Hockey Sticks, Damned Hockey Sticks and Climate Change: 2008

Tuesday, 15 January 2008

...more rocks...

I would suggest [this title should be] "according to a number of studies" because there is more than one, referenced here -
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html .

I also think that the so-called "error bars" are not actually error bars but are 95% confidence intervals for a normal distribution curve. This makes a hell of a difference to their interpretation (and would explain why no one complains about them).

I think it all really boils down to risk management. What is the worst that will happen if CO2 emissions by humans are not having a negative effect (on the continued survival of the species) and we reduce Co2 emissions? We spend some more money than is necessary? One company with a lack of foresight (the most likely conspiracy here by a long chalk) makes less profit whilst other companies make more? Where is the science to say that decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere will have a detrimental effect? Even if CO2 naturally declines as after the Medieval Warm Epoch, last time there was no significant human influence apparently so we have no idea that it will happen this time. Even if decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere does have a detrimental effect, can't we just cut the price of fuel and give everyone SUVs to resolve the problem?

So, it boils down to (at least) the destruction of civilisation as we know it vs spending some money that we really don't have to vs an unproven detrimental lowering effect. Pass me my cheque book...

Thursday, 10 January 2008

...and finally..

Actually, ICI would be a lot more credible than Exxon Mobil.

Try entering any of the following into Google - BP, Shell, BASF, ICI and the phrase climate change. You will find very little that is anti the organisation with regards to climate change. However, try Exxon Mobil and
climate change and the story is entirely different. Of special interest is an article in the Guardian which relates to the Royal Society actually taking the unprecedented step of sending a letter to the head of Esso UK asking his company to desist from attempting to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, the article includes a PDF version of the letter which says more than I ever could.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business

Two other links of interest are -

Union of Concerned Scientists - Scientist's report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation campaign on Global Warming Science (3/1/2007)
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.ht ml

List of organisations sponsored by ExxonMobil in the global climate change debate -

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

A very interesting Wikipedia piece exists on the hockey stick controversy which unsurprisingly doesn't favour either results -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

I understand your position on the error bars. I don't in any way understand the maths behind it, even after adding McIntyre and McKitrick's documents. They don't complain about the 95% error bars at all though.
Suffice to say that Mann et al are not the only ones to achieve the hockey stick and that McIntyre & McKitrick contains plenty of disputed elements (and is not actually peer reviewed although it is claimed that the peer
review process is effectively made up of Mann's cronies anyway).

Here are some alternative studies also showing hockey stick graphs -

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

In response to the NERC addition, here is what NERC have to say - http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp

There is also an interesting article by a US senator which you might like who has resorted to the Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies on at least one occasion. Guess where most of his funding comes from? -

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

I admit that there are scientists that are sceptics and good luck to them. Still, what is the worst that could happen? No one that I have read is suggesting that reducing CO2 emissions will have a detrimental effect. Not
burning hydrocarbons is a good idea due to their potential for use elsewhere.

...and finally..

Actually, ICI would be a lot more credible than Exxon Mobil.

Try entering any of the following into Google - BP, Shell, BASF, ICI and the phrase climate change. You will find very little that is anti the organisation with regards to climate change. However, try Exxon Mobil and
climate change and the story is entirely different. Of special interest is an article in the Guardian which relates to the Royal Society actually taking the unprecedented step of sending a letter to the head of Esso UK asking his company to desist from attempting to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, the article includes a PDF version of the letter which says more than I ever could.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business

Two other links of interest are -

Union of Concerned Scientists - Scientist's report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation campaign on Global Warming Science (3/1/2007)
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.ht
ml

List of organisations sponsored by ExxonMobil in the global climate change debate -

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

A very interesting Wikipedia piece exists on the hockey stick controversy which unsurprisingly doesn't favour either results -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

I understand your position on the error bars. I don't in any way understand the maths behind it, even after adding McIntyre and McKitrick's documents. They don't complain about the 95% error bars at all though.
Suffice to say that Mann et al are not the only ones to achieve the hockey stick and that McIntyre & McKitrick contains plenty of disputed elements (and is not actually peer reviewed although it is claimed that the peer
review process is effectively made up of Mann's cronies anyway).

Here are some alternative studies also showing hockey stick graphs -

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

In response to the NERC addition, here is what NERC have to say - http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp

There is also an interesting article by a US senator which you might like who has resorted to the Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies on at least one occasion. Guess where most of his funding comes from? -

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

I admit that there are scientists that are sceptics and good luck to them. Still, what is the worst that could happen? No one that I have read is suggesting that reducing CO2 emissions will have a detrimental effect. Not
burning hydrocarbons is a good idea due to their potential for use elsewhere.

..then again..

