While catching up on things this morning, a link at Bishop Hill took me to one of the most penetrating and concise commentaries on the Hockey Stick controversy that I have seen, and it comes from a rather surprising source.
I’m not going to attempt to summarise what it says, mainly because if I did so it would probably give the impression that the author – Sam Norton, a philosopher and country parson – is reiterating arguments that most of us have often heard before, and to some extent this is the case. The power of his post comes not from covering new ground, but from the clarity and rigour with which it brings together issues that are often discussed in isolation: the political influences that contaminate climate science, reliance on arguments from authority, and the insights that applying dispassionate philosophical analysis to a scientific controversy can provide.
If you are commenting here on what Sam has to say then please, please, lets not have yet another discussion of what Michael Mann’s work may or may not tell us about climate over the last millennium. That is not what the article is about. The Hockey Stick saga has far more interesting things to tell us about the relationship between politics, science and belief at the beginning of the 21st century than whether the 1990’s were the warmest decade for a thousand years – if that matters – and that 1998 was the warmest year.
If you consider commenting at Sam Norton’s blog, then I advise you to get all your ducks in a row first. He seems to be a very pleasant and courteous chap, but note his reply to ‘Tess’, third comment down.
Kudos to Andrew Montford (aka Bishop Hill) whose book The Hockey Stick Illusion is helping to bring what appears to be a rather grubby scandal to the attention of a far wider circle of people whose views are valuable.
Can I be the first to find mirth in the fact that Sam Norton warns against “arguments from authority”?
TonyN
The Sam Norton essay compares the corruption of climate science with that of the Catholic Church at the time of Martin Luther, with Steve McIntyre unwittingly playing the same role in exposing this corruption as Luther did.
Norton points out that, just as the Church tried to obscure its basic corruption at the time, “the response of the establishment to McIntyre’s questioning has been to close ranks and stonewall”.
The “appeal to authority” used by mainstream climate science today is in effect “the equivalent of the church saying ‘trust us’ to Luther”.
Where Montford’s book, “The Hockey Stick Illusion” explains the “what” and “how” behind the Hockey Stick scandal in great detail, Norton’s post explains the “why” in an powerful, but easy-to-understand philosophical way.
Max
John A
Sam Norton does not claim to be an “authority” on climate science (or even paleo-climatology), so his argument is not an “appeal to authority”.
This is in contrast to climate scientist, Andrew Dessler’s essay on the Grist site some months ago, in which he expressed an elitist view on who is qualified to have a relevant opinion in the current debate surrounding the hypothesis of potentially alarming anthropogenic greenhouse warming.
Dessler compared this to a medical diagnosis, stating that just as one would be foolish not to go to a qualified expert for such a diagnosis one should go to the established climate scientists for a climate change prognosis.
That is an “appeal to authority”, similar to that apparently used by Church theologians at the time against Martin Luther, according to Norton.
Max
TonyN
This is a very interesting article and backs up what many people from a wide variety of backgrounds are saying. At some point mainstream political leaders will come to say the same thing.
But more than anything I think that science has become almost totally corrupted in the West, perhaps because of the way it is funded by central governments. Science has this reputation for being open and following the scientific method and we in the sceptic community have often thought that this corruption has in the main been Climate Science problem.
I however have begun to think there is a more deep seated problem of complacency and comfort throughout science. Many scientists it appears are resistant to any change whatever it maybe, and there are some fundamental theories that may have to be modified over the next few years or decades as we learn more.
Just as an example one such theory is Newton’s Law of Gravity. This has been cast in stone and on earth it works perfectly. Out in the Solar system it begins to deviate, and the big experiment to prove Newton’s Law with the Voyager spacecraft finds them both off course. Other spacecraft have missed their targets by feet or inches, and a craft to mercury was metres off course. Reading about how scientists handle this is a rerun of how Steve McIntyre and others get blanked.
And here again we have to point the finger at the (Church) Royal Society who rather than protect the best traditions of science are destroying its reputation, for they are ultimately powerless to suppress discovery and endeavour.
One thing that was pointed out to me was that the vast majority of scientific breakthroughs are discovered by young people or those that have bashed away for years to discover something. Seldom are breakthrough achieved by those who currently occupy the Royal Society. Perhaps its time for some better representation?
Max & JohnA,
As with all logical fallacies, the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority does not necessarily make its conclusion untrue. This line of thought is known as the logical fallacy fallacy!! Furthermore, it does not make it unreasonable to believe the truth of the argument.
