One engineers perspective on global warming 33

In forum1554 MVP members of eng-tips.com develop articles for publication on the Internet. This informal peer-review process has resulted in several articles being published thus far. Early indications make this seem to be an effective way to make information available to the engineering profession.

One of the articles was on my perspective on global warming. It was published today.

I would be very interested to participate in a discussion here about the article or the subject in general. There were several conversations that were started and then cut short in the Engineering Writers Guild because that group is intended to promote publication, not debate points of view. If anyone want to take up those conversations, this is the place to do it (although it is too late to correct formatting, grammar, or punctuation errors).

The article is available at: One engineer's perspective on global warming

Thank you to all of those who worked hard on this article to keep me more or less honest. I had a lot of help, but at the end of the day any errors and/or omissions are mine. I'll share the credit for the good stuff, but I own the mistakes.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[GTTofAK]

"If MBH98 data sources were not good proxies the statistics would not work. The sources of data in the study are quite varied with
solid established and verified scientific relationship to temperature including your acknowledged ice core data."

Which Mann throws out the moment he throws the proxy in his statistical meat grinder. Mann's methods ignore any established scientific relationship. Its a purely correlative model. Mann's methods have been shown to turn proxies upside down to their scientific relationship which happened with the Tiljander lake sediment data.

"I missed another of your fine techniques. Beside claiming your arguments rest on common knowledge to avoid filling in pesky details you also deploy the
" logical fallacy " discussion excuse without backing it up so as to avoid the holes in your ideas."

I have named every single logical fallacy and shown how they apply. Your argument here is a fallacy as well. You and others have put forward the claims. I am not the one who has made the claims. I have only refuted them. It was rconnor who brought up the issues of stratospheric cooling as well as down-welling and outgoing radiation. It was you who brought up MBH98. It is not on me to prove these things. It is on you onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat, the burden of proof is on he who makes the claim not the he who denies it. The burden of proof is on you because you are the one introducing the claims. I'm only refuting them. The fallacy you are engaging in now is commonly called shifting the burden.

 

[GTTofAK]

Furthermore I never dismissed purely statistical exercises. I simply pointed out that I would not trust such things coming from non statisticians published in non-statistical journals. I am also amazed at how so many people took it at face value since its varsity is highly questionable given the sources that both wrote it and reviewed it.

Blind leading the blind basically.

 

[2dye4]

GTTofAK

So you don't consider yourself qualified to find the errors directly in MBH98 ( not just raising doubts ) The math in MBH98 is not
really groundbreaking or unusual, matter of fact the same stuff is used in many psychological and sociological research. So i do not find
your complaint regarding its use in a non statistical journal all that relevant.

Principle Component Analysis

About 6,810,000 results in Google..

""Mann's methods ignore any established scientific relationship"" Actually he does not. The proxies were selected on some
understanding of their relationship. Otherwise he might have included the historical ratios of cats to dogs in London.

The fact is that any proxy that has even an unknown linear correlation to climatic temperature improves the estimates regardless of
whether the science is exactly nailed down.

Lastly where is the credible rebuttal to the paper, feel free to write your own, and no the McKitrick thing doesn't qualify.

rb1957 I don't agree that the method gives the same hockey stick on average with different realizations of the noise.

 

[beej67]

The fact is that any proxy that has even an unknown linear correlation to climatic temperature improves the estimates regardless of
whether the science is exactly nailed down.

What about human population? Does that correlate to climactic temperature?

If so, does it correlate better or worse than CO2 concentration?

I want to hear an atmospheric scientist give a straight answer to this question. An intellectually honest scientist in this field, who's goal was to show that carbon is the only problem, would start by showing that all the other possible sources of warming related to population expansion correlate worse with warming than CO2 does.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[GTTofAK]

"So you don't consider yourself qualified to find the errors directly in MBH98 ( not just raising doubts ) The math in MBH98 is not
really groundbreaking or unusual, matter of fact the same stuff is used in many psychological and sociological research. So i do not find
your complaint regarding its use in a non statistical journal all that relevant."

PCA might be common but Mann's use of short centered PCA is not. And many statisticians who have looked at his use of short centered PCA have criticized it. Perhaps if he had published in a statistical journal instead of a natural science journal a reviewer would have caught it. Furthermore even if Mann did do correct PCA analysis his method of recalibrating the series after PCA selection undoes the PCA. Again something that might have been caught if some real statisticians were co-authors or it had been published in a stastical journal.

