Mann’s Conference Debunks The Hockey Stick

There has been a lot of discussion overnight about the MWP meeting last month in Lisbon. The symposium web site has the graph below on their front page, which is a composite of temperature reconstructions and modeled temperatures.

I noticed that if you looked only at the temperature reconstructions, there is a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and no hockey stick.

Below is the IPCC’s hockey stick overlaid and normalised for the baseline, with “Mike’s nature trick” removed.

What becomes clear is that the warming since 1800 is nothing unusual and is nearly identical to the warming prior to the year 1000.

I don’t understand how any scientist could look at this data objectively and see a hockey stick. It just isn’t there.

Below are versions of the graph with progressively higher overlap thresholds – 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%. Regardless of confidence interval chosen, there is no hockey stick.

 

 

 

 

 

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Mann’s Conference Debunks The Hockey Stick

  1. Brendon says:

    I don’t understand how any “scientist” would remove the uncertainty shading from the graph as you have done in the third.

    • sunsettommy says:

      You mean the fourth chart.

      He he…

      • Brendon says:

        No I meant, and still do mean, the third graph.

        Steve has since modified this post and added a forth graph which helps my argument. The likely reconstruction is that the MWP was not warmer than today.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”

        http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        18 non tree ring proxies clearly shows the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago was much warmer than now:

      • Brendon says:

        Loehle’s not the only person doing reconstructions, but I know why you choose him over everyone else. 😉

        As if it is warmer … http://www.skepticalscience.com/Do-critics-of-the-hockey-stick-realise-what-theyre-arguing-for.html

        I posted this several times but you don’t seem to understand the relevance.

      • ChrisD says:

        Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”

        No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn’t change the fact that the NAS report strongly upheld Mann’s fundamental conclusions, as have numerous subsequent reconstructions.

        And I’m not sure you really understand what the NAS is saying here, either. All it says is that we can’t be as sure about short and very short time spans as we can be about longer ones.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Brendon says:
        October 24, 2010 at 11:56 am

        Loehle’s not the only person doing reconstructions, but I know why you choose him over everyone else.

        You likely don’t. But since you can read minds tell me the reason.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        the NAS report strongly upheld Mann’s fundamental conclusions

        It did not. Plausible is the only word you use. You exaggerate. You give a weak defense for your argument. The Mann Hockey Stick is a poor proxy for temperature reconstruction. That is the conclusion of the NAS.

    • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

      Brendon says:
      October 23, 2010 at 12:48 pm

      I don’t understand how any “scientist” would remove the uncertainty shading from the graph as you have done in the third.

      There’s a lot of things you don’t understand Brendon.

  2. MikeTheDenier says:

    Mann’s hockey stick is no match for Biden’s hockey stick –

    BIDEN: GOP spending $200 billion on campaign ads…

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/200-billion-in-ads-mr-biden-thats-real-money/?ref=politics

  3. RK says:

    I don’t understand how any “scientist” “Brendon” would be fly in every soup article.

  4. Sundance says:

    These scientists better get their story straight before the Congressional hearings on climate science begin in 2011. lol

  5. PJB says:

    CAGW “theorists” (as opposed to skeptical “deniers”) are going to be clutching at strawman arguments even more so once this gets some play.

    Obviously, Watts, Goddard and the rest of the “fringe” of whacko psuedo-scientists will try to make the most of our poor heroes doing what they can to save the planet…..

    Can’t the climate science community be left alone to spend all of our tax dollars on even more sophisticated computer models so that even more bizarre graphs and claims can be concocted to augment the climate of fear…. that is the climate we are talking about, isn’t it?

  6. Geezer1 says:

    Brendon,

    You’ve got scientists falsifying data all the time to prove AGW. What’s wrong with removing the gray. The truth is still there unlike the made up data of AGW.

  7. Pingback: Hockey stick or hockey league? - TheEnvironmentSite.org Discussion and Information Forums

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s