocked at all.

As scientists aren't we supposed to take the high ground and just go where the facts lead us?

So responding to other stuff.

Mann 2008 CPS

"As an exercise assume you start with 1000 sets of random very noisy set of data which swings up and down by 4 degrees C and you average them. You should get a relatively flat line with wiggles of a magnitude much smaller than any of the individual peaks.

If you take the same random data, calibrate its endpoint to today's temperature (offset it so the end matches today's temperature) and then sort it (throw data out) so that only data which correlate to a temperature rise at the end 5% of the dataset remains. Then you average the remaining data you would get a relatively flat line with an upward spike at the end. The averaged data would have an end spike which would almost certainly be of greater magnitude than the rest of the curve"

This is from JeffIDs site and although I do think he's a douche he does bring up a good point. Even with a hockey stick in the dataset the method will result in excluding datasets which support the hockey stick the least.

I think that the challenge in this whole debate is that Mc et al are looking to find any excuse they can to distort the truth and milk and manipulate it as best as they can. Mann et al (and Steig et al) gave them excuses to quite often. Kill them with kindness or kill them with your brilliance, don't leave yourself open to criticism when people are watching.

I think all of us here at SkS are on Mann's side, not McI's. Nonetheless, it is necessary, if you want to improve, to admit that it is your own side that is sometimes falling down. Insisting on results that you cannot back up 100% is "leading with the chin". One CANNOT do that sort of thing: One must pay McI et al. the acknowledgement that they will detect that error and go for the throat.

Mcl didn't actually provide a reconstruction. They were just showing the difference with a different set of rules applied. They didn't have the balls to do one themselves. Either way 2 pcs was probably too few but rationalizing the 5 that would have to be kept to get the HS shaped PC is also an interesting topic.

"As the proxies are chosen for a known, physically based covariance with temperature,"
In mann 2008 the relationship with temperature in the overlapping period that was used for a cutoff was r2 > 0.1

Do you think that only having 10% of the variance in a proxy explained by temperature changes is an appropriate cutoff? I really think that's not exactly a "physically based covariance with temperature" that I would trust.

So what this means is that Under either method (CPS or EIV) it is not possible to get a validated reconstruction to before 1500 without the use of tree rings, or the Tijlander sediments. The tijlander sediments were used incorrectly and upside down from the original published version and a corrigendum by Kaufmann et al. (who also used it upside down) was issued pertaining to this. http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/26/the-kaufman-corrigendum/

I'm not one of those climate audit junkees and I certainly disagree with how Mcintyre handles a lot of the stuff but I've been shown before by even climatology profs in my university time that it might be best to stick clear of Mann's reconstructions until the dust settles (although this debate has been going on for 10 years)

Ovenstående (som Mann i øvrigt har indrømmet er rigtigt. Manns 2008 rekonstruktion validerer ikke uden Tijander eller træringe) betyder selvfølgelig ikke, at SkS ikke bruger Manns temperaturrekonstruktion i den offentlige propaganda..

What happened was they used a brand new statistical technique that they made up and that there was no rationalization in the literature for using it. They got results which were against the traditional scientific communities view on the matters and instead of re-evaluating and checking whether the traditional statistics were valid (which they weren't), they went on and produced another one a year later. They then let this HS be used in every way possible (including during the Kyoto protocol lead-up that resulted in canadian parliament signing the deal with many people ascribing their final belief in climate change being assured by the HS) despite knowing the stats behind it weren't rock solid. Of course someone was going to come along and slam it. In the defense of the HS method they published things on RC like what I showed above where they clearly misrepresented the views of the foremost expert on PCA in atmospheric sciences who basically says that Mann's stats were dubious.

Welcome to the brotherhood, son. Would have been nice to hear from you back in the day, but I realize you're in a field where this kind of talk can cost you.

I've been shown before by even climatology profs in my university time that it might be best to stick clear of Mann's reconstructions until the dust settles (although this debate has been going on for 10 years)

Wise advice. But why don't they share it with, say, the IPCC?

Måske du kender denne artikel i Nature fra maj 1975 med dansk deltagelse?

Climatic changes, Norsemen and modern man
W. DANSGAARD, S. J. JOHNSEN, N. REEH, N. GUNDESTRUP, H. B. CLAUSEN & C. U. HAMMER

kfl skrev:
Hvad er det der er så utroligt ?

John Niclasen skrev:
Det er simpelthen utroligt!

Lars Buhrkall skrev:

John Niclasen skrev:
Det er simpelthen utroligt!

Fortæl, fortæl!

Lars Buhrkall skrev:

John Niclasen skrev:
Det er simpelthen utroligt!

Fortæl, fortæl!

Rasmus Benestad, som så mange andre, der udtaler og beskæftiger sig med atmosfærer, så har du meget information, men du har meget lidt viden. Dertil kommer, at du med stor sandsynlighed er påvirket af din personlige ideologiske overbevisning, og at dette giver sig til udtryk i dine holdninger, som så bliver uvidenskabelige.