" The proxies were selected on some understanding of their relationship."

Please give a formula of how tree ring width is related to temperature.

"The fact is that any proxy that has even an unknown linear correlation to climatic temperature improves the estimates regardless of
whether the science is exactly nailed down."

How do you know the correlation is linear? Trees have an optimal growing temperature. If anything their relationship to temperature is parabolic which makes them useless as a temperature proxy, previous warm periods beyond the optimal growing temperature would be interpreted as cold.

"McKitrick thing doesn't qualify"

Who the hell are you to set the rules?

 

[2dye4]

beej67 that is a good point.

My only response is that the proof is in the bandwidth of the results. As an example. To test a new fertilizer vs and old one. Which is better.

1 half the field covered with new and half the field covered with old.
2 Stripes of new fertilizer laid down the width of the harvesting equipment adjacent to the old laid in similar strips.

Obviously 2 yields more believable results because the field conditions are very unlikely to correlate with the chosen stripes
and the assumed effects are zeroed by the pattern to a large extent.

There is no doubt that humans have altered the heat balance in ways other than greenhouse gasses. I have heard that cutting forests
increases heat retention due to reduced albedo but paving roads and building structures does the opposite for the same reason.

The historic proxies are relatively rich in patterns that yield credence to their correlations ( they don't just rise monotonically like population ).

Surely someone has made a reasonable attempt at quantifying these impacts. I don't think any scientist would say "only problem" but they might
say the main one by a factor of 10 or so.

 

[GTTofAK]

"I don't agree that the method gives the same hockey stick on average with different realizations of the noise."

All statistical reconstructions tend towards hockey sticks. This was shown quite well in both Burger et. al. and Stockwell et. al. The problem is fundamental. Use of short centered PCA and other statistical techniques are just icing on the cake.

The fundamental process is to take series and see how well they correlate to temperature during the 20th century calibration period. If they correlate well they are deemed to be a temperature proxy.

Problem, temperature only did one thing during the calibration period. It went up. If temperature were more varied during the calibration period straight correlations might be more useful. However, it’s not so spurious correlations are going to be common.

Now we take the series that correlate well to temperature and average them together. TAH DAH temperature reconstruction. There are other things involved here the author might use PCA or some bastardized PCA but that is really just pepsi and coke. The above is the basic process for making a statistical reconstruction.

So what happens with random data. Well random red noise will have some series that have a sharp uptick at the end. In a statistical reconstruction these series will be selected as being representative of temperature. If we average these series together you will have the uptick at the end average together while the rest of the series average out to 0. TAH DAH hockey stick.

This is outlined in more detail by both Burger 2006, and Stockwell 2006.

 

[2dye4]

"" And many statisticians who have looked at his use of short centered PCA have criticized it.""

No they haven't. Ritson straightened it out thoroughly and simply.

Mann and McKitrick are witch hunters plain and simple. Their potion stuck to the wall for a while but it has faded to a stain.

http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/ritson.240708.pdf

""Trees have an optimal growing temperature. If anything their relationship to temperature is parabolic""

Check out Greg's link about. Some parabolic but mostly monotonic.

 

[beej67]

FWIW, 2dye4, I'm a huge believer in AGW. The correlations are too strong. I am not remotely a believer in CO2 being the only, or maybe even the primary culprit. And I find it highly questionable that the carbon-only fixes proposed by the carbon-only crowd are going to fix anything, particularly when their own models don't seem to indicate that they will. And the costs are so outrageous, compared to simple things such has habitat preservation that not only have a carbon component, but also an albedo component and a hydrologic component, which are both neglected or ignored by the carbon-people, and also a habitat component, which is the A#1 most important thing for environmental conservation.

There is no doubt that humans have altered the heat balance in ways other than greenhouse gasses. I have heard that cutting forests
increases heat retention due to reduced albedo but paving roads and building structures does the opposite for the same reason.

Yep. The rank sloppiness of how these guys handle albedo is alarming. For instance, I've seen IPCC studies saying that the net effect of urbanization since the industrial revolution is an overall cooling effect, which only a loony would believe after glancing for any more than five minutes at orbital IR imagery of anywhere civilized.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[beej67]

Hit 'submit' too soon, sorry.

Surely someone has made a reasonable attempt at quantifying these impacts. I don't think any scientist would say "only problem" (is carbon) but they might say the main one by a factor of 10 or so.

There are ways to determine the relative weight of anthropogenic warming sources, purely statistically, with regression analyses and the like. Those ways have not been done responsibly.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

and if you go to McKitrick's site you can see his reply ... but then of course you've already written him (along with Mann) as irrelevent (ie "witchhunters").

this is my problem with all this ... for every single comment there is an equal and opposite comment from an apparently equally learned party. this stuff is outside of my experience and if i put aside a month of sundays i might be able to understand the nuances of the technical discussion. two things raised my hackles with MBH98 ...
1) why did Mann put up such resistance to making his data and analysis available ? (this indicates to me that none of the reviewers asked for this, which sounds like an odd review)
2) why is there so much incorrect data in the model ? as i understand it (and i haven't seen any rebuttle) values were copied incorrectly from one parameter to another, from one time to another, and a bunch of zeros.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rb1957]

@2dye4,
"""Trees have an optimal growing temperature. If anything their relationship to temperature is parabolic""
Check out Greg's link about. Some parabolic but mostly monotonic."

from greg's post (19th august, it took some scrolling to find !) ...
"indicating that for every study that found increased growth with warming, there were a similar number that found a decrease"

@BJ,
you having an interesting take on AGW. it'd make an interesting thread (ok, it'll devolve into the same cat-spat but it'll be good for 400 more comments) and another "one engineer's perspective on global warming" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[GTTofAK]

http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/ritson.240708.pdf

"All that is required, to refute their claim that full-centering is requisite, is to show that the same results are obtained irrespective of centering method."

Not a valid hypothesis. It all depends on the nature of the data. Short centering and centered PCA might give the same result on one series and a different results on another. For instance a random red noise series will have the same value regardless if it is short centered or centered. However a hockey stick series will have a far higher value it is short centered as opposed to centered.

 

[GTTofAK]

"nalysis of the noise simulations finds hockey-sticks heights randomly distributed up or down and thus with an ensemble mean height of zero,"

This is also a very poor understanding of Mann's method. Up or down doesn't matter to Mann. His method simply takes the down as an inverse correlation and turns it upside-down. The sign of the hockey stick does not matter.

 

[rconnor]

Beej67,
I’m going to try and explain your reasoning as honestly as I understand it. If I get it wrong, please correct me.
[ul]
[li]The CATO analysis says that the plan will reduce warming by 0.02 deg C[/li]
[li]The EPA says that the plan will save ~$30 Billion (depending on the run and discount rate) through climate change mitigation[/li]
[li]For the sake of the argument, you will temporarily permit the concept that reducing CO2 actual does have benefits[/li]
[li]You believe the CATO analysis and therefore do not believe that reducing warming by 0.02 deg C will save ~$30 Billion[/li]
[li]You conclude that the EPA must be cooking the books.[/li]
[/ul]

As I previously stated, the CATO analysis for X tons of CO2 saved by this one measure = Y deg C less temperature rise is very misleading. To then extend this to say “because Y is near zero, $Z saved in climate change damages must be near zero” is based on a flawed premise. To think that the total result of the Clean Power Plan will only be the direct ~550 MtCO2 in 2030 is wrong. For one, the benefit of increasing numbers of electric vehicles in combination with a clean source of power means that transportation emissions will also reduce. This alone could be larger than the direct benefits. For another, it is incredibly important for the US to (finally) start to get serious about emission reductions, as it sends a strong message to other countries.

Saving ~550 MtCo2 in 2030 is by no means the panacea for global warming but is also by no means insignificant. For reference, the difference in 2030 between RCP85 (close to the “business-as-usual” scenario) and RCP45 is (13.839 - 10.953 =) 2.886 GtCO2. The temperature difference in 2100 between those two scenarios is (4.777 - 2.598 =) 2.2 deg C. The Clean Power plan, alone, would represent 19% of the difference between RCP85 and RCP45 in 2030 – that’s significant.

The fact that the Clean Power Plan represents such a large percentage of the difference between those scenarios makes me question how CATO actually performed their analysis. I tried to recreate it but they just give such little information that it’s impossible to recreate. Did they just subtract 550 MtCO2 from each year past 2030? If so, this is wrong as a “base-case” option would continue to increase CO2 emissions, so that number should grow as well. Given this and CATO’s track record, I’m rather skeptical about using the CATO analysis as the basis of my argument.