For example, the fact that nearly all medical scientists have reached the consensus that HIV infection causes AIDS does make it very reasonable for a person without knowledge in the field to believe that HIV does indeed cause AIDS.
Of course AIDS/HIV denialists would claim that the link is nothing more than an argument from authority with the heavy implication that therefore it was untrue. Just as Sam Norton is doing with the link between increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and global warming!
Max You write “Just as an example one such theory is Newton’s Law of Gravity. This has been cast in stone and on earth it works perfectly.”
Well no it doesn’t. It is just the same on earth as out in the solar system. In reality, on earth, all deviations are very very small and in most cases it is not worth applying Einstein’s relativistic corrections which do fix up the theory as perfectly as can be measured. One exception is the operation of GPS using low orbital satellites. Relativistic corrections do have to be made to avoid appreciable innacuracy.
You are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to use Newton’s Law to further your agenda of how scientists are resistant to change. It was all worked out by Einstein early last century and there has been no lack of effort in looking for any further discrepancies between theory and measurement.
PeterM
As usual, you have missed the point of Sam Norton’s blog.
Read it again (if necessary, a few times) to let the meaning sink in.
The “appeal to authority” was made in context with the established authority on Christian dogma (and hence Church practices) at the time of Martin Luther, i.e. the theologians of the Catholic Church.
The “peer-reviewed mainstream climate scientists” now claim that mantle of authority with regard to climate science (and hence the predictions of serious problems resulting from AGW).
The “trust us” advice of today’s “mainstream climate scientists” is just as hollow as the same “trust us” advice of the Church theologians to Luther at the time, and Norton’s analogy is valid, as is his comparison of Luther to McIntyre as exposers of the inherent corruption of the establishment.
Your blather on HIV/AIDS or gravity is OT here and has contributed nothing except obfuscation (as it was probably intended to do).
Max
PeterM
This gets boring at times, but here is a quote
“The Pioneer anomaly refers to deviations from projected courses for several spacecraft sent to the outer solar system. The data sent back from both Pioneer spacecraft, Galileo, and Ulysses, represent one of the first meaningful tests of the precision of gravitation predictions over long distances. The spacecraft have deviated from the courses which scientists predicted using general relativity, as well as Newtonian mechanics, indicating that both theories may be fundamentally flawed.”
Peter, just for once in your life don’t assume we are idiots and that you can chuck back any bit of rubbish and assume we’ll roll over. I’m very sorry I mixed up pioneer and voyager though, not that it makes a scrap of difference to my point
PeterM
Just to carry the thought by Peter Geany on the Royal Society one step further in context with Sam Norton’s essay.
To make the statement: “The Royal Society is in agreement with the “mainstream” view on AGW, therefore it must be correct”, is a classical “appeal to authority”.
To say, “Hundreds of actual case studies and laboratory analyses have enabled medical science to establish a clear link between the HIV virus and AIDS”, is NOT an “appeal to authority”, but a statement of fact.
Get the difference?
You may find it to be subtle, but it is there.
Max
TonyN
One of the comments to the Norton blog on Bishop Hill (from a poster named P. Gosselin) caught my eye as particularly pertinent, so I have copied it below:
Referring to Norton’s statement:
Gosselin commented:
Max
PeterM
You wrote (5) about
Let’s examine that link more closely.
First, let’s concentrate on CO2, the principal trace GHG preferred by IPCC.
Then let’s look at the physical record.
We are limited to the period after 1958 for physical observations of atmospheric CO2 (Mauna Loa), but we have estimates based on ice core reconstructions for earlier values. Let’s assume these estimates (as cited by IPCC) are “correct”, despite some conflicting analytical values (as cited earlier by TonyB).
We have a modern surface temperature record (HadCRUT) that goes back to 1850. Curiously, it keeps getting “corrected” and “adjusted” after the fact, but let’s take the latest version as the “correct” record.
If we look at this record in detail we see a very poor “link between increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and global warming”.
In fact, we see three distinct multi-decadal periods of warming (of about 30 years each), with two multi-decadal periods of cooling in between (of also about 30 years each).
The first two warming periods, as well as the first cooling period, occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, before there was any substantial increase in CO2.
The second cooling period occurred after WWII, as CO2 concentrations began to increase rapidly as a result of the post-war boom years.
And finally we have the third warming period (starting around 1976), which has been used by IPCC as the “poster period” for most of its latest AR4 report on GH warming, and which occurred at the same time as atmospheric CO2 increased rapidly.
So out of the five 30-year periods, we really only have one where temperature and CO2 both rose at the same time.
This is a very poor statistical correlation, Peter, no matter how you try to turn it.
In addition, temperature has been cooling after 2000, despite record increase in CO2, which raises even more doubt concerning the robustness of the observed correlation between CO2 and temperature.
And we all know that if the observed statistical correlation between CO2 and temperature is not robust, the observed case for causation is extremely weak.
Peter, if you want to talk about “the link between increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and global warming”, you’ve got to come with something a bit more substantial than that.
Basic GH theory and model-derived “positive feedback” assumptions (which allegedly triple the GH effect of CO2 alone) are one thing, but the observed data do not support your statement at all.
Max
I suggest everyone (especially Max) is misunderstanding the reason for John A’s mirth re Sam Norton warning against “arguments from authority”. Sam Norton is a clergyman. Presumably he believes in God.
Get it?
And PeterM: the reason why medical scientists are convinced that HIV infection causes AIDS is (as Max pointed out) because the hypothesis is verified by empirical evidence. Appeal to authority is neither here nor there.
Get it?
Max: re the Gosselin comment, I’m in correspondence with an “ecopsychologist” – and do they feel superior to those wretched deniers!
Max #11
I think it is important to put the known climate data into its proper perspective. This is CET to 1659.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/_sgg/m2m1_1.htm
As you can see, throughout the record the temperatures have been warming-centuries before the input of Co2 by man. The period around 1700-1730 shows a particularly notable upturn in temperatures.
This instrumental record is backed up by various other records, such as this one from Uppsalla.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/how-long-is-a-long-temperature-history/
We are fortunate with this record- from our friend Arrhenius’s home town- to have the botanical garden records as well. These take us back to around 1695. Around 1710 they talk about planting outside some quite exotic plants-together with mulberries.
So the temperature rise can be traced back to at least 1690, and if we look further back, before the English Civil War, we can know that the coldest part of this second phase of the LIA ocurred in the early part of the 17th Century, so we can actually trace that rise from around 1620.
The modern GISS record merely ‘plugs’ into the end of this well documented slow and gentle rise. The Giss record curiously started from a known trough in temperatures around 1880-If Hansen had taken the previous decades records, when there was a notable peak, the slope would not be as high as is commonly shown.
This all suggests to me that CO2 is a very weak climate driver that is overwhelmed by natural variability.
Tonyb
Robin
Re 12 – appeal to (supreme and omniscient) authority.
Got it.
Max
TonyB:
Re central England temperatures since 1659 / CO2 emissions, I like this chart.
TonyB
Your reference (13) to pre-1850 climate changes (when there was no AGW) further corroborate the premise (as you say) that CO2 is, at best, a weak driver of climate, and that natural variability is much more important.
This is hard for Peter to see, not because he cannot grasp it, but because he has difficulty accepting it, as it conflicts with his preconceived notion that CO2 is the principal driver of our planet’s climate.
But, even leaving the pre-1850 record aside, it is clear that only one of the five multi-decadal temperature swings observed since 1850 show any correlation with atmospheric CO2, while the other four do not.
This is an extremely weak correlation, and certainly not a robust basis for causation, as even Peter must admit if he is honest about it.
Max
PS There was an interesting exchange on Bart Verheggen’s blog, where a blogger named “VS”, who is apparently well versed in statistical analysis, demonstrated that the correlation between CO2 and temperature was not statistically robust, and that the case for causation was, therefore, weak. Defenders of the AGW paradigm were not convincing, as they could not invalidate the analysis by VS. The thread is now closed, but it is worth checking out.
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/#comment-3336
Robin #15
Could you post that graph as a named link? Thanks.
Max #16
Yes, I followed that very long thread with great interest. Statistically, or from instrumental and observational records, it is very difficult to discern that Co2 is a powerful climate driver as natural variabilty overwhelms it.
Modern temperature records from 1880 merely demonstrate that Hansen captured the rising trend observed for centuries.
Tonyb
Max, You say “here is the quote” but where is the quote from? It sounds like you’ve been wasting your time reading psuedo-scientific websites again. Neither Newton’s laws, nor Einstein’s modifications to them, are “fundamentally flawed”. No-one who knew what they were talking about would ever refer to them way even if it does turn out that further modifications may be necessary.