Maybe so, but like I said, we're looking for statements of truth, not just at a single argument from one side. Even if this was published by ICI, so long as the data presented is correct, then it is still valid. My big objection to the hockey stick graph is that it's datasets aren't rational and in most depictions the 95% uncertainty bands are removed, note that when you see a chart with the 95% bands on (that's 95% likely to be within those bands, not outside) it's a bit scary how inaccurate the first dataset is compared to the last 50 years of measured data, a small shift (quite possible) and the mean jumps huge amounts.

Personally I'd like to ignore any data from anyone so clearly biased, but unfortunately we can't. Both individuals referrence the same study of 900+ papers and both draw different conclusions manipulating the facts to their own ends.

...well...

Here's tuppence - my go!

After all of that I think I'm still pretty much at the unconvinced and confused state (both sceptical AND cynical!), but like most people I'm willing to do what I can to reduce energy usage and use cleaner energy when possible. I use energy saving (mercury vapour containing) low energy bulbs where possible, turn things off when I can, don't make unnecessary journeys and use public transport if possible (ie if it's going where I need to go, doesn't take forever and is cheaper and more practical than going by car - sadly not as frequently as I'd like).

I don't do any of this because I believe it will help reduce global warming (as a natural pessimist I think we're screwed on that) I do it for the same reason most others do it - because it saves me money (I don't however feel smug about it - I know that the 55,000 people dying everyday from poverty war and stupidity will die regardless of how much energy I save). I'd love to do a Dick Strawbridge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Not_Easy_Being_Green) and build an hyper energy efficient home from recycled or renewable sources and generate my own electricity with a wind turbine and make my own bio-fuel to run my hardly ever used car, but until I win the lottery I don't have the capital required to do it. It's just a shame that more of those that could, won't.

Whilst education and awareness are necessary, alone they won't do an awful lot (and will cause harm if done badly - look at the AIDS tombstone from the 80s).

So, the quickest way to reduce the use of 5% efficient filament bulbs? Tax them to death. Want people to drive hybrid cars? Make them tax free and cheaper than the alternative. Want people to drive less - make fuel more expensive and subsidise public transport. Of course any government that did that would be out of office at the next general election. Sadly feeling guilty enough to change a few bulbs isn't too burdening for us westerners. The real change, the painful change, won't happen so willingly and sadly I find myself agreeing with George Dubya - technology will have to save us Westerners 'cos we're too comfortable and lazy to do it ourselves. Sadly I doubt that George is suggesting we share any such technology with the rest of the world.

And what stories would the media present for us if global warming went away? Wouldn't it be nice if they were about reducing World poverty and child mortality - I don't think they will be though.

..and yet...

So now to summarise the ramblings, links and quotations..

No-one has any idea what's going on because lots of scientist dispute things. Thousands of scientists have signed petitions on both sides regarding the hockey stick graph and the IPCC conclusions.

Government bodies have been set up to analyse the statistics rather than the facts, nice one. things cited as evidence are later debunked and ridiculed. I don't think we're in a position to find the truth, it feels like we're
trying to get to the bottom of some international scandal and that alone makes me highly suspicious about the veracity of the advertised doctrine.

So, looking at the data I have to conclude we don't understand the system happening around us and we are knee jerking in reaction to it. the fact that ice cores suggest warm periods linked to high CO2 levels for thousands of years in the past gives me a strong gut feeling that CO2 and Temperature are linked, but not in the way most people believe.

The controversy around solar activity is on one hand reminiscent of the dendrochronology debate where an equal vested interest is shared by an entire community trying to justify their slice of the research dollar. But then on the other hand you can't deny that the sun is the single most influential factor on our planets climate, so maybe there is some truth in it.

What I am confident of is that decision makers in government are being told what policies to take by people with vested interests. Be those interests re-election, self popularisation or misguided nationalism trying to cripple the development of power hungry china/India. And also that we the public will never get to the truth so long as the only voices which we get to hear are those sanctioned by government bodies such as the NSA or IPCC.

Is CO2 causing global warming? We honestly don't know.
Is CO2 being used as a beating stick and global distractor? Almost certainly.

Ask yourself one question before you go to bed. If all the global warming news disappeared overnight, what world events would you be reading about instead?

But...

Just picked up one of the links you sent at random (I should be in bed as I have to get up at 04:30 tomorrow). Happened to be -

"The argument regarding the little ice age and medieval warm period are supported from studies such as:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V6/N48/EDIT.jsp Showing that it was not just a european phenomenon."

Had a quick look at the people running the sight. Strangely, they all had the same surname "IDSO" which isn't one I had heard of. Quick search on the net brought up the following -

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Craig_Idso .

Which also links to
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Di
oxide_and_Global_Change . I see the mighty paws of our favourite oil giant in this one.

On the other hand...

Here's some more reading.