Now, I should note that large reductions in CO2 between RCP85 and RCP45 happen after 2050 but this does support my first point which is that the world is not a vacuum. The Clean Power Plan is seen by many in the international community as the US (finally) seriously getting on board with climate change mitigation. The first step in cooperation is participation and the Clean Power Plan is just that.

So, I have two issues with your argument. (1) I’m skeptical about the accuracy of the CATO analysis but CATO has not given enough information to prove or disprove it. (2) Even if true, it is misleading and doesn’t take into account any further or indirect emission savings that will result from the Clean Power Plan. It is incredibly unrealistic. For these two reasons, I’m not ready to agree with CATO’s conclusion that the Clean Power Plan will result in 0.02 deg C.

Now to your choice between “Preserving all of South America’s wilderness” or 0.02 deg C lower temperatures. This is a much different question than realistic forest conservation or the Clean Power Plan. But to answer the (absurdly loaded and unrealistic) question (1) “preserving all of South America’s wilderness” or (2) 0.02 deg C lower temperatures, I’d choose (1).

As I’ve said before, your question really brings up a false choice. Firstly, I feel there might be some political issues with the US spending $8 Billion to turn every square inch of South America’s wilderness into a nature reserve. This just might have a slight economic impact on South America which just might be a tad bigger than $8 billion. In other words, it’s unrealistic. The Wood Land Trust, as great an initiative as it is, would not be able to take a $8 billion to save “75,000 square miles of rain forest”. I’m sure that the US could provide a large sum to conserve a large sum but it would not be anywhere near “preserving all of South America’s wilderness”. I don’t know how much that would be and I don’t know what the benefit would be.

Secondly, as I’ve argued above, the Clean Power Plan will not lead to only 0.02 deg C in temperature mitigation. It represents 19% of the difference between RCP85 and RCP45 in 2030, which lead to massively different temperatures in 2100 (2.2 deg C). Furthermore, I feel that the indirect emissions savings through increased electric vehicles and encouraging adoption of similar initiatives in other countries will lead to more than the direct emission savings of ~550 MtCO2.

Thirdly, the original phrasing of your loaded question ignores the health benefits of the Clean Power Plan. You’ve commented that these savings will just be turned into some other form of healthcare cost in the future. I’d argue that this isn’t entirely true as chronic respiratory issues are very long and very taxing on a healthcare system (and families).

To answer the more realistic and appropriate question (1) realistic forest conservation or (2) the Clean Power Plan, I’d choose (2). Developing a clean energy supply as soon as possible is just too important to pass up. It maybe not as aggressive as I’d want it to be but, given the amount of foot dragging by the US, it’s a great sign of progress. This is not to say that forest conservation isn’t important and, again, I don’t feel we need to treat this as an either/or issue. How about a revenue neutral carbon tax, where part of the revenue goes towards forest conservation. Would you support that?

Beej67, you are certainly the only person I’ve meet that is so passionate about protecting the environment and yet so passionate about rejecting the idea that CO2 emissions might be the biggest threat to the future state of the environment. What’s the most puzzling is that you feel that the global push to mitigate climate change will be bad for the environment. How? Climate change mitigation is about smarter and more sustainable consumption. How could this possibly be bad for the environment? Reducing deforestation and increasing reforestation is intrinsic to mitigating climate change. Protecting wildlife is one of the chief goals of mitigating climate change. Climate change mitigation is finally putting environmental concerns to the forefront. Environmentalism is no longer something that “long-haired hippies” talk about; it’s discussed in our classrooms, boardrooms and, slowly but surely, our political system. The ACC theory didn’t hijack the environmental movement, it gave it a stronger voice.

 

[beej67]

Holy moly. Are you serious?

As I previously stated, the CATO analysis for X tons of CO2 saved by this one measure = Y deg C less temperature rise is very misleading. To then extend this to say “because Y is near zero, $Z saved in climate change damages must be near zero” is based on a flawed premise. To think that the total result of the Clean Power Plan will only be the direct ~550 MtCO2 in 2030 is wrong. For one, the benefit of increasing numbers of electric vehicles in combination with a clean source of power means that transportation emissions will also reduce. This alone could be larger than the direct benefits. For another, it is incredibly important for the US to (finally) start to get serious about emission reductions, as it sends a strong message to other countries.