Jeg har intet problem med, at du har en kristen holdning/tro,

men du kommer med uvidenskabelige udsagn til at fastslå, at en person er uvidenskabelig, selv om Rasmus Bennestad er en særdeles kvalificeret forsker. Du bør kunne fremlægge dokumentation for at Rasmus Bennestad er uvidenskabelig , men det kræver, at du er mindst ligeså god som Rasmus Bennestad.

Rasmus Benestad
Drivhuseffekten har været kendt længe, og den forklarer, hvordan temperaturen på Jorden gør vores planet beboelig. Den er til stede på forskellige planeter i solsystemet med forskellig styrke, og er ekstra stærk på Venus, hvor atmosfæren hovedsaglig består af CO2.

Trenigheden vandre ind i landet med ideologisk vås, videnskabelig uhæderlighed, utroværdighed i kombination med Kristendom. Et farlig sted at være.

Jeg påpeger i tråden overfor Benestad, at drivhuseffekten er en model for en atmosfære opvarmet nedefra. Solen når ikke ned til den faste overflade på Venus, hvorfor denne model ikke kan benyttes for Venus, da forudsætningerne for at benytte modellen ikke er til stede. Jeg har ikke opfundet modellen! Det står i lærebøgerne, som jeg også henviser til. Jeg har desuden regnet grundigt efter i et projekt, jeg færdiggjorde på universitetet i sommer, og man kan forklare temperatur- og tryk-profilen på Venus i troposfæren helt uden brug af drivhuseffekten og strålings-fysik.

Den er til stede på forskellige planeter i solsystemet med forskellig styrke, og er ekstra stærk på Venus, hvor atmosfæren hovedsaglig består af CO2.

Rasmus Benestad, som så mange andre, der udtaler og beskæftiger sig med atmosfærer, så har du meget information, men du har meget lidt viden. Dertil kommer, at du med stor sandsynlighed er påvirket af din personlige ideologiske overbevisning, og at dette giver sig til udtryk i dine holdninger, som så bliver uvidenskabelige.

kfl skrev:
Lad os nu antage, at du har ret og Benestad tager er fejl. Så er det eneste rigtige, at skrive en artikel om emnet og få den peer reviewet.

Det er ikke nok, at du skriver, at du har regnet efter !

Hvornår bliver artikel offentliggjort ?

Har du vist den til Benestad ?

Jeg ved ikke ret meget om emnet, men der er flere der mener, at drivhuseffekten på Venus er gået amok og Derfor tonser drivhuseffekten af sted på Venus

Jeg er altså i den situation, at
- Benestad hævder, at drivhuseffekten virker på Venus
- DTU mener, at drivhuseffekten på Venus er gået amok
- Ingeniøren på peger at drivhuseffekten tonser derudaf på Venus
- John Niclasen hævder, at der ikke er nogen drivhuseffekt på Venus

Hvad skal lille jeg tro på ? Benestad + DTU + Ingeniøren eller treenigheden ?

Jeg har intet problem med at lægge mig lad ned for dig i denne sag, men det kræver, at du følger spillet regler med en peer reviewet artikel.

Men når du kommer med en grovhed som følgende:

Rasmus Benestad, som så mange andre, der udtaler og beskæftiger sig med atmosfærer, så har du meget information, men du har meget lidt viden. Dertil kommer, at du med stor sandsynlighed er påvirket af din personlige ideologiske overbevisning, og at dette giver sig til udtryk i dine holdninger, som så bliver uvidenskabelige.

melder du dig ind i landsbytossernes fagforening. Du er uden troværdig i hvert fald i denne sammenhæng. Treenighed eller ej !

Thus the atmosphere is heated from below, and direct solar illumination of atmospheric gases is ignored.

Kjeld Jul skrev:

Einige Menschen,Besserwisser wie Bugge,müssen immer das letzte Wort haben- um jeden Preis.Egal wie viel Ahnung du von der Thematik Klima hast,egal ob du Recht hast,derjenige stellt alles in Frage und hat immer das letzte Wort,sogar dann wenn du dem jenigen Beweise auf den Tisch legst,sogar dann noch,- haben sie das letzte Wort, - immer und immer wieder.

...man kan benægte etableret strålingsfysik [...] hvis man [som John Niclasen] insisterer på at være idiot.

It's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years.

So what this means is that Under either method (CPS or EIV) it is not possible to get a validated reconstruction to before 1500 without the use of tree rings, or the Tijlander sediments. The tijlander sediments were used incorrectly and upside down from the original published version and a corrigendum by Kaufmann et al. (who also used it upside down) was issued pertaining to this. http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/26/the-kaufman-corrigendum/

I'm not one of those climate audit junkees and I certainly disagree with how Mcintyre handles a lot of the stuff but I've been shown before by even climatology profs in my university time that it might be best to stick clear of Mann's reconstructions until the dust settles (although this debate has been going on for 10 years)

Additionally, every investigation into the Climategate emails found that the scientists whose emails were stolen, including Michael Mann, were not guilty of any wrongdoing.

In relation to "hide the decline" we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text.

The "misleading" comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him. Rather, the report's comment was directed at an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization's Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.41 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous.