Iconic graph at center of climate debate

February 14, 2015, Pennsylvania State University
The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013. Credit: Klaus Bittermann/Wikipedia

The "Hockey Stick" graph, a simple plot representing temperature over time, led to the center of the larger debate on climate change, and skewed the trajectory of at least one researcher, according to Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology, Penn State.

"The "Hockey Stick" graph became a central icon in the climate wars," Mann told attendees today (Feb. 11) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "The graph took on a life of its own."

Mann and his coauthors, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K Hughes, created the graph for a paper, "Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations" which appeared in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a version of the graph in its report, pushing the hockey stick depiction of temperature trends to the forefront of the climate change discussion.

"There have been dozens of other climate reconstructions, all very similar to ours," said Mann. "They are based on different data and different approaches, and of course everyone thinks their approach is best, but they all imply that the modern warming spike is unique. And still the Hockey Stick remains the iconic graph."

The original paper and the IPCC report demonstrated that temperature had risen with the increase in industrialization and use of fossil fuels. The researchers' conclusion was that worldwide human activity since the industrial age had raised carbon dioxide levels, trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and warming the planet.

But the iconic graph engendered attacks, including calls for into the validity and veracity of the research. Subsequent investigations by the National Academy of Sciences, The National Science Foundation and Penn State all found the research both honest and solid.

Mann is quick to point out that there are two entirely distinct debates taking place when it comes to climate change research. One is the legitimate scientific challenging of research results that is part of the give and take of the scientific method all done in good faith to help advance the forefront of our knowledge. The other consists of bad faith attacks on scientists and the science, intended to advance some agenda—political, religious or economic.

Mann was thrust into a larger-than-life role in the climate debate because of the notoriety of the Hockey Stick Graph. As a scientist he was dragged along with his research to a place most scientists do not go and generally do not want to go.

"I was forced to take on a role very different than the one that I had envisioned," said Mann.

In 2012, Mann published "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines," (Columbia University Press) describing his experiences as a reluctant figure in the debate.

"This was not what I envisioned I would be doing when I chose to be a scientist, but over time I have grown to embrace this role," said Mann. "I feel privileged to be in a position to inform the larger public discourse over what may be the greatest challenge civilization has faced."

Explore further: Penn State climate scientist files defamation suit

Related Stories

Penn State climate scientist files defamation suit

October 24, 2012

Penn State University scientist Michael Mann, whose work showed that Earth's temperatures have risen along with increased fossil fuel use, announced Tuesday he had filed a lawsuit against the conservative National Review ...

Slowdown of global warming fleeting

April 7, 2014

The recent slowdown in the warming rate of the Northern Hemisphere may be a result of internal variability of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation—a natural phenomenon related to sea surface temperatures, according to ...

Penn State scientist at center of a storm

December 9, 2009

A few words culled from some hacked e-mails in Britain have generated chaos in the world of climate science -- throwing dark clouds over Pennsylvania State University and stirring up negative publicity for the field that ...

A global temperature conundrum: Cooling or warming climate?

August 11, 2014

When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently requested a figure for its annual report, to show global temperature trends over the last 10,000 years, the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Zhengyu Liu knew that ...

Recommended for you

Floodplain forests under threat

March 19, 2019

A team from the Institute of Forest Sciences at the University of Freiburg shows that the extraction of ground water for industry and households is increasingly damaging floodplain forests in Europe given the increasing intensity ...

Scientists discover common blueprint for protein antibiotics

March 19, 2019

A discovery by researchers at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute (LA BioMed) has uncovered a common blueprint for proteins that have antimicrobial properties. This finding opens the door to design and development ...

Nanoscale Lamb wave-driven motors in nonliquid environments

March 19, 2019

Light driven movement is challenging in nonliquid environments as micro-sized objects can experience strong dry adhesion to contact surfaces and resist movement. In a recent study, Jinsheng Lu and co-workers at the College ...

179 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rockyrocky
2.1 / 5 (47) Feb 14, 2015
I wish these global warming morons could get their stories straight. Even after fudging every temperature reading their graphs show that temperatures today are at most 0.2 degrees higher than 1000 years ago. That is if you accept their fudged numbers.

Give it up. global warming is a religious movement based on junk science and best classified as complete and total nonsense.
michael_733
2.1 / 5 (41) Feb 14, 2015
Which satellite did they use for global temperatures before 1970? I guess their guesses in the range of less than one degree C is hard science to liberals...
Omnishambles
2 / 5 (37) Feb 14, 2015
This graph has been soooooo discredited. Enough. Good grief!
Wake
1.8 / 5 (38) Feb 14, 2015
Even though all of that original report was little more than prediction, none of which even came close, you'll see people defending not just the supposed results but swearing that it is running true to form even today.

Now I see that the graph is labeled "NORTHERN HEMISPHERE". So how did this EVER be taken completely out of context and presented as Mean Global Temperatures?

As we have seen the Southern Hemisphere has cooled pretty much nullifying the heating in the Northern Hemisphere which would suggest that this is all nothing but the symptoms of the Melankovich Cycles.
phizzics
2.2 / 5 (37) Feb 14, 2015
Take noisy, imprecise data, homogenize it and smooth it and then present the averages. Is it supposed to be surprising that the resulting line looks flat? Now splice modern instrumental measurements on the end and hide the fact that the same proxies you used to derive earlier temperatures no longer correlate with the present data. It helps a lot if you exaggerate the Y-axis of your graph to make a minor change look immense.

This isn't science, it's marketing.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (41) Feb 14, 2015
I knew this story would bring out the scientific incompetents and sadly I'm correct.
Wake
1.8 / 5 (25) Feb 14, 2015
There's so much scientific incompetence that you don't seem able to actually identify it.
Melchizedek0001
2.1 / 5 (34) Feb 14, 2015
What a dumb article! Dr.M.Mann lied in taking just a date from California (bristlepines weight=f(co2)) and applied it to the whole US and ...world despite the contrary data from other US states! What Hell is with the Divine 10 Commandment rule:"do not lie"?
williamfuzi
2.1 / 5 (29) Feb 14, 2015
Hey I have a term paper that proved scientists will do anything for money and fame. Does that make it scientific fact?
partial recall
1.7 / 5 (28) Feb 14, 2015
Here in Maine the temperature this winter has been 10 degrees on average colder than normal with about twice the amount of normal snowfall. Can I assume we are headed into another ice age?
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (32) Feb 14, 2015
I knew this story would bring out the scientific incompetents and sadly I'm correct.
Yes. You, for instance.
Soultwang186
1.7 / 5 (30) Feb 14, 2015
The article misses the real world issue of the of the socialists and other nutters using a real science to leverage their agendas. They're calling everyone with a question or any investigation of the facts as "climate change deniers" or "anti science evangelists" These labels are used like propaganda. The Health of planet requires real world solutions and I think we are up for it. Then what will the nutters have to say when this is handled?
mbee1
2 / 5 (29) Feb 14, 2015
mann is a wonderful spokesman for all that is true and great about science. Just like that lady in japan who fudged the data on stem cells, Mann did the same thing with the hockey stick graph. He used several proxies to come up with the temperatures, one of those proxies did not agree with his hockey stick and would have made it a non hockey stick so he solved his problem the old fashion way, he cheated, he simply lopped off 40 years of data he did not like. Aside from being a liar and a fraud he represents all that if true in research science.;
psychosalmon
1.3 / 5 (25) Feb 14, 2015
The Great Lakes are 70% ice covered and will surpass 80% for only the 7th time in 50 years, typical of and out of control, accelerating warming atmosphere.
mbee1
1.4 / 5 (21) Feb 14, 2015
Here is a bit of data Mann and his disciples ignore. In November of 2014 after a year when the arctic ice was larger as well as the antarctic ice, the snow and ice coverage was the 5th highest ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere,that is half the world, North America, highese ever recorded. But you say Mann claims the world is warmer in 2014 and yes if was if you fudge the data but even than you have a 48 percent chance of being warmest. Hanson a disciple of Mann and company claims the Northern Hemisphere measurements have a cold basis, that snow and ice coverage thing, so they simply run the actual measurements for each station through their model and up the temperature to fit the model. 1.5 degrees added to the Barrow Alaska measured temperatures for example. Doing that to most stations has an interesting result, more snow and ice, more ice and warmest year ever. A new finding of physics, good for a noble prize
sdrfz
1.9 / 5 (29) Feb 14, 2015

Hide the decline, Climate Gate, anybody remember?
mbee1
1.7 / 5 (23) Feb 14, 2015
You might note the uncertainty in the graph. That is the blue thingy. They have no clue what the actual temperatures might be assuming you believe the proxies data. What they have done is simply pick the middle and claim back in 1000 AD that is the temperature and it is way higher today. you notice the uncertainty decreases as you come forward. That means the current temperature is less likely to be wrong assuming you buy into the methods used to measure it. The graph with an uncertainty range of .2 to -.6 is so wide you cannot really say anything about the actual temperature as your in the middle is a great big guess.
sf09er2002
4.5 / 5 (31) Feb 14, 2015
This graph has been proven over and over again, as explained in the article. Several proxies (methods) all had similar results and ended with the hockey stick. You can't dispute physics. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and even at the concentrations raised by humans, it can still have a warming effect. No credible physicist disputes this, hence why it is supported by both the American Physical Society and American Geophysical Union. If you need to watch it for yourself, see the global warming myth-busters episode on you tube.

The amount of conspiracy believing commenters on the web is ridiculous. You can't dispute the laws of physics. Many post some kind of cherry-picked spin propaganda, like the poles are gaining. No, see the National Snow & Ice Data Center website. The Arctic ice has been declining 3.2% per decade, since they started keeping satellite data in 1978. Antarctic 2D sea ice extent gains don't make up for the volumes of ice lost in the western Antarctic glaciers.
votsbh
1.8 / 5 (28) Feb 14, 2015
Is this article attempting to whitewash the "hockey stick" scandal?
Michael Mann, the "Distinguished Professor of Meteorology", is a deliberate liar.
The data on which the graph was based has been intentionally "adjusted" to produce
the alarming hockey stick effect. It was collaborated with several other fraudsters including
the entire IPCC of the United Nations fame.
Is this a liberal pandemic ? 0bama, Holder, Lois Lerner, Hillary, Brian Williams, Bill Clinton
Al Gore. It is an avalanche and no one gets punished. Nixon, Oli North and others were
dragged through the coals in the past. WHY not now ? Did lying become a "status quo"?
sf09er2002
4.4 / 5 (27) Feb 14, 2015
Exxon Mobil, former sponsor of the Heartland Institute's B.S. studies, which tried to dispute AGW, recently publicly admitted CO2's role in climate change. Conveniently, they then tried to downplay the future effects.

Even a significant amount GOP congressman acknowledge AWG. They know they can't fabricate anti-AGW propaganda forever.

You can't dispute physics or the overwhelming amount of data supported by all leading scientific bodies and academic societies (American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, American Meteorological Society, AAAS, etc.).
votsbh
1.5 / 5 (26) Feb 14, 2015
Here is a classic application of "0bama and Gore Principle", a variation on Joseph Goebbels's
finest work:
OVERWHELM THEM WITH B. S. AND THEY WILL BUY IT.
As confirmed by Professor Jonathan Gruber.
Keep changing the names, test results, methods, and causes. Something may stick.
Shootist
1.5 / 5 (24) Feb 14, 2015
Fraud or data manipulation?

