Rings of Noise on Hockey Stick Graph

Finally, one journalist has the message right: Duane Freese in his article — “Hockey Stick Shortened?” — at TechCentralStation reports on the National Academy of Sciences report “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years“. Repetition of the consensus view of strong evidence of recent global warming is not newsworthy. Increase in the uncertainty of the Millennial temperature record is. He says:

The most gratifying thing about the National Academy of Science panel report last week into the science behind Michael Mann’s past temperature reconstructions – the iconic “hockey stick” isn’t what the mainstream media have been reporting — the panel’s declaration that the last 25 years of the 20th Century were the warmest in 400 years.

The hockey stick, in short, is 600 years shorter than it was before and the uncertainties for previous centuries are larger than Mann gave credence. And when the uncertainty of the paleoclimatogical record increases with time, the uncertainty about human contribution is likewise increased. Why? For a reason noted on page 103 of the report: climate model simulations for future climates are tuned to the paleoclimatogical proxy evidence of past climate change.

And what are the mainstream media reporting? A list of titles of news articles from the Controversial Topics Hockey Stick Graph resource confirms they are little more than a Webring of Noise on climate change issues. Better sources are blogs for informed opinion.

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Rings of Noise on Hockey Stick Graph

  1. Interesting, David. You say you don’t know TCS yet you quote from it.

    It’s obvious that your writing style differs little from the Heritage/AEI template. Jus’ sayin’.

    Anyway, I think folk like Glaeser would be interested in your temp/precip result, as this would go slightly against their analysis. Perhaps you should write it up and publish. Just not how you write on the blog.

    Best,

    D

  2. Interesting, David. You say you don’t know TCS yet you quote from it.

    It’s obvious that your writing style differs little from the Heritage/AEI template. Jus’ sayin’.

    Anyway, I think folk like Glaeser would be interested in your temp/precip result, as this would go slightly against their analysis. Perhaps you should write it up and publish. Just not how you write on the blog.

    Best,

    D

  3. Re: 1. I have you to thank for pointing TCS out to me. It primed my attention for when Lubos mentioned it. Never tell people not to do things. I will check out Glaeser. Cheers

  4. Re: 1. I have you to thank for pointing TCS out to me. It primed my attention for when Lubos mentioned it. Never tell people not to do things. I will check out Glaeser. Cheers

  5. Check out the urban economics literature. Most of the micro folks there use temp as a variable in assessing likelihood of migration, land rent pricing, etc.

    Best,

    D

  6. Check out the urban economics literature. Most of the micro folks there use temp as a variable in assessing likelihood of migration, land rent pricing, etc.

    Best,

    D

  7. Thanks for the constructive suggestion. I actually think the climate relations are fairly spurious. I redid the analysis with more variables and discovered elevation as the major factor. Perhaps there are spatial economic transport and boundary models that might be explanatory. Haven’t got time for a thorough study though, but the example will be in my book. Cheers

  8. Thanks for the constructive suggestion. I actually think the climate relations are fairly spurious. I redid the analysis with more variables and discovered elevation as the major factor. Perhaps there are spatial economic transport and boundary models that might be explanatory. Haven’t got time for a thorough study though, but the example will be in my book. Cheers

  9. He said just the same thing as the revised Wiki entry – increased uncertainty in past temperatures is the new information. The largely press missed the point and rereported the old information. They missed the signal and reported the noise. If quoting the source of a fairly innoculous point like that damages credibility with you then so be it.

    You have yet to point me to anything you think is worthwhile reading form your perspective. Help me out here!

  10. He said just the same thing as the revised Wiki entry – increased uncertainty in past temperatures is the new information. The largely press missed the point and rereported the old information. They missed the signal and reported the noise. If quoting the source of a fairly innoculous point like that damages credibility with you then so be it.

    You have yet to point me to anything you think is worthwhile reading form your perspective. Help me out here!

  11. You have yet to point me to anything you think is worthwhile reading form your perspective. Help me out here!

    I presume you are asking me for counterexamples of essays to contrast the astroturf/FUD put out by certain Heritage/CEI type operations. The implication is to avoid essays such as those found in these organization’s websites or on ClownHall.com (containing the devices I described earlier to engender head-nodding in the reader by using emotive-inducing phrases).

    Essays that lack such devices abound. If you’re asking for specific urban economics papers that talk about using a factor to determine a likelihood of a region being a receiving area, let me know. Obviously I don’t visit your blog too often, so be patient for my reply David.

    Best,

    D

  12. You have yet to point me to anything you think is worthwhile reading form your perspective. Help me out here!

    I presume you are asking me for counterexamples of essays to contrast the astroturf/FUD put out by certain Heritage/CEI type operations. The implication is to avoid essays such as those found in these organization’s websites or on ClownHall.com (containing the devices I described earlier to engender head-nodding in the reader by using emotive-inducing phrases).

    Essays that lack such devices abound. If you’re asking for specific urban economics papers that talk about using a factor to determine a likelihood of a region being a receiving area, let me know. Obviously I don’t visit your blog too often, so be patient for my reply David.

    Best,

    D

  13. Pingback: zobacz tutaj

  14. Pingback: zobacz tutaj

  15. Pingback: ghd lisseur professionnel

  16. Pingback: kliknij

  17. Pingback: zobacz tutaj

  18. Pingback: zobacz oferte

  19. Pingback: kliknij

  20. Pingback: oferta

  21. Pingback: kliknij tutaj

  22. Pingback: link

  23. Pingback: oferta

  24. Pingback: zobacz tutaj

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s