A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change

[dvdjs]

You seem to be falling back on ‘the temperature record validates Mann by showing we are in a warming trend.’ That is a very poor rationalization of Mann. It has never been disputed that we are in a warming trend, since the last ice age to be more precise. That fact is irrelevant in supporting what Man promoted as science.

That is a glib gloss. Slowly declining temperatures over a millenium or two, with a spike in the last century that has raised the temps to the top of what we had seen over that period. Is that not the gist of Mann et al.? Was that already settled science at the time? Also was the work over that time scale with the introduction of proxies into the data set novel? I ask genuinely, because I haven’t followed this so closely, and in the absence of answers to those questions, the it looks less that the PI was a duplicitous cheats, than a visionary whose intuition was correct, but who was hasty - especially in the areas of error analysis - in getting the work out. That happens.

PS, looking at the data, and understanding that the issue is climate change, I think that I would have plotted dT/dt vs. t to get at the essential science more robustly.

 

[Theo520]

How was it a ‘glib gloss’, be precise. You were also quite vague in your comments about Mann and his intuition. The intuition of a 5th grader will confirm we are getting warmer given CO2 ig a GHG and we are pumping up the levels, it’s nothing worthy of a Nobel Prize and it doesn’t tell you anything useful, like the amount of impact we are having on dT/dt.

I think the gist of Mann’s hockey stick was to hide the medieval warming period and make the recent impact of CO2 look more scary. Dishonest marketing is all it was. Any manufacturer could be sued for such falsification.

dT/dt is utterly useless since it doesn’t tell you the impact man has on the problem and it is easily manipulated by what time frame you choose to analyze.

That is a glib gloss. Slowly declining temperatures over a millenium or two, with a spike in the last century that has raised the temps to the top of what we had seen over that period. Is that not the gist of Mann et al.? Was that already settled science at the time? Also was the work over that time scale with the introduction of proxies into the data set novel? I ask genuinely, because I haven’t followed this so closely, and in the absence of answers to those questions, the it looks less that the PI was a duplicitous cheats, than a visionary whose intuition was correct, but who was hasty - especially in the areas of error analysis - in getting the work out. That happens.

PS, looking at the data, and understanding that the issue is climate change, I think that I would have plotted dT/dt vs. t to get at the essential science more robustly.

 

[dvdjs]

How was it a ‘glib gloss’, be precise. I was. Your take was we are in a warming period. I said: “Slowly declining temperatures over a millenium or two, with a spike in the last century that has raised the temps to the top of what we had seen over that period.” I think that you see the difference.

I think the gist of Mann’s hockey stick was to hide the medieval warming period and make the recent impact of CO2 look more scary. Dishonest marketing is all it was.

But the 2013/15 nature article concurs with Mann against the idea of a medieval warming period.

dT/dt is utterly useless since it doesn’t tell you the impact man has on the problem and it is easily manipulated by what time frame you choose to analyze.

We are talking about a millennial time frame, Otherwise all the statistical issues regarding back extrapolation are moot. Moreover, the criticisms of Mann et all are all about that back extrapolation, however much you want to shift from the discussion of the statistics in Mann et al and the trends in T to CO2. Shifting sands? Bad.

And my questions still linger.

 

[Theo520]

But the 2013/15 nature article concurs with Mann against the idea of a medieval warming period.

We are talking about a millennial time frame, Otherwise all the statistical issues regarding back extrapolation are moot. Moreover, the criticisms of Mann et all are all about that back extrapolation, however much you want to shift from the discussion of the statistics in Mann et al and the trends in T to CO2. Shifting sands? Bad.

And my questions still linger.

dT/dt on a millennial time scale is a practical waste of effort, we don’t have solid precise data on global temperatures. The reconstructed temp record is an extrapolated guess with huge margins of error.

what lingering questions do you have?

Mann’s actions remain a black stain on the record of climate change science.

 

[otjm]

Just a couple of observations, then I will bow out.

Several years ago, the conversation changed from “global warming” to “climate change”.
There were obvious reasons for it, including the reality around us did not match the predictions

This last winter provided 110% of normal snowpack on Mt. Hood.

There are reports of ice breakers being called off as they could not make their way through areas which they normally clear, due to the depth of the ice.

And then there are other reports, focusing on areas which have lost ice.

The whole issue has become highly politicized, leaving one to wonder where the actual truth is. Studies are produced warning of drastic and massive death tolls due to (supposedly) sudden change. Then along come critiques of studies, showing data manipulation, reports ignoring data which doesn’t fit the presumptions, and off we go.

One of my jobs, as a newly minted E-4 in the Army, and a “newbie” in Vietnam was helping to lay the pierced steel planking for an extension of a runway at the airbase where I was stationed - planking that dated back to the beginning of WW2. The first think I was issued was a pair of gloves, as the planking was so hot it would blister your hands - literally.

The hoohaa which gets raised of millions dying in heat waves ignores the fact that in the tropics, it is often hotter than belief to those of us living north of 45 degrees, and there are vast numbers of people who have lived all their lives in heat.

Do we need to cut down on pollution? Absolutely. And we have been doing so for several generations. do we need to replant where deforestation has occurred? Well, we don’t have contgrol over those countries which have failed to replant; but given that trees absorb CO2 and give off oxygen was something I learned in the 50’s.

And china, which cutting back some on its use of coal, is now a major exporter to areas of Asia and Africa, which in general are using decades old (poor) technology to deal with emissions.

So while we use our alternate energy sources, we have little to no control over what other countries do, and the non-treaty agreement was set to allow China and India decades of generous pollution.

And while I am no fan of Trump, the agreement was poorly drafted and needs to be amended.

.