AIG Article

The Australian Institute of Geoscientists News has published online my article “Reconstruction of past climate using series with red noise” on page 14. Many thanks to Louis Hissink the editor for the rapidity of this publication. It is actually a very interesting newsletter with articles on the IPCC, and a summary of the state of the hockey stick (or hokey stick). There are articles on the K-T boundary controversy and how to set up an exploration company.

Reconstructing the hokey stick with random data neatly illustrates the circular reasoning in a general context, showing the form of the hokey stick is essentially encoded in the assumptions and proceedures of the methodology. The fact that 20% of LTP series (or 40% if you count the inverted ones) correlate significantly with the temperature instrument record of the last 150 years illustrates that (1) 150 years is an inadequate constraint on possible models to base an extrapolation of over 1000 years, and (2) the propensity of analogs of natual series with LTP to exhibit ‘trendiness’ or apparent long runs that can be mistaken for real trends. And check back shortly for the code, I have been playing around with RE and R2 and trying some ideas suggested by blog readers to tighten things up.

With the hokey stick discredited from all angles, even within the paleo community itself with recent reconstructions of Esper and Moberg showing large variation in temperature over the last 1000 years, including temperatures on a par with the present day, one wonders why it is taking so long for the authors of the hokey stick to recant and admit natural climate variability. While the past variability of climate may or may not be important to the attribution debate, it is obviously important on the impacts side, as an indicator of the potential tolerances of most species.

  • Pingback: Surf » Home

  • Pingback: ENM » How to start a science blog (scary version)

  • Pat Frank

    “one wonders why it is taking so long for the authors of the hokey stick to recant and admit natural climate variability.”

    This question is not only at the core of the continuing debate about the HS, but is central to the entire field of AGW. You know better than almost anyone, David, that M&M 2003 definitively showed the HS to be — in a word — bogus. After MM03, everyone should have known what your AIG article proves, namely that the output HS was pre-implanted in the methodology.

    In ordinary science, the authors of a disproved study would have had to swallow hard, admit the mistake, and carry on to better work. I’ve seen this happen in chemistry a few times, and even once or twice when the mistake concerned what would have been a reputation-making result. Scientists with integrity back off when proven wrong.

    But not the HS authors. They elected immediately to brazen it out, no matter that MM03 was, in and of itself, a definitive disproof. Not only that, but even von Storch and his collaborators could not bring themselves to completely accept that conclusion. And so now, more than four years later, we have you, David, writing an updated HS disproof in AIG. In normal science, that would not have been necessary. Nevertheless, the HS authors will probably brazen out your disproof, too.

    This ‘long term insistence’ :-) on sticking with an explicitly disproved result shows that the authors of the HS do not have the integrity of their claimed profession. They are, in short, dishonest; dishonest in a way analogously identical to the standards violations committed by the professionals of Arthur Anderson in the Enron case.

    Likewise in the field of AGW at large, where claims of a CO2-imposed climate disaster are made on the basis of time-wise projections using GCMs that demonstrably have no ability to make accurate predictions of future global climate. Any reading of GCM literature shows this to be the case. Field-competent scientists who are climate catastrophists do not display the integrity of their claimed profession.

    The only conclusion possible here is that these people have an irrational loyalty to a single view. That view is protected against exposure to definitive disproofs. Even highly intelligent people with highly trained mentalities are prey to this mistake. Privilege granted to intuitive inner certitude — the claim to know without benefit of knowledge — is rife among we humans. Our only escape from it is a conscious adherence to the standard of science.

    AGW catastrophism is doubly dangerous because its proponents have abandoned, indeed subverted, our only protection against irrationality.

    It’s as though a group of doctors were insisting, against all disproofs, on gourd-rattling as a viable substitute for childhood vaccination.

  • Pat Frank

    “one wonders why it is taking so long for the authors of the hokey stick to recant and admit natural climate variability.”

    This question is not only at the core of the continuing debate about the HS, but is central to the entire field of AGW. You know better than almost anyone, David, that M&M 2003 definitively showed the HS to be — in a word — bogus. After MM03, everyone should have known what your AIG article proves, namely that the output HS was pre-implanted in the methodology.

    In ordinary science, the authors of a disproved study would have had to swallow hard, admit the mistake, and carry on to better work. I’ve seen this happen in chemistry a few times, and even once or twice when the mistake concerned what would have been a reputation-making result. Scientists with integrity back off when proven wrong.

    But not the HS authors. They elected immediately to brazen it out, no matter that MM03 was, in and of itself, a definitive disproof. Not only that, but even von Storch and his collaborators could not bring themselves to completely accept that conclusion. And so now, more than four years later, we have you, David, writing an updated HS disproof in AIG. In normal science, that would not have been necessary. Nevertheless, the HS authors will probably brazen out your disproof, too.

    This ‘long term insistence’ :-) on sticking with an explicitly disproved result shows that the authors of the HS do not have the integrity of their claimed profession. They are, in short, dishonest; dishonest in a way analogously identical to the standards violations committed by the professionals of Arthur Anderson in the Enron case.

    Likewise in the field of AGW at large, where claims of a CO2-imposed climate disaster are made on the basis of time-wise projections using GCMs that demonstrably have no ability to make accurate predictions of future global climate. Any reading of GCM literature shows this to be the case. Field-competent scientists who are climate catastrophists do not display the integrity of their claimed profession.

    The only conclusion possible here is that these people have an irrational loyalty to a single view. That view is protected against exposure to definitive disproofs. Even highly intelligent people with highly trained mentalities are prey to this mistake. Privilege granted to intuitive inner certitude — the claim to know without benefit of knowledge — is rife among we humans. Our only escape from it is a conscious adherence to the standard of science.

    AGW catastrophism is doubly dangerous because its proponents have abandoned, indeed subverted, our only protection against irrationality.

    It’s as though a group of doctors were insisting, against all disproofs, on gourd-rattling as a viable substitute for childhood vaccination.

  • Pingback: Niche Modeling » Free CO2 For All

  • Pingback: Niche Modeling » Errors Adding Up