Either way, Anthropomorphic Climate Change is a hoax.
snoosebaum
1.4 / 5 (22) Feb 14, 2015

i notice lots of commenters don't live near glaciers or see post glacial landscapes, so some sort of' hockey stick' is justified even if they have to cook the data. But the fact is its still very cold in lots of places this and last winter so i makes one wonder if they have it right, don'tcha think???Then theres this; matching pattern.
https://emsnews.f...8-am.png
gramkeel1987
1.9 / 5 (27) Feb 14, 2015
This is a perfect example of how to lie with graphs. the same methods for measuring temperature has not been used for all those years, so you can't use this to prove anything. The past temps were guestimates based on ice core samples and levels of greenhouse gasses in them. But the newer measurements are from thermometers, in the beginning, they were mercury thermometers, then later modern type and satellites.

The method of determining temp is not consistent.
Science Officer
1.9 / 5 (27) Feb 14, 2015
Actually, the very first UN IPCC report in 1990 showed a graph of historic temperatures, and the Medieval Warm Period was shown as warmer than today. Michael Mann Made Global Waring and his accomplices knew they had to erase the MWP, and have been manipulating data ever since. Does it make sense that the Vikings could raise crops in Greenland, or that the Romans could make wine in Britain, under colder conditions than we are able to today?
dcormieb
4.8 / 5 (17) Feb 14, 2015
...votsbh even pulling out the Nazi reference.


I would like to bring your attention to Godwin's law. According to Wikipedia:
"Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1""

Prophetic.
avankase1944
1.1 / 5 (14) Feb 15, 2015
Climate Change predictions speak to changing temp extremes, not averages.
dadpt
1.4 / 5 (22) Feb 15, 2015
So is the graph adjusted to show warming. My big question for all of these is today we are measuring true temperature with satellites. Ice core samples have been proven to be accurate how. This goes for CO2 levels and temperature. Same thing goes for the mathematical models these were validated how. Somehow mans magical CO2 contribution spreads evenly around the globe but gets intermixed into the upper layers of the atmosphere in just the right proportions along with a few molecules H2O in just the right layers with just the right physical properties. Amazing how that can happen. Just to bring Hitler into it. Hitler used propaganda to control his population. Its called PR these days. First you scare, then you use science to prove it and control the populace. IE oil bad, man bad agenda of the green movement is in threat of being out of control. Everyone knows natural gas, oil and coal are plentiful now. Can't keep on saying we are going to run out in 20 years.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (24) Feb 15, 2015
Hmm... the AGW Cult must be running out of lies, to feed their hungry Chicken Littles, for them to rehash the biggest one of all... THE HOCKEY SCHTICK
ssatak
1.7 / 5 (22) Feb 15, 2015
Ummm. Wasn't Mann discredited, along with his hockey stick?

And didn't the UN already admit the whole thing was a hoax intended to help destroy capitalism?

Maybe the column writer here didn't get the memo(s)?
TechnoCreed
4.8 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2015
@greenonions
HadCRUT4 does not originate from satellite observation. This near surface temperature data set is used as a basis for a global temperature record spanning from 1850 to present days and is produced by blending data from the CRUTEM4 land surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST3 sea surface temperature dataset. Let me suggest that you look at this video from the Met Office. https://www.youtu...2Tflw9BE
Megagorgo
4.5 / 5 (24) Feb 15, 2015
Mann was never discredited except by the oil and coal industry that sits on top of 50 billion in fossil fuels. Hence a lot of paid denialist shills on the internet and comments sections. If anything there are multiple studies by other scientists that match his temperature graph. As it is there's a certain moral bankruptcy on the part of the fossil fuel companies an their sycophants posting above: no qualms whatsoever about leaving subsequent generations the tyranny of the future that we make for them by not acting on global warming. For those who still doubt it, we have yet to have much winter weather in California. The AT&T at Pebble Beach, formerly the Crosby, was notorious for bad weather. There's none. People who have spent 30+ years there haven't seen anything like it.
As it is the evidence is overwhelming, from shrinking arctic ice to a very measurable 250 cubic km of surface ice disappearing from Greenland every year.
HeloMenelo
3.8 / 5 (24) Feb 15, 2015
aahhh, competition fever is coming on strong today, i see our little monkeys are getting frisky, once again proudly eager to show off their inability to understand science, and in general just planting a dumb image of themselves in everyone's mind... in turn making them and their political campaigns fall to new low's as they cry out with big "DOH!" whilst kicking themselves in the nuts once again... man this is going to be fun. So to get us started still very early in their downfall, here the competitors for today (the list likely will grow, but so far these bunch eagerly shows their intend on getting that red nose trophee, atta clownies come and get it :)

The clowns so far:

rockyrocky
michael_733
Omnishambles
Wake
phizzics
Melchizedek0001
partial recall
ubavontuba
Soultwang186
mbee1psychosalmon
sdrfz
Shootist
snoosebaum
votsbh
gramkeel1987
Science Officer
avankase1944
dadpt
antigoracle
ssatak
lil-green-man
4.2 / 5 (19) Feb 15, 2015
Michael Mann is a true hero for all of humanity. He and other scientists gave us the hard truth about global warming despite threats from denialists and the oil industry. Everyday more evidence proves Al Gore and Mann were right and Global Warming is real and happening now. It's too bad, I was just starting to like civilization.
jchaney
2.1 / 5 (26) Feb 15, 2015
Mann was never discredited


Actually he has been discredited by a lot of scientists that have nothing to do with big oil. The fact that you blindly follow people like Mann without ever questioning their methods or their results proves that you incapable of critical thinking. The fact is that Mann manipulated the data to produce the famous hockey stick. If you're unwilling to do even a basic search on Michael Mann data manipulation, then you are hopeless.

What you need to focus on is the fact that not one prediction that has been made about global warming has come to pass. The models used are so far off of observations that they are worthless. They even went back and changed the models so that they produced lower temperature predictions and they still show warming 3 times higher than what we observe.

And most important of all, none of the models can explain the current 18 year pause in global warming.
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (22) Feb 15, 2015
There's been a lot of nonsense and misinformation in these comments, but "Science" Officer's seems to represent much of the misinformation.
Actually, the very first UN IPCC report in 1990 showed a graph of historic temperatures, and the Medieval Warm Period was shown as warmer than today.

Not warmer than today. The latest they could have shown was 1990 and given the rapid warming of the 90s that figure would be incorrect today. Besides, the only figure that purports to compare the MWP to 1990 indicates that it's likely not global temperatures being reported. So it's likely a few ice cores being represented. Given that it's well known that the MWP was regional in nature (there was even an anti-science website that provided data supporting that - though their claim was MWP happened at the same time everywhere), it doesn't seem surprising that current temperatures are warmer than the MWP.

Cont.
zz5555
4 / 5 (23) Feb 15, 2015
Michael Mann Made Global Waring and his accomplices knew they had to erase the MWP, and have been manipulating data ever since.

And, yet, no one in the anti-science group can find evidence of any incorrect manipulation. Given the many independent confirmations that the MWP was likely not as warm as the current temperatures, are you actually claiming that hundreds or thousands of scientists are in on the scam? And the anti-science group isn't competent enough to show the error?
Does it make sense that the Vikings could raise crops in Greenland, or that the Romans could make wine in Britain, under colder conditions than we are able to today?

Since when does Greenland = the world? And since today Greenland does have agriculture and Britain does make wine maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong?
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (20) Feb 15, 2015
Oh, and I should note (again) that you in the anti-science group don't really want the MWP to be warmer than today. The climate drivers weren't doing all that much during that period, so an extreme MWP temperature would mean that climate sensitivity is higher than currently predicted. And that would mean that global warming is worse than the scientists currently believe.

All you chicken littles with your extreme MWP! ;)
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (21) Feb 15, 2015
Actually he has been discredited by a lot of scientists that have nothing to do with big oil.

I don't think you'll find that's true. His "hockey stick" has been improved on and confirmed many times over.
What you need to focus on is the fact that not one prediction that has been made about global warming has come to pass.

Many of the predictions made over 100 years ago have come to pass - including the increase in global temperatures. Can you think of any that haven't?
And most important of all, none of the models can explain the current 18 year pause in global warming.

What do models have to do with any of this? Are you saying that since all the data supports climate science that, because models aren't intended or designed to be used over short time periods, all the science is wrong? Is that really how weak your argument is?
snoosebaum
2.1 / 5 (15) Feb 15, 2015
@ onions ''We could discuss the difference between weather and climate (oh no that has been done 10 million times). Or maybe how 'lots of places' does not equate to the whole globe (yeah we have been beating that dead horse for decades)

please do , i'm maybe a bit confused, i understand GW is a gradual accumulation of heat, but how does it still escape the warm blanket? warmists are lousy weather predictors
HeloMenelo
3.4 / 5 (15) Feb 15, 2015
jchaney warming things up with four 1 out of 5 votes (directly related to the incompetent reply given of course) , good reply zz5555 i'll add an extra 5/5 for you.
wujichi
2.2 / 5 (17) Feb 15, 2015
"I'm sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction."

~ paleoclimatologist Ray Bradley, Director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (Climategate email 3373)
HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (16) Feb 15, 2015
please do , i'm maybe a bit confused...


of course you are my little monkey, you qualified to be on the clown trophee list above, but i need an even dumber reply before you'd be considered for the red nose trophee... keep trying..
zz5555
4.1 / 5 (17) Feb 15, 2015
i understand GW is a gradual accumulation of heat, but how does it still escape the warm blanket?

I'm not sure I understand this question. Are you saying that you believe that decreasing the emission of radiation into space is the same as stopping all emissions? That would seem to be a very silly belief, so maybe I've misunderstood you. Regardless, you can read up on the greenhouse gas effect at http://scienceofd...e-terms/ . The basics really are pretty simple.
Losik
Feb 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2015
Here in Maine the temperature this winter has been 10 degrees on average colder than normal with about twice the amount of normal snowfall. Can I assume we are headed into another ice age?

Well as your world seems to entirely consist of "Maine" ... then you might be correct (by your bizarre small-minded logic).
Even the whole of the "good ole us of a" ain't the world my friend least of all one state.
Looky here for Jan '15 anomalies. Yes - it's deffo been cold aint it??

http://data.giss....;pol=rob
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2015
The Great Lakes are 70% ice covered and will surpass 80% for only the 7th time in 50 years, typical of and out of control, accelerating warming atmosphere.

See my prior post and the intellectual fail involved in your post.
Not that you care of course.
FFS
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2015
Here is a classic application of "0bama and Gore Principle", a variation on Joseph Goebbels's
finest work:
OVERWHELM THEM WITH B. S. AND THEY WILL BUY IT.
As confirmed by Professor Jonathan Gruber.
Keep changing the names, test results, methods, and causes. Something may stick.

And your scientific point is ????????????
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2015

i notice lots of commenters don't live near glaciers or see post glacial landscapes, so some sort of' hockey stick' is justified even if they have to cook the data. But the fact is its still very cold in lots of places this and last winter so i makes one wonder if they have it right, don'tcha think???Then theres this; matching pattern.

And again....

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

Very many more areas of very warm compared to "very cold".
runrig
4.4 / 5 (19) Feb 15, 2015
Actually, the very first UN IPCC report in 1990 showed a graph of historic temperatures, and the Medieval Warm Period was shown as warmer than today

Mythic....

The graph from the IPCC FAR was based on Hubert Lamb's approximation of the central England temperature (CET). It was intended only as a schematic diagram, and known not to accurately reflect the global average temperature. (not even a temp scale).

This is the IPCC comment on the MWP....
"The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th ct. However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th ct as a whole, during any period in medieval times."
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2015
Climate Change predictions speak to changing temp extremes, not averages.

Correct - but warming as an average is taken of those "extremes".
Because of the Arctic warming fastest.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2015
Ummm. Wasn't Mann discredited, along with his hockey stick?

And didn't the UN already admit the whole thing was a hoax intended to help destroy capitalism?

Maybe the column writer here didn't get the memo(s)?


No it's you who didn't get the "memo's" - read dozens of other "hockey-stick" graphs produced via other means....
If you are a denier (rhetorical), then of course you will ignore further science and the robust nature of things, as, if you'd read it - the article above states. There are broadening error bars as the graph goes back into the MWP BTW.
Just like "climategate".
And myths in general.....They have a life of their own.
If you are an anti-science "not my tax-dollars" type who gets their "science" from Blogs.
QED
FFS
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2015
jchaney:
Actually he has been discredited by a lot of scientists that have nothing to do with big oil. The fact that you blindly follow people like Mann without ever questioning their methods or their results proves that you incapable of critical thinking.


OK
Please provide evidence from these scientists for Mann being "discredited".

And by corollary ALL the other graphs that have produced the same shape since.

Oh, I forgot - it's all a scam by libril scientists to get a Commie Gubderment in.
Silly me.

Oh, also please provide any (IPCC AR projections) that have not come true.
Bar single sound bite comments blown up by right-wing media.
AGW is a long-term threat and one for our children/grandkids future.

Critical thinking is the entire raison d'etre of science.
To use that as a reason to support anti-science is bizarre.

Oh, and what constitutes your "critical thinking"? WUWT?
runrig
4.1 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2015
"I'm sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction."


"The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate" by Rutherford et al (2004)."

http://www.realcl...y-stick/
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2015
"There have been dozens of other climate reconstructions, all very similar to ours... I was forced to take on a role very different than the one that I had envisioned," said Mann.
I see, the authors of stick graph manipulation are trying to marginalize it and save their face before public, once it turns out, that the global warming is not so global...;-)


Sorry you don't like the "stick" graph my friend. That really is a great shame.
If you live long enough you may well learn that life is full of disappointment.

Rather than hand-waving myths to Troll this site. You could develop some thinking grey matter and learn how the world works instead of stamping your foot and throwing your dummy out of your pram in a vain attempt to make the world work like you want it to.
HeloMenelo
3.6 / 5 (17) Feb 15, 2015
jchaney:

Actually he has been discredited by a lot of scientists that have nothing to do with big oil. The fact that you blindly follow people like Mann without ever questioning their methods or their results proves that you incapable of critical thinking.

OK
Please provide evidence from these scientists for Mann being "discredited".

And by corollary ALL the other graphs that have produced the same shape since.


oooohh... we got a good candidate here, lots of evidence right here that might put this clown up for the trophy... seven 1 out of 5 votes for this monkey on his last comment...

well put runrig, as usual you got yet another 5 out of 5 vote... :)
Eddy Courant
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 15, 2015
Boring. Alarmists, admit you fuckedup. Or don't. But stop the chain rattling already.
Jack Wolf
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 15, 2015
Considering the national security implications of fossil fuel driven abrupt climate change, and the fact that those who deny it are putting us at grave risk, folks may want to sign this petition to have the Office of Personnel Mgt. review the security clearances of those in Congress that deny fossil fuel driven climate change. Thanks, and don't forget to share:

https://petitions...tRYN5F8j
Eddy Courant
2 / 5 (12) Feb 15, 2015
Too funny!
we petition the obama administration to:
Have the Office of Personnel Management Review the Security Clearances of Manmade Climate Change Deniers in Congress

Since early in the Bush Administration, the DoD has deemed manmade climate change a national security threat. Many of our key bases are imperiled by sea level rise. Military experts say stress caused by climate change foments unrest in volatile parts of the world. Scientists now know that a climate change-driven drought precipitated the Syrian civil war, which helped ISIS flourish.

In the face of this, many Congress members refuse to accept a decades-old scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is warming our planet. These actors dismiss the science in favor of the needs of their campaign donors in the fossil fuel industries. We believe these individuals are threats to the safety of the United States, and ask the OPM to reassess their security credentials.

Published Date: Feb 13, 2015
JoeBlue
2 / 5 (12) Feb 15, 2015
I see the propagandists are out in full ad-hom force still.

The department of defense said there were WMD's in Iraq too.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (17) Feb 15, 2015
Here is a classic application of "0bama and Gore Principle", a variation on Joseph Goebbels's
finest work:
OVERWHELM THEM WITH B. S. AND THEY WILL BUY IT.
As confirmed by Professor Jonathan Gruber.
Keep changing the names, test results, methods, and causes. Something may stick.
Classic "There is no warming because I hate AL Gore". Followed immediately by Reductio ad Hitlerum: (a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.) He who plays the hate card first is always the one losing the argument.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2015
Actually he has been discredited by a lot of scientists that have nothing to do with big oil.
You are wrong. But its an easy claim to check. Link to one scientist who has discredited him.
The fact that you blindly follow people like Mann without ever questioning their methods or their results proves that you incapable of critical thinking. The fact is that Mann manipulated the data to produce the famous hockey stick. If you're unwilling to do even a basic search on Michael Mann data manipulation, then you are hopeless.
No facts, just more denialist hogwash.

What you need to focus on is the fact that not one prediction that has been made about global warming has come to pass. blah blah..
And most important of all, none of the models can explain the current 18 year pause in global warming.
Again, all wrong. Straight up BS.
JoeBlue
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 15, 2015
Mann was caught in email that he sent and others in the field that he spoke to manipulating the data. This is well documented history already. You can't deny history that is well documented, no matter how much you dislike the findings.

Classic "There is no warming because I hate AL Gore". Followed immediately by Reductio ad Hitlerum: (a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.) He who plays the hate card first is always the one losing the argument.


How odd the alarmists have been calling skeptics and scientists that disagree with the models names for over a decade now.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (19) Feb 15, 2015
"I'm sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction."

~ paleoclimatologist Ray Bradley, Director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (Climategate email 3373)


Excellent, a 1 line quote taken out of context from thousands of illegally hacked private email communications presented in such a way as to suggest a nefarious purpose.

A lie remains a lie regardless of the number of times it is repeated.
zz5555
3.7 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2015
Mann was caught in email that he sent and others in the field that he spoke to manipulating the data. This is well documented history already.

What do you mean by "manipulating"? All data must be manipulated in some way to make use of it. Anti-science groups haven't found anything wrong with what Mann and others used independent data to obtain the same findings. Claiming, as you seem to be doing, that Mann has done something improper without any evidence of him doing something wrong seems somewhat deceptive on your part.
JoeBlue
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 15, 2015
Mann was caught in email that he sent and others in the field that he spoke to manipulating the data. This is well documented history already.

What do you mean by "manipulating"? All data must be manipulated in some way to make use of it. Anti-science groups haven't found anything wrong with what Mann and others used independent data to obtain the same findings. Claiming, as you seem to be doing, that Mann has done something improper without any evidence of him doing something wrong seems somewhat deceptive on your part.


I see personal attacks, but nothing of substance.
zz5555
4.1 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2015
I see personal attacks, but nothing of substance.

You were the one making accusations. Do you have any evidence of wrongdoing on Mann's part? "Manipulating the data" is a very vague accusation and not evidence of any wrongdoing. Even McIntyre, who's made something of a career out of complaining about MBH 1999, has stated that using raw data without properly manipulating it will only get you a wrong answer.
samohta
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 15, 2015
Recent solar observations from renown climatologist, Punxsutawney Phil Sowerby PhD, have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the validity of climate change. His climate model is the world standard. Hopefully his methodology and research methods will be included in the IPCC's next report.
DarkLordKelvin
4.2 / 5 (19) Feb 15, 2015
Wow, I guess those who continue to vilify Mann based on a couple of emails taken completely out of context just either can't or don't want to identify a witch hunt when they see one. It's not like Mann's data exists in a vacuum ... yes, he selected some proxies for temperature when constructing the now-infamous graph. So what? ... If you pick basically any other reasonable set of proxies, the graph looks essentially the same.

As for the supposed "18 year stall" in global temperatures .. that is malarkey drawn from a false comparison of *average* annual data to a single year (1998), where global temperatures are known to have been anomalously hot. Furthermore, while it *is* true that the atmosphere has warmed less than expected (based on some models) over the past two decades or so, they are now finding that the ocean has warmed more than expected over the same time period. That should get everyone's attention, since it's way harder to heat water than air.
Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 15, 2015
Hey is "science of doom" still led by Sinestro?

"Article by science of doom." That's pretty rich.
Look at the misconstrue with CO2's 35000 bands. They're using a non-atmospheric standard. For all intents and purposes in the real world, CO2 has one absorption band.

I love how it says high above the atmosphere is the important effect. No, the elements keeping the heat where it is released, ground level, would be more important.

It completely ignores the 0.04% issue. Defers then ignores it.

It says the same thing for water vapor:

But let me ask you, where is insulation more important. In your ceiling or in your roof? Closer or farther away?

The GHG effect increases with temperature gradient. The Earth's temperature changes as the square of height. Therefor the most important effects are near ground level. Obviously, that's where heat is produced, by Sun and combustion.

Science of Doom should be as embarrassed as Skepticalscience.
outersphere
4 / 5 (12) Feb 15, 2015
Must be time for the Deniers to get their paychecks from their Koch uncles for muttering gibberish.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 15, 2015
Considering the national security implications of fossil fuel driven abrupt climate change, and the fact that those who deny it are putting us at grave risk, folks may want to sign this petition to have the Office of Personnel Mgt. review the security clearances of those in Congress that deny fossil fuel driven climate change. Thanks, and don't forget to share:


Thanks, Mr Wolf -signed'n'shared.
mbee1
2 / 5 (12) Feb 15, 2015
The amount of false information out there in the believer crowd is just mind boggling. Manns graph is only a hockey stick if you believe his proxies. His graph is only a hockey stick if you just like Mann ignore 40 years of a proxy you do not like that goes in the opposite direction he wanted the data to go. Manns graph does not correspond with the RSS data which shows a non warming for 18 years, Mann graph does not correspond to the mid and lower troposphere data which shows no trend in 55 years. Manns data does not correspond to the real world measurements which show either no increase or a decrease in temperatures in much of the world. Snow and ice are at record measurements yet the world is supposed to be warmer, that does not compute unless you change the actual measurements which they have done to fit their idea of reality. .
mbee1
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 15, 2015
Take the misinformation on CO2. One poster goes on about it warming the lower atmosphere. Unless you are completely uneducated you can see there is a problem with that on any clear night. That night is a lot colder than a cloudy night as the only thing between you and outer space temperatures is .04% CO2 and water vapor. Since you get colder, a lot colder on a clear night CO2 is not warming the ground air any more than it is warming the upper air. Being slightly more massive than O2 or N2 and in a certain energy state able to absorb lower frequency radiation it slightly delays the readmission of heat as the energy makes it way back to space. The retard effect is pretty poor as that cold night tells you if you are not blind.
Urgelt
3.5 / 5 (19) Feb 16, 2015
Hey, there, denier nutters.

The debate is over. It ended quite some time ago.

Go find something else to do. You're just wasting your breath.
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2015
Must be time for the Deniers to get their paychecks from their Koch uncles for muttering gibberish.


Just reading the responses to this article, I've never seen them come out like this before. I think you right. To many right wingnut POVs. I't has to be a paid for troll attack. Either that or a bunch a really dim bulbs decided to speak up and demonstrate their stupidity on Phys.org.

howhot2
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2015
The amount of false information out there in the believer crowd is just mind boggling. Manns graph is only a hockey stick if you believe his proxies. His graph is only a hockey stick if you just like Mann ignore 40 years of a proxy you do not like that goes in the opposite direction he wanted the data to go. Manns graph does not correspond with the RSS data which shows a non warming for 18 years, Mann graph does not correspond to the mid and lower troposphere data which shows no trend in 55 years. Manns data does not correspond to the real world measurements which show either no increase or a decrease in temperatures in much of the world. Snow and ice are at record measurements yet the world is supposed to be warmer, that does not compute unless you change the actual measurements which they have done to fit their idea of reality. .

Typical denier. Attack Mann. Actually Mann was a Genius! Your an idiot and an a pusher of BS. Just goto http://www.noaa.gov and learn.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2015
As usual, mbee1 comes up with a gish gallop of anti science. Here's some interesting bits:
His graph is only a hockey stick if you just like Mann ignore 40 years of a proxy you do not like that goes in the opposite direction he wanted the data to go.

Actually, this isn't true. If you eliminate all of that proxy, you still get a hockey stick. And since the last 40 years or so of that proxy disagreed with temperature readings from thermometers, you'd obviously be incorrect to include those last 40 years of the proxy.
Manns graph does not correspond with the RSS data which shows a non warming for 18 years

But why should it correspond with the RSS data? Mann's reconstruction is of surface temperatures. Satellites don't measure surface temperatures. In addition, satellites are more sensitive to ENSO, so El Nino highs are higher for satellites and La Nina lows are lower.

Cont.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2015
So if you use satellites, then the beginning of that 18 years (a very strong El Nino) appears warmer than it actually was on the surface and the end of the period (mostly La Ninas) appears cooler - leaving you with a large cooling bias. Also, satellites only measure light, so if the satellite model doesn't include clouds correctly, then less light reaches the satellites and the satellites read cooler temperatures (there's some indication this is happening with the RSS satellite model).

mbee1, why are you trying to hide the rise in surface temperatures?

Mann graph does not correspond to the mid and lower troposphere data which shows no trend in 55 years.

According to your RSS satellite, the lower troposphere has had a warming trend of ~0.125C/decade (http://en.wikiped...l_record ), which, given the known cooling bias of the satellites, fits well with the instrument record.
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2015
Manns data does not correspond to the real world measurements which show either no increase or a decrease in temperatures in much of the world.

As shown, even the satellite record, with its well known cooling bias, shows an increase in temperatures over the world. How does this show "no increase or a decrease in temperatures"? Or are you referring to a short period where the cooling bias of the satellites is accentuated (due to a very strong El Nino at the start and La Ninas over much of the following 17 years)?

mbee1, why are you trying to hide the rise in surface temperatures?

Cont.
Johan-C
1 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
Even IPCC itself gave up on Mann's hockey stick years ago. In the Fifth Assessment Report IPCC shows a curve with a very pronounced Medieval Warm Period.
The whole idea of Mann's hockey stick was to eliminate the MWP.
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2015
Snow and ice are at record measurements yet the world is supposed to be warmer,

This is one of the most amusing bits. Climate science predicts higher snowfall (until temperatures warm up too much). In fact, there was a great deal of surprise when it was found that Antarctica was losing mass last decade. Many scientists felt that the increased precipitation from global warming would offset the increased melting of the ice for longer than it did. You see, as the air warms, it can hold more moisture and, as anyone who has ever lived in an area with snow can tell you, you get a lot more snow as you warm up to freezing.

Climate science also predicted that the snow would melt earlier in the spring - which it has (http://climate.ru...season=2 ).

Curse you, climate science! Your predictions came true! You must be a fraud! ;)
kellyburgess1
1 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2015
greenonions said;
"What is ignored by the antagonists is the actual data. The red curve being actual satellite data. Notice that the article talks about how multiple lines of data all agree. You can check this out by going to the woodfortrees web site that is used so often on these comments - and see that - yes - different data sets give the same general curve - ever since satellites were brought into the picture." You may wish to check satellite usage in the 1850's .

zz5555
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2015
The whole idea of Mann's hockey stick was to eliminate the MWP.

Hmm. Why would he want to eliminate the MWP since it would imply that the climate sensitivity was worse than thought and our current warming will go higher than thought? Are you saying that Mann is trying to show that the current warming isn't as bad as everyone thinks?

And, if they meant to give up on Mann's "hockey stick", why did they leave it in in the AR5 report?
Johan-C
1 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
"And, if they meant to give up on Mann's "hockey stick", why did they leave it in in the AR5 report?"

Figure 5.7 in the 5th Assessment Report (http://www.climat...5-7.jpg) does not even begin to resemble Mann's 1999 curve as (also) shown in the 3d AR.

syndicate_51
2.3 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
1 millennia is nice, but a longer more complete time scale would be better. Going back to at least the last Ice age and preferably the farther the better. Say prehistoric far. Because I want to see all the history and if life fared better or worse during warmer and colder epochs. So that I may make my own inference based on the data instead of having this crap or that crap spoon fed to me from either camp to support either of their agendas! Enough!
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2015
Take the misinformation on CO2. One poster goes on about it warming the lower atmosphere. Unless you are completely uneducated you can see there is a problem with that on any clear night. That night is a lot colder than a cloudy night as the only thing between you and outer space temperatures is .04% CO2 and water vapor. Since you get colder, a lot colder on a clear night CO2 is not warming the ground air any more than it is warming the upper air. Being slightly more massive than O2 or N2 and in a certain energy state able to absorb lower frequency radiation it slightly delays the readmission of heat as the energy makes it way back to space. The retard effect is pretty poor as that cold night tells you if you are not blind.


You have hit on one problem AGW proponents (not ness. scientists) always avoid. They always avoid the effects of clouds. As they must. For your exact reasons. It makes it a case closed.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2015
Fig 5.7 in AR5 .....does not even begin to resemble Mann's 1999 curve as (also) shown in the 3d AR.

AR5 WGI Ch 5 p 409, 413, 419 all show different versions of Holocene temperature reconstructions... aka, 'the hockey stick'.

Mann's work is referenced extensively throughout Chapter 5. Just search on ' Mann' in the text of the chapter. In figure 5.7, the hockey sticks on page 409, the four reconstructions with labels starting with 'Ma' (e.g. 'Ma09rem') are from Mann's work.

Mann's original 1998 'hockey stick' is not included... having since been superceded by subsequent work by Mann and others. So, to rephrase, 'The original hockey stick isn't in IPCC AR5! Instead, they used several of the newer ones which reach the same conclusions with even more conclusive data.
Johan-C
1.5 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2015
"So, to rephrase, 'The original hockey stick isn't in IPCC AR5! Instead, they used several of the newer ones which reach the same conclusions with even more conclusive data."

This article is about Mann's "iconic graph", and the reason that it is "iconic" is because it excluded - what is apparently now called - the "Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA)" (?) and the "Little Ice Age" (LIA). Otherwise, it would have been a very odd looking "hockey stick" indeed. See the graph on top of this page. And that "iconic graph" is still nowhere to be seen in AR5.

So, you tell me, why does PSU still bother to show us this - obviously - obsolete graph, instead of the most recent one(s) (with MCA & LIA) ?

Runrig, why do you keep defending the undefendable ?
DimitrisPoulos
1 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
climate science reproduces mistakes of the past. Since 2006 that I made the relevant scientific announcements they have not pondered into my research, even at my recent 2014 paper wich forms a whole new physical theory. Instead they delete my blog posts. They make anti science promoting their agentas alarmists and deniers altogether kind of.
dimispoulos.wix.com/dimis
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2015
"And, if they meant to give up on Mann's "hockey stick", why did they leave it in in the AR5 report?"

Figure 5.7 in the 5th Assessment Report (http://www.climat...5-7.jpg) does not even begin to resemble Mann's 1999 curve as (also) shown in the 3d AR.



What are you talking about? It looks almost exactly the same, except that it has been extended in time to cover 2000 years instead of the 1000 used in Mann's original reconstruction from 1988! 1988 is nearly 30 years ago for crying out loud, yet all of reconstructions used in the AR5 report of 2013, Chapter 5, page 409, figure 5-7 look almost exactly the same as that nearly 30 year old reconstruction.

I just shake my head at the ignorance displayed by some posters here.
wkingmilw
5 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2015
Listening to the aggressive nature of the deniers arguments leads me to believe they're trying to persuade with a bunch of hand waving and bluster to distract me from the other side's position. I'm not scientist, so I look at information from many sources. I can see in the measurements that mankind is engaged in activities that are having a detectable and significant impact on the overall condition of the planet. Common sense says mankind cannot continue its ever accelerating consumption of resources. At some point we're all going to have to have a bite of the sandwich and the longer we wait, the bigger the bite. We all need to do what we can to minimize the impact that our activities have on the world around us.
DimitrisPoulos
1 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2015
on the other hand occasional readers rest peacefully on the authority of institutions and Big Names... this is suposed to be science and science related discusion, well modern science is full of crap, it's always been, and it shows at every circumstancy, proof being the huge amount of climate change topics and discusions over the last twenty years, proven to be Off Topic at least...
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2015
This article is about Mann's "iconic graph", and the reason that it is "iconic" is because it excluded - what is apparently now called - the "Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA)" (?) and the "Little Ice Age" (LIA). Otherwise, it would have been a very odd looking "hockey stick" indeed. See the graph on top of this page. And that "iconic graph" is still nowhere to be seen in AR5.
Of course not, it has been replaced with better more accurate reconstructions. It is nearly 30 years old, after all.

So, you tell me, why does PSU still bother to show us this - obviously - obsolete graph, instead of the most recent one(s) (with MCA & LIA) ?
It explains why in the article.

Runrig, why do you keep defending the undefendable ?
A better question is, why to you continue to deny the undeniable?
DimitrisPoulos
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2015
people till now have shown their preferance on lies, as long as they can find peace in their minds, it's a new category, the Peacefull Pseudoscience declaring itself dogmatically as the scientific frame.
Johan-C
1.1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2015
"A better question is, why to you continue to deny the undeniable?"

Exactly what is it that I'm denying ?
DimitrisPoulos
1 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
so what most people do in these blogs, journals and discussions around climate? Rhetoric acrobatics, sophisms
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2015
So, you tell me, why does PSU still bother to show us this - obviously - obsolete graph, instead of the most recent one(s) (with MCA & LIA) ?


No idea. Why don't you ask them?
I'd only suggest, because it is iconic.
I'd also suggest that multiple graphs have replicated the same shape.
Are they all fraudulent?

Runrig, why do you keep defending the undefendable ?


Mmmm interesting.

And from what authority do you gain this insight, that science is "defending the undefendable"?

Are you saying that the enemies of science are the upholders of scientific truth?

For my own part - I have been immersed in the workings and physics of our atmosphere from the age of 19 up till present. I am 60. With`32 years working for the UKMO.
Now at this point contempt usually overcomes many deniers I converse with.
I hope you are different.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2015
"A better question is, why to you continue to deny the undeniable?"

Exactly what is it that I'm denying ?
That the "iconic graph" from 30 years ago gave a good approximation of the heat energy being retained by the planet due to the addition of CO2 from fossil fuel burning, thus adding to the body of knowledge then, that was suggesting that the average global temperature was the highest, or approaching the highest, this planet has seen in at least the last 1000 years.

Do you understand what rhetorical or pretentious means?

How about pompous?
DimitrisPoulos
1 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
Of course not, it has been replaced with better more accurate reconstructions. It is nearly 30 years old, after all.


says who?
DimitrisPoulos
1 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2015
Maggnus,
who told you that later recostructions are better and more accurate?
instead they are more mistaken because they added a so called multy-centenial variation parameter wich they thought would make them better but "unfortunally" lead them to be far more mistaken
runrig
4.5 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2015
"A better question is, why to you continue to deny the undeniable?"
Exactly what is it that I'm denying ?

How about ~150 years of empirical science that has shown the GHE of CO2.
Not up for argument. Like the sky is blue and the sea is green and apples fall from trees.
It goes without saying - the thousands of scientists whose diligent research has gone into the the IPCC AR's.

By consideration of the 40% increase of said CO2 that has been caused by mankind.

The evidence of your own eyes to be gained by Googling recent vs past pics of glaciers.
By consideration of spectral analysis of back-radiated IR to the Earth's surface showing CO2 to be the origin. Of satellite showing an imbalance at TOA between solar SW and terrestrial IR

By consideration of there being no other possible causative agent.
ie not the Sun, not geothermal, not somehow springing from El Ninos. Not Cosmic rays. Not DM and certainly not because Mr Dyson says not.

And there's much more
Johan-C
1.1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2015
runrig, ad verecundiam doesn't work for me, and neither does hasty generalization. By "defending the undefendable" I clearly (or so I thought) meant defending an "iconic graph" that not even IPCC regards as "iconic" any more (see my original post), No more, no less. But - not unlike Maggnus - from this you conclude that I am "an enemy of science" ?

No, I don't understand why "contempt should all of a sudden overcome me" ? Perhaps because I'm so pompous ? (Not that I blame you for the Ad Homs others commit).



runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2015
Maggnus,
who told you that later recostructions are better and more accurate?
.....................

Ah yes - tis true.
But only when it doesn't suit the denier's argument.
Which is always of course.
DimitrisPoulos
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2015
btw someone is giving aces on me, I take that as a compliment...
DimitrisPoulos
1 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2015


Maggnus,
who told you that later recostructions are better and more accurate?
.....................

Ah yes - tis true.
But only when it doesn't suit the denier's argument.
Which is always of course.

I supose yo uhaven't read my paper
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2015
runrig, ad verecundiam doesn't work for me, and neither does hasty generalization. By "defending the undefendable" I clearly (or so I thought) meant defending an "iconic graph" that not even IPCC regards as "iconic" any more (see my original post), No more, no less. But - not unlike Maggnus - from this you conclude that I am "an enemy of science" ?

No, I don't understand why "contempt should all of a sudden overcome me" ? Perhaps because I'm so pompous ? (Not that I blame you for the Ad Homs others commit).




If you only focus on the graph - and do not adhere to denialism for ideological and ant-scince ones - then I apologise. if not i do not.
It gets rather wearing batting the moles back into the ground. I have been doing it many years.
Most are, as I described and are, as a result, of course entirely unreachable.
I merely correct them to deny ignorance .... for others.
I have no problem with true sceptics.
I hope you are the latter.
Johan-C
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
runrig "How about ~150 years ..."

And exactly where did I "deny" all that ???
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2015


Maggnus,
who told you that later recostructions are better and more accurate?
.....................

Ah yes - tis true.
But only when it doesn't suit the denier's argument.
Which is always of course.

I supose yo uhaven't read my paper

Have you heard of Doug Cotton?
He is someone who thinks he has reinvented the wheel as well. And all empirical thermodynamics is wrong. From a theory. No experiment. Just theory.
(to do with a gravity field creating a deltaT).
I have "conversed" with him on Roy Spencer's Blog. Away with the Fairies - and like talking to a parrot.
No you have not re-invented the wheel either.
We cracked that some time ago.
It works.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2015
Appeal to authority? Perhaps you could point out where such was done in this thread? Same for Hasty Generalization. Exactly where do you think that fallacy was committed?

Clearly you were using the rhetorical tactic of making an overbroad statement of ridicule towards the object of this article in a fallacious attempt to extend that ridicule to the entirety of the subject of global warming. You did so with the expectation that your Appeal to Ridicule would be overlooked by the other posters. The former is pretentious, the latter pompous.

The reconstruction is considered "iconic" because it was one of the first reconstructions that showed the sudden, dramatic rise in temperature that manifested during the latter half of the 20th century. Perhaps you don't understand what iconic means?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2015
johan,

In order to debunk Mann it is necessary to debunk all the reconstructions since. But, as the article says.....
"There have been dozens of other climate reconstructions, all very similar to ours," said Mann. "They are based on different data and different approaches, and of course everyone thinks their approach is best, but they all imply that the modern warming spike is unique. And still the Hockey Stick remains the iconic graph."

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And the imitation was achieved through independent research. I hope you accept that.
DimitrisPoulos
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015


Maggnus,
who told you that later recostructions are better and more accurate?
.....................

Ah yes - tis true.
But only when it doesn't suit the denier's argument.
Which is always of course.

I supose yo uhaven't read my paper

Have you heard of Doug Cotton?
He is someone who thinks he has reinvented the wheel as well. And all empirical thermodynamics is wrong. From a theory. No experiment. Just theory.
(to do with a gravity field creating a deltaT).
I have "conversed" with him on Roy Spencer's Blog. Away with the Fairies - and like talking to a parrot.
No you have not re-invented the wheel either.
We cracked that some time ago.
It works.

LOL
though my paper is most probably correct it is funny to argue that way, no wheel invention, just minimal arguing where you miss to openly talk about. LOL
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2015
johan,

If you mean I appealed to *my* authority. OK, if you say so.
It's after all what you appealed to when you went to Uni.
it's the way the world works - and common-sensefully too.
Those that know best, pass on their knowledge.
I'm not saying I have all the answers, just that my informed opinion is that the science is sound.
I assumed you were denigrating all AGW science when I made that comment.
Are you?
DimitrisPoulos
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
Appeal to authority? Perhaps you could point out where such was done in this thread? Same for Hasty Generalization. Exactly where do you think that fallacy was committed?

Clearly you were using the rhetorical tactic of making an overbroad statement of ridicule towards the object of this article in a fallacious attempt to extend that ridicule to the entirety of the subject of global warming. You did so with the expectation that your Appeal to Ridicule would be overlooked by the other posters. The former is pretentious, the latter pompous.

The reconstruction is considered "iconic" because it was one of the first reconstructions that showed the sudden, dramatic rise in temperature that manifested during the latter half of the 20th century. Perhaps you don't understand what iconic means?

Don't take it personal it's about the whole area being pompoous not particularly your sayings. Just made some general remarks. It's a pity you miss to understand.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2015


Maggnus,
who told you that later recostructions are better and more accurate?
.....................

Ah yes - tis true.
But only when it doesn't suit the denier's argument.
Which is always of course.

I supose yo uhaven't read my paper

Have you heard of Doug Cotton?
He is someone who thinks he has reinvented the wheel as well. And all empirical thermodynamics is wrong. From a theory. No experiment. Just theory.
(to do with a gravity field creating a deltaT).
I have "conversed" with him on Roy Spencer's Blog. Away with the Fairies - and like talking to a parrot.
No you have not re-invented the wheel either.
We cracked that some time ago.
It works.

LOL
though my paper is most probably correct it is funny to argue that way, no wheel invention, just minimal arguing where you miss to openly talk about. LOL

If it is correct.
Prove it with experiments.
Write a paper.
And get yourself a Nobel.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
LOL
though my paper is most probably correct it is funny to argue that way, no wheel invention, just minimal arguing where you miss to openly talk about. LOL
@DimitrisPoulos
do you have a link of your paper
a free copy that can be read?

i have not seen your link above
is the link to a reputable peer reviewed publication or are we talking a blog or something?
what?

please link your paper so that it can be assessed for it's value, otherwise you are arguing oranges while everyone else talks about fleas.

DimitrisPoulos
2 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2015
LOL
though my paper is most probably correct it is funny to argue that way, no wheel invention, just minimal arguing where you miss to openly talk about. LOL
@DimitrisPoulos
do you have a link of your paper
a free copy that can be read?

i have not seen your link above
is the link to a reputable peer reviewed publication or are we talking a blog or something?
what?

please link your paper so that it can be assessed for it's value, otherwise you are arguing oranges while everyone else talks about fleas.


thanks for the interest.
I linked above.
dimispoulos.wix.com/dimis and itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1486/
there are alternate sources too you can google.
Johan-C
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2015
runrig,

Yes, i consider myself a "true sceptic". I regularly visit Roy Spencer's blog, and Climate Audit (not that I agree with everything posted there). And it is still my feeling that even if "shoddy" statistics leads to the right conclusions, it is still bad statistics. Mann (in his original paper) made mistakes, and he's not doing climate science a favour by "denying" (oops) that.

Anyway, I won't be bothering you any longer. Much to my surprise - and with you as one of the few exceptions - I find the level of debate here so low (from both sides) one - as the saying goes - has to stoop in order to reach it.

Too bad one cannot engage in a civilized discussion here. Good luck !

Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
Don't take it personal it's about the whole area being pompoous not particularly your sayings. Just made some general remarks. It's a pity you miss to understand.
What is pompoous? I "miss to understand" what exactly?

I wasn't talking to you, and as you are clearly another overlooked genius whose treatise is so profound you have to come to the comment section of a relatively obscure science news site to announce your discovery to the world, I doubt I ever will.

You should hook up with Zephyr, the two of you have a lot in common.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2015
I linked above.
@DimitrisPoulos

http://dimispoulo...nfo/1486
(Error 404)
We Looked Everywhere
For This Page!
GOGLE gave me this: Your search - dimispoulos.wix.com/dimis-and-itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1486 - did not match any documents.

Please link or type in the HTTP address located in the address bar of your browser at the top of your browser (where it says: HTTP:// and then there is words)
Please copy everything because your link is not owrking and your address is not correct

ALSO
I have looked through all your posts and i see NO active links
only the same as what you have above

Please correct this and give a link we can use

THANKS
DimitrisPoulos
2 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2015
Don't take it personal it's about the whole area being pompoous not particularly your sayings. Just made some general remarks. It's a pity you miss to understand.
What is pompoous? I "miss to understand" what exactly?

I wasn't talking to you, and as you are clearly another overlooked genius whose treatise is so profound you have to come to the comment section of a relatively obscure science news site to announce your discovery to the world, I doubt I ever will.

You should hook up with Zephyr, the two of you have a lot in common.

no comment just who the heck is Zephyr
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2015
thanks for the interest
@DimitrisPoulos
OK first let me verify that this is the legit paper you are referring to:

http://www.itia.n...fo/1486/

http://www.itia.n...aper.pdf

Found using DuckDuckGo.com

DimitrisPoulos
2 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2015
I linked above.
@DimitrisPoulos

http://dimispoulo...nfo/1486
(Error 404)
We Looked Everywhere
For This Page!
GOGLE gave me this: Your search - dimispoulos.wix.com/dimis-and-itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1486 - did not match any documents.

Please link or type in the HTTP address located in the address bar of your browser at the top of your browser (where it says: HTTP:// and then there is words)
Please copy everything because your link is not owrking and your address is not correct

ALSO
I have looked through all your posts and i see NO active links
only the same as what you have above

Please correct this and give a link we can use

THANKS

these are two separate links
dimispoulos.wix.com/dimis
itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1486/
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2015
@Johan:
Yes, i consider myself a "true sceptic". I regularly visit Roy Spencer's blog, and Climate Audit
From the same person who said this:
Even IPCC itself gave up on Mann's hockey stick years ago. In the Fifth Assessment Report IPCC shows a curve with a very pronounced Medieval Warm Period.
The whole idea of Mann's hockey stick was to eliminate the MWP.
Yea, that's some skepticism. The assignment of dubious intention should always be the last assignment.
Mann (in his original paper) made mistakes, and he's not doing climate science a favour by "denying" (oops) that.
Such as? Or do you actually mean "he didn't include data he didn't know about when he began constructing the graph in 1986?"
Anyway, I won't be bothering you any longer.
We'll miss you,.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2015
thanks for the interest
@DimitrisPoulos
OK first let me verify that this is the legit paper you are referring to:

http://www.itia.n...fo/1486/

Found using DuckDuckGo.com

@DimitrisPoulos

Is this the working links of the paper you are talking about

i need confirmation before i can proceed any further
thanks
DimitrisPoulos
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2015
thanks for the interest
@DimitrisPoulos
OK first let me verify that this is the legit paper you are referring to:

http://www.itia.n...fo/1486/

Found using DuckDuckGo.com

@DimitrisPoulos

Is this the working links of the paper you are talking about

i need confirmation before i can proceed any further
thanks

they are
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2015
they are
@DimitrisPoulos
Ok, now... lets get moving!

where else are they published?
Are they published in a reputable science publication with peer review?
DimitrisPoulos
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2015
they are
@DimitrisPoulos
Ok, now... lets get moving!

where else are they published?
Are they published in a reputable science publication with peer review?

ntua is quite reputable, I am not here to open a disqusion about the peer review process, or peer reviewed journals. Anyway science makes the journals, not the opposite.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
ntua is quite reputable
@DimitrisPoulos
Ok, perhaps you are not comprehending?

i search on Google Scholar, this is what i find
Your search - "Planetary orbits' effect to the Northern Hemisphere climate , from solar corona formation to the Earth climate" - did not match any articles
and so i am reduced to using your links

Now, then i submit your name in the same process and i find that you are a civil engineer
Ok, fine
but i am not finding anything else to substantiate your links at this point, which surprised me, because -Google Scholar- ???

First and foremost, I am looking for reputable information
you might not want to address it, but it will definitely affect how your paper is percieved through the physics/climate science community... case in point: the electric universe, a pseudoscience, posts their studies to an engineering mag because there is NO astrophysics peer review, thus by passing a critical point for the papers
cont'd
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
Stumpy, this link worked for me: http://dimispoulo...om/dimis Have fun with that one!

@runrig - well at least he (Johan) thought you were nice lol!!! Equating "skeptic" and "Roy Spencer" is hilarious! I wonder if he believes in intelligent design as well?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2015
cont'd @DimitrisPoulos

ANYWAY... my point is simple... are there ANY other point or links you can provide which are more common?

i am making NO claims about your paper or Greece as of yet
Not until i can get through the paper and have it reviewed by some peers which is something that i hope your link provided

my claim is simply this:
there are many people who make many claims, and thus most people will only accept valid reputable sources as evidence or argument sources/links

DimitrisPoulos
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2015
@ Captain Stumpy

what should I do, send google scholar my links? that's not my job, though perhaps I do that at a moment.
the science community is suposed able to read a paper if they are aware of it, they won't ask google if they should trust it.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
@ Captain Stumpy

what should I do, send google scholar my links? that's not my job, though perhaps I do that at a moment.
the science community is suposed able to read a paper if they are aware of it, they won't ask google if they should trust it.
@Dimitri
don't misunderstand
I am making an observation

I would suggest that if you want your publications reviewed by a wider audience, you get Google Scholar on board with carrying publications from your site/university, whatever

that really IS your job, IMHO

anyway, my point is made:
there is a large amount of pseudoscience out there that real science MUST counter, and the only way to do it is to insure that your science is located in reputable peer reviewed sources with an impact in your science.
correct?
you don't want physics published in the latest copy of National Enquirer, because the audience you are seeking likely does NOT subscribe... right?

Thanks for the paper
going to eat & read it now
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2015

@runrig - well at least he (Johan) thought you were nice lol!!! Equating "skeptic" and "Roy Spencer" is hilarious! I wonder if he believes in intelligent design as well?


Maggnus:
if you want to get a *flavour* of Doug Cotton PhD. Then this is the thread (still current).

http://www.drroys...comments

I posted as Toneb (from Feb 10th 4:24am), and never actually replied to him - but past him to others.
He posts variously as....
Planetary_Physics or PhysicsGroup

Enjoy:

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2015
@Dmitri
Don't bother with stumps. He'll just insult you.
I read your work.
I love how you don't apply BS jargon, to your work but you call the phenomenon what it is.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2015
@runrig

The "flavor I get from Doug Cotton tastes a lot like @jvk.
eachus
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2015
Please provide evidence from these scientists for Mann being "discredited".

I'm going to have to throw the book at that: http::/www.amazon.com/Time-Series-Analysis-and-Its-Applications

Amazon will let you read the introduction and ToC This is normally the textbook for a graduate level statistics course which is very heavy on math. But if you look at the "Hockey Stick" you can immediately see that no one with a TSA background came within miles of that graph. The poor error limits (and at that miscalculated), the 30-year averages, and most important the lack of reference to ARIMA, autocorrelation, power spectrum, Box-Jenkins, Kalman filters, R-squared, etc.

If you actually do look at the book, Example 1.2 is a polite put-down of the global warming religion using a glacial dataset. Warning: the data is discussed (really beaten to death) further in Problem 2.8 at the end of chapter 2, included in the Amazon preview.
DarkLordKelvin
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2015
@DmitrisPoulos Are you familiar with the aphorism, "Correlation is not causation"? From what I could understand from your paper, you have identified some (rather weak) potential correlations between planetary orbital coincidences and terrestrial climactic phenomena. You then seem to make the leap that those planetary orbital coincidences are CAUSING terrestrial climactic phenomena (implied strongly by the phrasing of your title). Ok, so where are the control experiments and/or mathematical models that establish that your "groundbreaking theory" is actually the crucial link? In order to claim that your theory is superior, you must establish that it can explain or predict things other theories cannot explain or predict. Can you give some examples where that is the case?

Oh yes, it would also be helpful to know precisely what your "groundbreaking theory" is and how it connects with other basic scientific laws and theories (the ones that it doesn't supersede).
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2015
Well DarkLord, that's quite a welcome for someone no doubt proud of his work.

I think there remain many things that cause change. What he has identified is a solid back ground for change. If the "beats" line up with other events, larger things happen.

He is also not taking credit for what mankind is doing now. Or the evolution of Blue-Green algae, or other events.

I'm guessing he's aware.
DarkLordKelvin
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2015
@Water_Prophet I don't understand your last post at all .. If I posted a paper where I had identified a correlation between the consumption of salsa in the USA and usage of profanity and rap music, you'd probably shrug and say, "Yeah, so?". If I then jumped to the conclusion that salsa consumption caused rap performers to use more profanity in their music, you'd rightfully say, "Ummmm, no .. not unless you've got some other proof." (At least you should .. a scientist certainly would). This site is about *science* ... if a poster claims to have a new *scientific* theory to explain given observable phenomenon, then he should expect it to be critiqued *scientifically*. That is all I have done .. I applied scientific criteria to his paper, and asked for some elaboration and clarification. That's how science works. This is not a mutual admiration society, and whatever one's level of "pride in their work" may be, that doesn't increase its scientific validity one iota.
Johan-C
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2015
runrig writes: "Maggnus: if you want to get a *flavour* of Doug Cotton PhD. Then this is the thread"

I should know better than this, but simply couldn't resist:

1) Dr Roy Spencer continuously ridicules Doug Cotton, and in no way subscribes to his lunatic theories. That applies to other "nutcases" too. Because some idiot abuses his blog to promote their insane ideas, doesn't mean dr Spencer endorses them.
2) I cannot recall that dr Spencer has ever used his blog to promote Intelligent Design. And no, I'm not an ID believer, but once more someone seems to know a lot better than me what I think or what my intentions are. Now, who was it who wrote "The assignment of dubious intention should always be the last assignment"?

IMO there is nothing more despicable in a discussion than the straw man fallacy. Runrig, just to let you know, associating yourself with the likes of Maggnus clearly undermines your authority. Whereas dr Spencer mocks his camp followers, you befriend yours.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2015
I'm going to have to throw the book at that: http::/www.amazon.com/Time-Series-Analysis-and-Its-Applications


I counter with .....
http://www.realcl...elusion/
http://www.rap.uc...2007.pdf
http://www.clim-p...2007.pdf

I just include the following to show the background of messrs M&M:

http://www.desmog...mcintyre
http://www.desmog...ckitrick

The fact remains; Either Mann and researchers following all *did it wrong* or they all uncovered *some* of the truth in a robust/honest manner.

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2015
Johan:
No, you shouldn't have:
I in no way meant to denigrate Spencer by association with Cotton.
(His published research on such as the tropical mid-troposhheric hot-spot do that well enough).

I know full well that Spencer doesn't subscribe to Cotton's *theory* and merely tolerates him on his Blog.
I have the personal emails from Spencer to prove it.

You say "nothing more despicable in a discussion than the straw man fallacy" .... err, it wasn't part of *our* discussion .... I merely mentioned it in response to DimitrisPoulos who was pushing a *theory*.
To show how impossible it was to converse with said *theorists* (in my demonstrated experience - go to link).
And to point out what he should do that Cotton hasn't.

I may have been unfair to DimitrisPoulos of course.

BTW: I have no problem "associating" with Maggnus, he supports science after all.
That's all it takes .... and as you are a "true sceptic" just take what we say on board and investigate for yourself..
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2015
DarklordK-and if tried to figure out what you were saying, I'd be here all day.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2015
Don't bother with stumps. He'll just insult you.
@ALCHE
No, i will not insult someone who is trying to publish legit science

that is reserved for those who have proven to be liars or fallaciously making claims which they've not been able to support, like you and your claims of being a chemist and physicist, etc... and then not comprehending a study that is quite simple and explains why you have it all wrong with regard to WV, CO2 and it's interactions with each other
DarklordK-and if tried to figure out what you were saying, I'd be here all day.
yes, we already know this... it is because you don't understand SCIENCE or the scientific method

I came to the same conclusion as DarkLordKelvin, but want to check with others as well and i await their feedback
Especially since one is a physicist specifically schooled in climate science

eachus
1.9 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2015
I counter with .....


You misunderstand me here. The Wahl paper is decent, my technical disagreements with some of his methods are just that--I would have done it differently, but he was trying to understand how Mann, et. al. analyzed the data. And to me it is pretty brutal in showing that the process for selecting and merging the proxies resulted in a flat line prior to the current records. The Juckes, et. al. paper is decent, although I feel ARIMA models are better for series based on proxies.

I just include the following to show the background of messrs M&M..
Why should I think that Economics and Math degrees are suspect? I have degrees in Economics, and Operations Research and Statistics.

Again, I am in favor of reducing atmospheric CO2 levels, and feel that trying to defend the hockey stick was poor politics. (Oh, and I feel that the best climate models out there are worthless for prediction--they require volcanic inputs.)
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2015
Because some idiot abuses his blog to promote their insane ideas, doesn't mean dr Spencer endorses them.
I agree, I have seen Spencer argue on his own blog and on others (especially Watt's) with many of the so called "slayers". He has clearly and forcefully decried the worst excesses of those who claim global warming is not happening because Al Gore.
I cannot recall that dr Spencer has ever used his blog to promote Intelligent Design. And no, I'm not an ID believer, but once more someone seems to know a lot better than me what I think or what my intentions are
Perhaps you should read a little bit about him, there is a lot of information regarding his position on this and climate denial. But more to your central point, despite your accusations I have not painted you with any brush, nor have I assigned you motive at any point. I have certainly questioned your motives, and I continue to do so. (cont)
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2015
You take this self righteous attitude of indignation because I question you, when you are the one who came to this site and on this comment string added this incorrect and inflammatory statement:
Even IPCC itself gave up on Mann's hockey stick years ago. In the Fifth Assessment Report IPCC shows a curve with a very pronounced Medieval Warm Period.
The whole idea of Mann's hockey stick was to eliminate the MWP.
So yes I question your motives. I am the first to attack those who come to this site with the aim of spreading their denialism and falsehoods, and I make no apology for that. Read down the thread for examples of what I am talking about. But I am also prepared to discuss the science civilly with those who refrain from first tossing out insults and denigration. Maybe you should try the same.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2015
The Deniers can read all the other stories here on AGW, then try to convince themselves it is a hoax, like they would try. Most of them do not work in science, and assume the ethics of science is the same of their own professions, such as finance, business, politics, religion - games we invented ourselves where fudging and often lying is de rigeur.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2015
eachus:
Why should I think that Economics and Math degrees are suspect? I have degrees in Economics, and Operations Research and Statistics.


It's not their qualifications that I meant to bring attention to.

It's their connections and possible motive. I said possible.
The stance of McIntyre & Mckitrick re AGW is quite obvious from their quoted comments, actions and associations.
Err, shouldn't any scientist approaching a subject have an open mind about it?

I am no statistician. was taught it but never used it practically.
Mann's graph has been vindicated by all others following. The IPCC is not a political body, just one that collates the science for politicians to act on ... or not.
Models usually wrong but useful. Just like we only learn from our mistakes - so science learns from models.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2015
Question to Water_Prophet
To be clear to everyone observing your evasion first verify u accept terms/definition re vocation as real PC does:-
https://en.wikipe...hemistry
?
This is your very obvious pattern.

When asked direct question re your claimed degree U ignore it & instead make irrelevant claims, u CANNOT answer simple direct questions in your claimed degree - Y ?

It appears u are caught out yet AGAIN !

So, as a claimed Physical Chemist, is your particular training commensurate with the definition in link I supplied above ?

Obviously it SHOULD be as the uni definitions r global but, I will give u a chance to exclude an issue u missed in a lecture or failed to pass in or needed a supplementary due to illness at a main exam.

So tell re Physical Chemistry as per my link above.

R U or R U not educated in this field re a degree with ALL it implies ?

btw: In Oz "graduate level" is studies towards uni degree qualification.
eachus
1 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2015
I am no statistician. was taught it but never used it practically


A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. -- Alopexander Pope

An introductory statistics course hopes to teach students how to understand statistics used correctly, and how to recognize when they are not. The three things I hope students take away, are type I vs. type II errors, how to recognize when data are not independent and identically distributed (iid), and sources of bias. The hockey stick blows all three, not in the original data collection but in the methods used to merge the data into a single graph.

Note that I am not questioning the data, or that the data showed lots of warming toward the end of the last century. (Between Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Pinatubo). You need some proxy for volcanic effects, I use data from NASA satellites (SAM II, SAGE, etc.), but again constructing a single long-term data set is fraught with peril.
DarkLordKelvin
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2015
An introductory statistics course hopes to teach students how to understand statistics used correctly, and how to recognize when they are not. The three things I hope students take away, are type I vs. type II errors, how to recognize when data are not independent and identically distributed (iid), and sources of bias. The hockey stick blows all three, not in the original data collection but in the methods used to merge the data into a single graph.


Care to elaborate on precisely Mann's graph "blows all three" of those aspects, with some examples from his work? I'd also be curious if it's just Mann specifically who got it wrong, or if you also think all the similar-looking graphs (many of which use different sets of temperature proxy data) were generated with similar statistical errors in the analysis.
eachus
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2015
1. You are an expert on statistical methodology.
I guess, at the level needed here, but I spent most of my career in other (mathematical) fields.
2. You teach statistics classes at the college level.
Did teach, ended my career at MITRE, now retired.
3. The hockey stick violates the principles that you consider the 3 main tenets of an introductory statistics class.
No the three main things that should set off their bogosity detectors.

The problem is not that the recent part of the graph is wrong, or that the data used in the early part of the graph was faked, badly sampled or wrong, the techniques used for analyzing the early data were guaranteed to produce no signal. To combine this with the more recent data was very wrong.

As for papers, several of my friends beat me to it, and got badly slammed for disputing holy writ. Climatologists can (and should) review the data, but when evaluating the statistical methods, you should listen to the statisticians.

eachus
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2015
Care to elaborate on precisely Mann's graph "blows all three" of those aspects, with some examples from his work? I'd also be curious if it's just Mann specifically who got it wrong, or if you also think all the similar-looking graphs (many of which use different sets of temperature proxy data) were generated with similar statistical errors in the analysis.


Thought I did. Okay, iid. Read Mann's data into R, and compute the autocorrelation. The papers themselves discuss what was done to deal with the lack of identical distributions. But the tools specifically developed to deal with that such as ARIMA were not used. Type I vs. Type II errors & bias: Mann et. al., use both inclusive and exclusive tests on which data to include. Due to the wide variance in the sub-samples, the choice of filter introduces bias, in this particular case towards smooth data. A graph where the s.d. is much greater than the jitter in the data is an indication of oversmoothing.
eachus
1.2 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2015
Some thoughts on good statistical philosophy. It is very easy to get too deep into analyzing data, and see things which are not there. The way to avoid this is to divide your work into two parts. Exploratory data analysis will let you see things in the data, some real some artifacts. So once you have what you think is a good theory, it is time to bring out the full panoply of tools, especially non-parametric statistics to test to see that you really understand where the variance in your data is coming from.

Now write out a formal theory, and test it, best on new data. (Splitting the dataset in half to have new data for this step is common.) If you reject the null hypothesis, go ahead and publish, but more validation can't hurt. If your model fails to validate? Junk it and start over. That last is the step that many scientists have trouble with.
DarkLordKelvin
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2015
Thought I did. Okay, iid. Read Mann's data into R, and compute the autocorrelation. The papers themselves discuss what was done to deal with the lack of identical distributions. But the tools specifically developed to deal with that such as ARIMA were not used. Type I vs. Type II errors & bias: Mann et. al., use both inclusive and exclusive tests on which data to include. Due to the wide variance in the sub-samples, the choice of filter introduces bias, in this particular case towards smooth data. A graph where the s.d. is much greater than the jitter in the data is an indication of oversmoothing.


Ok, thanks for the response. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of R handy, so I am not able to run my own test as you suggest. With regard to your comment on "over smoothing", I thought that was the intention of the authors, not to hide anything, but to emphasize long time trends by suppressing the higher frequency components in the data. [continued]
DarkLordKelvin
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2015
@eachus [cont'd]

Anyway, can you please elaborate on whether these clear statistical flaws that you mention are somehow distinct from the ones that were already identified by other statisticians (including prominent skeptics McIntyre and McKitrick), but were subsequently shown not to make any significant difference in the interpretation of the data, or the appearance of the "hockey-stick"?

I mean, these features have now been reproduced over and over, by Mann and plenty of others, using a wide range of proxy data, and more refined statistical analyses. Are those newer analyses still subject to the same flaws? It seemed that you might be saying that in your last response, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
DarkLordKelvin
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2015
... the techniques used for analyzing the early data were guaranteed to produce no signal


Principal component analysis was guaranteed to produce no signal? Or did they somehow do something to ensure that the principal components of the early data would be very small (which would still not be "no signal")?

To combine this with the more recent data was very wrong.


This is a common claim, but I have never quite understood the reasoning behind it. Can you explain in a way that includes some details, but doesn't get too into statistical jargon (i.e. standard deviation, autocorrelation, null hypothesis and variance are clear enough, but I can't parse ARIMA)? Sorry if that is a big ask ... I have an understanding of statistical analysis and terminology that is appropriate for my own field, but there are a lot of more detailed aspects that I don't know.

JoeBlue
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2015
I see personal attacks, but nothing of substance.

You were the one making accusations. Do you have any evidence of wrongdoing on Mann's part? "Manipulating the data" is a very vague accusation and not evidence of any wrongdoing. Even McIntyre, who's made something of a career out of complaining about MBH 1999, has stated that using raw data without properly manipulating it will only get you a wrong answer.


The evidence is already well documented.
DarkLordKelvin
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2015
I see personal attacks, but nothing of substance.

You were the one making accusations. Do you have any evidence of wrongdoing on Mann's part? "Manipulating the data" is a very vague accusation and not evidence of any wrongdoing. Even McIntyre, who's made something of a career out of complaining about MBH 1999, has stated that using raw data without properly manipulating it will only get you a wrong answer.


The evidence is already well documented.


And it has been thoroughly refuted, and the core aspects of Mann's techniques and analysis vindicated, through reproduction of his work by other groups using different temperature proxies and more sophisticated statistical techniques. So, if you want anyone to accept your claim as anything other than hot air, you'll need to do more than rely on a narrative that has already been thoroughly debunked.
eachus
1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2015
So did your friends get published in statistics journals? Could you give us some links? I imagine the statistics world is going crazy - a whole branch of science - that is so important in today's world - being based on a series of such obvious, and egregious errors.


Actually it was the astrophysics community that went crazy. Henrik Svensmark had just published http://journals.a....81.5027 This article, and a number of others would have to be retracted if Mann, et.al's 1998 paper was correct. Not because of AGW or the recent data, but because Svensmark and others depended on the connection between the Maunder (sunspot) Minimum and the Little Ice Age. And Mann "airbrushed" the LIA out of existence. There have been lots of follow on papers by Svensmark, but more important, you have to look in journal letters around that time. Oh, remember that Svensmark's theory says nothing about AGW, just another source of climate variation.
eachus
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2015
Anyway, can you please elaborate on whether these clear statistical flaws that you mention are somehow distinct from the ones that were already identified by other statisticians (including prominent skeptics McIntyre and McKitrick), but were subsequently shown not to make any significant difference in the interpretation of the data, or the appearance of the "hockey-stick"

First, on the shape of the HS. The recent (blade) data was never, that I know of, questioned. The issue was the flatness of the handle. There are sophisticated methods for mixing differently distributed datasets. Instead of using them, Mann broke the data into short segments then merged them--by basically connecting end points of flat lines (the segmented data), In one sense this was "right" in that no (tree ring) segment contained statisically acceptable evidence of long-term warming or cooling. But it had the effect of propagating that to the chart.

eachus
1.2 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2015
The second issue was just that mixing of data. Non-parametric statistics can deal with that, or time series analysis (where independence of data is also known to be missing). Mann did show that the variances were different, by plotting the "error bars." I feel like I should switch to 50 point type, to say that YOU CAN'T DO THAT. Since iid does not hold, no standard theory metrics can be used. And when several dozen parameters derived from the data are used in "massaging" it, you wind up with junk.

Notice that this says nothing about AGW, one way or the other. Junk statistics are junk, and should be ignored. Otherwise you could prove anything by publishing bad statistics to the contrary. I wish I could say that the Mann data sets could be reanalyzed, but as I understand it, some of the original (raw) data is not available.

What are the drivers of global climate? AGW? CO2? Clouds? Cosmic rays? Milkovich cycles? Plate tectonics? All of those and more.
eachus
1.5 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2015
Oh, ARIMA stands for AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average, sometimes referred to as Box-Jenkins. Basically it is a way to extract a trend from a time series, or a group of time series. The hope is that the residuals (the error in each data point not explained by the model) will be independent identically distributed (iid), and normal theory* analysis can be used on the theoretically true underlying variable.

Even though it sometimes gets edited out of the final, published paper, any statistical analysis should include both looking at and testing the residuals. (Why look? The human eye is very good at picking out some types of patterns, while goodness of fit tests are better at finding others.)

* Normal theory refers to the normal distribution, or more to the point, to analysis done assuming/hoping that the residuals are normally distributed.
howhot2
3.9 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2015
What are the drivers of global climate?

Typical of the deniers to be complete idiots when it comes to the most fundamental point about the drivers of global warming. The fundamental driver of global warming is mankind and mankind's need to combust fossil fuels to operate its technology. It is that simple. The equations and chemistry is well know that combustion of fossil fuels releases CO2 as a by-product, the physics is well know as to how CO2 traps heat, and the engineering is well known that Natural gas leaks Methane into the atmosphere. We also know much about the long term process by which carbon is moved into and out of the atmosphere in the Carbon Cycle, Why deniers will knit-pick over Dr. Mann's methods, the bottom line is that the hockey stick is a perfectly good description of mankind's activity consuming fossil fuels and the consequence of excess CO2 on the global temperature.

DarkLordKelvin
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2015
The second issue was just that mixing of data. ... Since iid does not hold, no standard theory metrics can be used.
Let's back up a bit ... how are you so sure that the input data was not iid? Which sets of proxies or instrumental measurements showed dependences? Which suggested sampling from non-identical distributions? Also, it should be pointed out that strict iid was perhaps not necessary .. if the various measurements satisfied the conditions of exchangeable random variables instead.
I wish I could say that the Mann data sets could be reanalyzed, but as I understand it, some of the original (raw) data is not available.
The original raw data have been available on the journal website of Mann's original paper since 2000. They have been reanalyzed many times, and all subsequent analyses (that were error-free and did not discard data or principal components to achieve a desired aim) have upheld Mann's result.
eachus
1 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2015
Let's back up a bit ... how are you so sure that the input data was not iid?
Have you even read the papers we are discussing? Or even looked at the graphic? The data is broadly broken into three parts, satellite data, data from weather stations, and (proxy) data based on tree rings. The latter falls into two groups, the older data based on fewer data points has much larger variances. As for independence, that is easy to test for and the Mann data fails (as it should, we know of lots of climate effects which span multiple years.

The original raw data have been available on the journal website of Mann's original paper since 2000.
Sigh! To some extent I just have to accept that not everyone recognizes statistics terms of art as such. The raw data are the data that the data sets Mann used are built from. Yes, I know that Mann provided his data, I've used it. As I understand some of that (raw) data is not available, and was not available to Mann.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2015
Actually it was the astrophysics community that went crazy. Henrik Svensmark had just published http://journals.a....81.5027 This article, and a number of others would have to be retracted if Mann, et.al's 1998 paper was correct. Not because of AGW or the recent data, but because Svensmark and others depended on the connection between the Maunder (sunspot) Minimum and the Little Ice Age. And Mann "airbrushed" the LIA out of existence. There have been lots of follow on papers by Svensmark, but more important, you have to look in journal letters around that time. Oh, remember that Svensmark's theory says nothing about AGW, just another source of climate variation.
Ok, this is inaccurate, at best. I have trouble with your wording, and as you post more, it comes out more. You are making an accusation that does not stand up to scrutiny, and you are choosing your wording in such a manner as to suggest nefariousness. ......cont....
eachus
1.6 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2015
Typical of the deniers to be complete idiots when it comes to the most fundamental point about the drivers of global warming. The fundamental driver of global warming is mankind and mankind's need to combust fossil fuels to operate its technology. It is that simple.


So much ignorance, so little time. Why do I bother?

1) I am not a denier. Haven't you been paying attention? I think that it is MORE important to reduce CO2 levels for health reasons than because of AGW.

2) Do you live at the equator? If not does it get warm in summer and cold in winter where you live? It certainly does here. No scientist that I know of considers CO2 (or AGW) to be the only input to climate variation. Also millions of years ago, the CO2 level was around 3% about 80 times the current levels.

3) I hate being told that because I think that some climate papers used shoddy statistics, that I disagree with the conclusions. How many times do I have to say that?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2015
First of all, I challenge you to back up your suggestion that the LIA was "airbrushed out" purposefully or otherwise. You'll need to do more than parrot Svensmark, and your review appears to be simplistic as compared to those already conducted, and shown to be without merit, by McIntyre and others.

Svenson has his own nefarious reasons to argue the findings of Mann et al, all to do with his almost entirely unsupported views that the Earth is actually in a cooling phase, and that the main dynamics of global climate change are related to cosmic rays, not greenhouse gases. I could argue more about Henrik's claims, but that is a different subject.

I further challenge you to provide support for your statement that "the astrophysics community..went crazy" unless you are proposing that Svensmark represents the whole of that community. Quite frankly, of those that have looked, almost all astrophysicists that I am aware of AGREE with, or at least are not surprised by, Mann's findings.
eachus
1.2 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2015
greenonions said: But you have just lectured us on how the data analysis is the problem - and this needs to be addressed by the statistics community.


LoL! No, the statistics issues were discussed and resolved at the time. When the statistics are done right, the Mann data does include the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. I thought all that was resolved a decade ago.

As for Svensmark's original paper. It is totally irrelevant here whether his theory is true or false. Well, it does seem to provide a justification for the current global warming hiatus, and experiments at CERN seem to have validated part of his theory. The reason that I pointed at this paper was that it put physicists (and the LIA) at loggerheads with Mann, et. al.

Oh, one last point. There are lots of people who contribute to a scientific paper who do not always show up on the author's list. Often that includes artists, editors, and statisticians.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2015
The original raw data have been available on the journal website of Mann's original paper since 2000. They have been reanalyzed many times, and all subsequent analyses (that were error-free and did not discard data or principal components to achieve a desired aim) have upheld Mann's result.
I think this needs to be rehighlighted. Eachus made a claim of fact {the raw material used by Mann is not available} which is shown to be incorrect by a simple visit to Mann's site. The material has been reviewed literally thousands of times, and except for those whose analysis has been shown to be without merit, every person who has reviewed it has indicated that the methodology is sound.

As I understand some of that (raw) data is not available, and was not available to Mann.
On what basis do you make this claim? And if it was not available to Mann, how can his analysis be wrong? Or "faked" as you intimate?
DarkLordKelvin
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2015
greenonions said: But you have just lectured us on how the data analysis is the problem - and this needs to be addressed by the statistics community.


LoL! No, the statistics issues were discussed and resolved at the time. When the statistics are done right, the Mann data does include the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. I thought all that was resolved a decade ago.


It was, and the essential "hockey stick" shape was preserved ... if you know all this, why are you attacking Mann's methods? I said several posts ago that *MINOR* statistical flaws existed in his original treatment, and that those were acknowledged by Mann, and corrected in his subsequent papers. That is not consistent with your claim of "junk statistics". After all the scrutiny that this paper has received, do you really think that it suffers from a critical flaw that is as basic as non-iid data, and "massaging" the analysis by feeding derived parameters back into the mode
DarkLordKelvin
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2015
Let's back up a bit ... how are you so sure that the input data was not iid?
Have you even read the papers we are discussing? Or even looked at the graphic? The data is broadly broken into three parts, satellite data, data from weather stations, and (proxy) data based on tree rings. The latter falls into two groups, the older data based on fewer data points has much larger variances. As for independence, that is easy to test for and the Mann data fails (as it should, we know of lots of climate effects which span multiple years


Wait, what? Are you *sure* you know what you are talking about? Do you seriously think that the exhibition of time-persistent trends in the temperature (or proxy) data would invalidate Mann's analysis? His data reduction was essentially regression analysis, so of COURSE the temperature data are dependent on time .. that's the whole POINT! I had thought you were talking about interdependence of different data SETSl
eachus
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2015
Wait, what? Are you *sure* you know what you are talking about? Do you seriously think that the exhibition of time-persistent trends in the temperature (or proxy) data would invalidate Mann's analysis? His data reduction was essentially regression analysis, so of COURSE the temperature data are dependent on time .. that's the whole POINT! I had thought you were talking about interdependence of different data SETSl


Sheesh! iid means that the RESIDUALS (assumed errrors) are independent and identically distributed. In other words, your model is that you have data plus a noise term. If the deviations from the model are often in the same direction in successive years, that is a lack of independence. If some parts of the data have much larger variances than others, they are not identically distributed. The original Mann paper should (and does) tell you both those things.

For one last time. I am not disputing Mann's data just the original statistical analysis.
DarkLordKelvin
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2015
Sheesh! iid means that the RESIDUALS (assumed errrors) are independent and identically distributed. In other words, your model is that you have data plus a noise term. If the deviations from the model are often in the same direction in successive years, that is a lack of independence.


I don't understand that analysis, but perhaps it's just because I am not a climatologist. If I am modeling data, and I notice a persistent, high-frequency term in my residuals, I don't conclude that there are dependences in the data, I conclude that the model lacks the flexibility to reproduce the high-frequency signal present in the data. Even the way that you present your criticism implies that the fluctuations are representative of real climatological phenomena that the model is ignoring. When the goal is long-period trends, as in Mann's case, simply smoothing out such features makes sense, because the regression analysis will ensure they are evenly distributed about the mean.
DarkLordKelvin
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2015
If some parts of the data have much larger variances than others, they are not identically distributed.


I suppose that *might* be correct, but it doesn't *have* to be. If you try to measure the same signal through two channels with different noise levels, your two sets of measurements will necessarily have different variances, but they will have the same mean. That is, the underlying probability distribution that both data sets are sampled from is the same, just with different noise functions convoluted in. I don't understand how that case doesn't apply to Mann's data, because after all, he was trying to get the same quantity .. local temperature measurements ... through different channels (i.e. proxies or the instrumental record).

For one last time. I am not disputing Mann's data just the original statistical analysis.
But why bother to do that, if you agree that the problems were subsequently fixed, and more recent "hockey-stick" plots are correct?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2015
Elsewhere re the tragedy of Water_Prophet...

Water_Prophet claimed
This means all future increases in atmospheric temperature must have another powerful source. Not CO2!
I wonder what it could be?
I wonder Y someone who claims to be a Physical Chemist (PC) is impotent/clueless as to how to determine quantification of the most appropriate units of Watts per Square meter re CO2 or ANY greenhouse gas ?

As if Water_Prophet completely lied about his claimed degree as a PC ?

Why can't a PC determine energy in Joules by formulating the increase in thermal resistivity of CO2's absorbancy/re-radiation of long wave infra red to Space ?

What seems to be wrong with this Water_Prophet, who makes lots of egotistical claims re his multiple 4 technical degrees yet CANNOT talk like one, articulate fundamentals like one & evades any discussion on issues he cannot find addressed via google ?

Water_Prophet grow up, own up or AT LEAST prove your claimed credentials ?

Caught !

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.