The clean power plan doesn't buy anyone electric vehicles. It doesn't make electricity any cheaper. And it doesn't make any other country do anything else they're not already doing. So all three of the things you just listed are completely made up. You are literally inventing new, un-accounted-for sources of emission reduction on the fly, completely on your own, to try and justify the EPA's numbers. And I know this because the EPA explicitly did not count any of the reductions you just listed. It says in their report, very specifically, which reductions they counted, and the reductions they counted were only from power plants. Nothing indirect.

This is the kind of "reasoning" that makes people skeptics. You're making people more skeptical right now. Your words are doing it.

Saving ~550 MtCo2 in 2030 is by no means the panacea for global warming but is also by no means insignificant. For reference, the difference in 2030 between RCP85 (close to the “business-as-usual” scenario) and RCP45 is (13.839 - 10.953 =) 2.886 GtCO2. The temperature difference in 2100 between those two scenarios is (4.777 - 2.598 =) 2.2 deg C. The Clean Power plan, alone, would represent 19% of the difference between RCP85 and RCP45 in 2030 – that’s significant.

Now you're cooking the books right in front of us! RCP85 in 2100 is like 29 GtC, and RCP45 in 2100 is like 3 Gtc. Here's a graph.

The difference between RCP85 and RCP45 in 2100 is a lot bigger than in 2030, and you're presuming that the Clean Power Plan somehow jumps the whole world from one scenario to the other. That's asinine. Either you apply the net difference from the clean power plan to one scenario the whole way through or you apply it to the other the whole way through.

The fact that the Clean Power Plan represents such a large percentage of the difference between those scenarios makes me question how CATO actually performed their analysis.

The difference in the two scenarios in 2100 is 29-3=26 GtC, so the 550 MtC would account for 2% of the difference between the two scenarios. 2% is not a "large percentage."

Now, I should note that large reductions in CO2 between RCP85 and RCP45 happen after 2050 but this does support my first point which is that the world is not a vacuum. The Clean Power Plan is seen by many in the international community as the US (finally) seriously getting on board with climate change mitigation. The first step in cooperation is participation and the Clean Power Plan is just that.{/quote]

Well by identical rationale, we could buy 75,000 square miles of rain forest and signify to the international community that we were serious about saving the rain forests, and they'd go and buy the rest of them for us. If you get to claim unspecified international benefits from the international community as a result of policy decisions, I can too.

Now to your choice between “Preserving all of South America’s wilderness” or 0.02 deg C lower temperatures. This is a much different question than realistic forest conservation or the Clean Power Plan. But to answer the (absurdly loaded and unrealistic) question (1) “preserving all of South America’s wilderness” or (2) 0.02 deg C lower temperatures, I’d choose (1).

I don't see how it's absurdly loaded or unrealistic. I, me, beej67, can flat out buy an acre of rain forest to be preserved in perpetuity for a whopping hundred and fifty bucks, depending on exchange rates. Links above. It's not unrealistic at all. People are actually doing it. Private persons, businesses, charities, etc, are actually doing it. Please explain to me how something that lots of people are actually doing, with no government help whatsoever, is completely "absurd and unrealistic" for the government to do.

When you're done, I want you to compare and contrast that with this idea that our government can influence CO2 emissions world wide simply by cranking our own emissions down and hoping for the best. Your entire case is "we should do this and hope for the best." If we just went south and bought rain forest with the money, we wouldn't have to hope others did it for us. We'd own the freaking land. We could prevent anyone from burning it for cattle grazing area because we'd own it.

As I’ve said before, your question really brings up a false choice. Firstly, I feel there might be some political issues with the US spending $8 Billion to turn every square inch of South America’s wilderness into a nature reserve. This just might have a slight economic impact on South America which just might be a tad bigger than $8 billion. In other words, it’s unrealistic.

Yeah, it'd be the shot in the arm that South America needs economically to get out of the stone ages, so they could have functioning economies without burning their rain forests and turning them into crop land. Which is what they're doing now. Nothing in your post explains why it's a false choice, and I've already explained in detail above why it's not.