Here's the first thing I read which was both approachable, technical and referenced well.
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 Which doesn't go gung ho against the hockey stick graph, but offers a good framework for other data to compare against it.

http://www.geotimes.org/sept06/NN_Climate.html
"In 2005, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chair of the House energy committee, requested that Edward Wegman, a statistician at George Mason University in Virginia, form an ad hoc committee to examine the statistical methods used to form the hockey stick. Following that request, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chair of the House science committee, requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) look into the same issue. NAS released its report in June; Wegman’s committee released its report in July.

Wegman’s team — which looked only at the statistical methods involved in the hockey stick analysis to determine if the conclusions were well-founded — wrote that the “assessments that the decade of the 1990s
was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported.” Wegman testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on July 18 that Mann’s team’s methods were flawed and that the team did not adequately consult statisticians on the work.

Additionally, Wegman’s team reported that the peer review on the original papers was inadequate and took issue with how “interconnected” the paleoclimate community is, writing that the community has a
“self-reinforcing feedback mechanism.” Wegman testified, however, that his team was not asked to look at whether or not the climate is actually warming, and thus the team made no conclusions on that facet of the
discussion. "

Which points out that although there is lots of debate about the hockey stick graph and it's validity, there is now more focus on how to address warming and the possible consequences. ie - they've moved from cause to
solution without understanding cause, which could lead to incorrect reactions and probably will lead to unforeseen results.

For a real "anti-CO2" paper read:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html but that looks soooo like something done by the oil companies I can't bear it, but it's still interesting to note the effect of water vapour vs CO2

For actual measured CO2 growth rates:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf
and
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
This shows the constant rise of CO2 levels, but we do not see the same constant growth rate in temperature, in fact of the last 50 years measured values more than 20 of those years have seen drops in mean annual
temperature compared to the previous years.

For a clearer and less manipulated image of surface temperatures in the northern hemisphere than shown on the hockey stick graph, http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Surface_Temps_final.pdf This is the conclusion by the congress committee cited in the previous e-mail, but as shown here, although it agrees with the general conclusion of the team of Mann et all, it does not support their entire assumptions or specific conclusions. Importantly it shows clearly extremely warm periods in almost all predictors pre-dating any significant CO2 rise.

The argument regarding the little ice age and medieval warm period are supported from studies such as:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V6/N48/EDIT.jsp
Showing that it was not just a European phenomenon.

For evidence of CO2 vs temperature relationships we can look at:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
but even here they are uncertain whether CO" causes temperature rise or if temperature rise causes CO2 concentrations to increase. But unarguably, the earlier CO2 rises can not be attributed to human industrial
revolutions.

Moving onto what might cause global temperature variation other than greenhouse gasses:
http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
is a little technical
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/5544_SolarActivity_One-pager.pdf
Is a hilarious paper which states that solar activity is not responsible and concludes that therefore humanity must be... yeah, there's sound logic. So this paper can probably be ignored as at best, incomplete.
http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html
an equally unbelievably positive paper

But solar activity is shown in this last reference I'll give:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Which is both a clearly biased argument and also an informative document assuming nothing in it is a lie, such as the extract on Michael Mann (co-author of the Hockey Stick graph): "Michael Mann

At the time he published his `Hockey Stick' paper, Michael Mann held an adjunct faculty position at the University of Massachusetts, in the Department of Geosciences. He received his PhD in 1998, and a year later
was promoted to Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia, in the Department of Environmental Sciences, at the age of 34.

He is now the Lead Author of the `Observed Climate Variability and Change' chapter of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR-2000), and a contributing author on several other chapters of that report. The Technical Summary of the report, echoing Mann's paper, said: "The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest year."

Mann is also now on the editorial board of the `Journal of Climate' and was a guest editor for a special issue of `Climatic Change'. He is also a `referee' for the journals Nature, Science, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, JGR-Oceans, JGR-Atmospheres, Paleo oceanography, Eos, International Journal of Climatology, and NSF, NOAA, and DOE grant programs. (In the `peer review' system of science, the role of anonymous referee confers the power to reject papers that are deemed, in the opinion of the referee, not to meet scientific standards).

He was appointed as a `Scientific Adviser' to the U.S. Government (White House OSTP) on climate change issues.

Mann lists his `popular media exposure' as including - "CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNN headline news, BBC, NPR, PBS (NOVA/FRONTLINE), WCBS, Time, Newsweek, Life, US News & World Report, Economist, Scientific American, Science News, Science, Rolling Stone, Popular Science, USA Today, New York Times, New York Times (Science Times), Washington Post, Boston Globe, London Times, Irish Times, AP, UPI, Reuters, and numerous other television/print media" [17]."

So if you need to look for someone with something to loose from CO2 increases being shown to be caused by temperature rise rather than the other way around, look no further.