Beej67, you are certainly the only person I’ve meet that is so passionate about protecting the environment and yet so passionate about rejecting the idea that CO2 emissions might be the biggest threat to the future state of the environment. What’s the most puzzling is that you feel that the global push to mitigate climate change will be bad for the environment. How?

Because the backlash from all your fuzzy math and your blind support of things that are really poor science is going to whip back against environmentalism in general, right when we need a commitment more than ever to conservation. You are pissing away every good intention that the environmentalist movement has, by dumping every dollar down a lava pit.

Put simply, entire species are going to die because of you and people like you, who have chosen a side on policy that even your own science doesn't support.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[beej67]

Meh, broke a quote box above. This forum needs an edit function.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

beej67, a deep breath might be in order. Your last few sentences make it clear that you're becoming overly emotional. You're better than your final sentence, that's all I'll say about it.

Firstly, electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles are expected to increase. More electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles plugging into a cleaner power source than the status-quo power source will further reduce emissions. So that is far from "completely made up".

Secondly, your repeated appeals to argue in some imaginary vacuum world where actions have no secondary impacts is growing stale. The world, especially the developing world, needs to see that the most powerful country and historically the biggest polluter (now 2nd largest) is taking climate change mitigation seriously. This will be important in gathering more international commitment as, currently, one of the biggest roadblocks at climate conferences is the argument that "we'll do something when you (the US) does something". To think that the Clean Power Plan will have absolutely no effect on pushing other countries to adopt similar measures is not a reasonable position to take.

Thirdly, you've inexplicable failed to notice that EPA's Clean Power Plan has estimates up to 2030 and, instead, argued about 2100. Again, have you read the reports? The Plan estimates ~550 MtCO2 savings in 2030. This represents 19% of the difference between RCP85 and RCP45 in 2030. This is not cooking the books, this is you failing to read. Again to argue that this will also mean 550 MtCO2 in 2100 is wrong because the baseline would continue to increase, hence the Clean Power Plan would have much higher savings in 2100. If the CATO analysis assumed this, which I believe they did, then they and their analysis are wrong.

If the Clean Power Plan is successful in pushing other countries to adopt similar measures, then a jump from RCP85 (which is more or less "business-as-usual") to RCP45 or RCP6 is not unrealistic. Increases in clean energy, increases in vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, increases in demand side management, improvements in building codes, and, yes, carbon taxes are all important and effective ways of reducing CO2 emissions. While difficult, it's not impossible.

Fourthly, you really don't see there being any political or economic issues with the US spending $8 billion to prevent any forestry or agricultural or urban growth in the entirety of South America? Really? "We'd own it"? Every inch of forest in South America? No political issues? No economic qualms? In fact, it would be welcomed by the South Americans? Really? I guess maybe in this magical vacuum world this would be a serious alternative.

But honestly beej67, this is nuts. Just say a "large sum" of forest conservation for a "large sum". Neither of us know how much is politically and economically possible but it's certainly much less than the entirety of South America. It doesn't really change your argument, it just makes it sound less ridiculous. And yes, I'll give you that a strong push by the US to preserves forests would likely have so influence on similar measures in other countries.

If you feel that the ACC theory is destroying support for forest conservation, then why does the Woodland Trust's website say "Planting new native woods in the UK increases the size of the carbon "sink", helping to mitigate the effects of some of our greenhouse gas emissions"? Again, it's very bizarre to so passionately (and admirably) fight for forest conservation but think that the ACC theory is the bane of your (and "entire species") existence. In reality, these two concerns are intertwined.

I'll leave your tired and weak argument with the following: we need forest conservation AND we need a clean power supply. I hope we can agree on that. I'll let you have the final word beej67 (except for blatant falsehoods...and please, a little more civil than your last post).

 

[HenryOhm]

BJ, I think you're distorting things. I may not be as up to speed on some of the ins-and-outs and inner workings of all of this. But, it is pretty clear to even me that US reduction initiatives are meant to work alongside other nations. Your own graph shows it pretty simply. The green line is do something early and forcefully, the blue line is do something to some degree at some point, and the red line is well don't do anything until it becomes a serious problem. All the nations are expected to contribute some sort of reductions. Your line of logic also seems to be confusing to some degree what rconnor said about 2030 vs 2100.

Your argument against the clean energy initiatives actually strike a small chord with my own not insignificant cynicism about how much it might matter. But, your argument can be turned back on yourself. The South American rain forests aren't the only ones in the world. How much of the world's total natural rain forests, coral reefs, rangelands, wetlands, etc would be saved if the only areas saved were rain forests in South America? Would it be even 10%. How much of only the South American rain forests have these private initiatives saved? Someone cynical might suggest it's such a small percentage of the total, what's the point? I actually think we should and can try to do both, though I'd suggest that South American rain forests have a lot more to do with what South Americans think and do than North Americans.

"Put simply, entire species are going to die because of you and people like you, who have chosen a side on policy that even your own science doesn't support."

Huh, entire species are going to die entirely the fault of a few Americans who think solar panels or windmills make some sort of sense?!? I missed the connection there....

 

[GTTofAK]

Reading D. Ritson and his point on the an equal number of positive and negative hockey sticks it just leads to the issue of how dishonest Dr. Mann is. Dr. Mann allowed Dr. Ritson's critique to be posted on his blog realcliamte as well as others that make the same claim. Dr. Ritson made the error that Dr. Mann's method was sensitive to sign and an equal number of positve and negative hockey sticks would average out to 0. Dr. Mann never corrected anyone on this. He even posted such claims made by others like Dr. Ritson on his blog without bothering to offer any correction. Now McIntyre and others always responded to these criticisms of equal postive and negative hockey sticks with the simple truth. Mann's method is insensitive to the sign of the predictor. A positive hockey stick is seen as having a positive correlation to temperature a negative hockey stick is seen as a negative correlation to temperature. Negative hockey sticks are then inverted creating a positive hockey stick. That Mann's short centered PCA selects and equal number of positive and negative hockey sticks simply does not matter to the final result. His method is insensitive to the sign of the predictor.

In 2008 Mann produced another hockey stick this hockey stick used a series known as Tiljander, a lake sediment series. The science of lake sediment analysis says that varve thickness should be inversely correlated to temperature. Basically sediment is a proxy for lake freezing. More sediment more freezing, inverse correlation. In the case of the Tiljander series starting at about the industrial revolution the series becomes polluted with human farming infulences. Farming is increasing sediment so the series is no longer a temperature proxy starting in the late 18th century and by the early 20th century the series is useless as a temperature proxy. Dr. Tiljander was very clear on this.

"This recent increase in thickness is due to the clay-rich varves caused by intensive cultivation in the late 20th century… There are two exceptionally thick clay-silt layers caused by man. The thick layer of AD 1930 resulted from peat ditching and forest clearance (information from a local farmer in 1999) and the thick layer of AD 1967 originated due to the rebuilding of the bridge in the vicinity of the lake’s southern corner (information from the Finnish Road Administration)."

Dr. Mann totally ignored this and use the series anyways with a calibration period in the early 20th century right at the peak of the peat ditching and forest clearance data contamination. Now based upon the scientific inverse correlation to temperature the tiljander series shows both a strong medieval warm period and a strong little ice age. However, when passed into Dr. Mann’s statistical meat grinder which care nothing for the science behind the proxy the meat grinder interpreted the 20th century contamination as a temperature signal and and correlated the varve thickness positively to temperature. The exact opposite of how varve thickness actually correlates. The meat grinder inverted the series creating a super hockey stick. The medieval warm period became a super cold period, the little ice age became a warm period, and the post industrial revolution contamination became a super warming.

This didn’t stand for long. Shortly after publication Dr. Mann was called on his error by McIntyre and many others including the original author of the series Tiljander for inverting the sign of the correlation. Dr. Mann’s response was rather revealing.

“The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.”

Now mind you for the previous 3 years Mann let others make the claim that his short centered PCA will select and equal number equal number of positive and negative hockey sticks. Dr. Mann never once corrected them on this. He even pushed their claims as proof that he was correct. Revealingly he never once made the claim directly because he knew full well that M&M and others were right and his method was insensitive to the sign of the predictor. Three years later when his feet were to the fire on upside down Tiljander he says exactly what M&M and others have been saying about the positive and negative hockey stick claim, “multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors”. Tottally invalidating every single argument that had ever been made about an equal number of positive and negative hockey sticks. Arguments the he had been pushing for three years but never directly making because he knew full well that they were wrong.

This goes right at the heart of his credibility. How can we trust a scientists who will so easily back science that he knows full well is wrong just because it suits his objective at the present moment?