Have you ever considered taking up gardening to occupy your time in retirement?
I wasn’t going to bring this up Pete; however, you incorrectly attributed a quote to Max (your #6) whereas Mr Geany was the author (#4).
Perhaps you should be tending the garden.
Good chart Robin (Tonyb)……….Wonderful expanse of time that accurately reflects the scales and the inept prophecies of the IPCC models.
I’m going to pass that one around at work tomorrow.
That is your chart, right Tonyb?
Brute,
Yes you’re right. That’s not a sentence I use very often! Peter Geany should be packed off to dig his garden! Mind you, there are plenty of other posts from Max which would merit a similar sentence.
There is plenty to say about the CET chart. The most obvious is that we are talking about Global warming. The English, like the Americans, can be very inward looking at times, and sometimes give the impression they think that the world ends at the English Channel.
Also the IPCC are saying 2-4.5 degC for the temperature rise by the end of the century. 7 degF is a possible figure. It looks like you have mixed up your Centigrade and Fahrenheit with the dotted line for your “Climate Model Prediction”.
The CET chart to which I referred is based, I believe, on this original:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/cet-1659.gif
It’s particularly interesting as it’s probably the longest instrument-based temperature in the world. But, as for it not being global (PeterM), well, yes, that’s obviously true. But, of course, temperature as actually experienced is never global; global temperatures are an artificial (and controversial) artefact. But the CET chart is but one of a myriad of charts on the John L Daly (sadly deceased) site – here. These records are most certainly global – and fascinating.
BTW a remarkable feature of the CET chart is the extraordinary temperature increase between 1700 and 1740. In England at least it would seem to have been nearly as warm at the beginning of the eighteenth century as it was at the end of the twentieth, having climbed from the coldest period in the entire record.
Brute, Peter and Robin
Brute
My link is #13. Robin then posted an interesting graph in #15 which showed the trend line AND Emissions. I posted numerous graphs showing the emissions here last year but not with the trend line as well. The climate model prediction -dotted red line-appears to be mixing global temperatures and CET temperatures.
Robin #22
I am still hoping for the original source-the John Daly one is not the same at all. I refer to the extraordinary warming at the start of the 18th century in my #13
Peter #21
The thing about CET is that it is real-not a simulated computer program or one derived from tree rings. Why use tree rings when you have thermometers?
The trends shown here, and in a variety of other instrumental records that I have alluded to numerous times here, and which are collected on my web site, clearly demonstrate that there are peaks and troughs, but a steadily warming world was established from at least 1690.
This instrumental data is backed up by numerous observational records.
So perhaps CET and a variety of others are completely contrary to what is happening everywhere else in the world? Or perhaps they merely demonstrate that modern warming is just part of a well established trend that was accepted as the norm pre hockey stick?
Places are warming and places are cooling and due to the uhi influence on a major part of our temperature data base, the warming signal out performs the cooling signal when it is all tossed together into that nonsensical ever changing mish mash of figures known as ‘global temperatures’.
As an example in 2009 there were 2333 stations Max; 1 per 248178 sq miles
Max in 1979 decade 9191 1 per 62996 sq miles
Of course there are a preponderance of thermometers in some places, but simplistically these days there is one thermometer for each area of land the size of France. In 1979 there were more like four. France has various distinct climatic zones and large numbers of micro climates within these, so the information being recorded is by no means representative and has become much less so over the years. Do you seriously believe this constant changing of the goal posts whilst at the same time mixing apples and oranges, is a proper way of measuring?
Separate out these individual strands of temperature spaghetti and the raw data can be clearly seen. These old individual records have been examined ad infinitum by such as Phil Jones who was apparently fascinated by the temperature data sets preceding the 1850 cut off point that he chose in 1993. He subsequently identified seven as being of particular interest and in 2002- together with Dr D Camuffo- wrote a fascinating book on early (pre 1850) climate as measured by seven data sets.
http://www.isac.cnr.it/~microcl/climatologia/improve.php
The link to the book/dvd is towards the bottom of the article. The caveats expressed about the longer data sets are worth reading. In it he mentions;
‘The actual warming rate has been proven to be at such a slow rate that temperature changes, over years (i.e. 0.006°C/yr) and even decades (i.e. 0.06°C/decade), are in most cases smaller than the instrumental resolution and can hardly be directly detected.’
There was an additional study of old weather records carried out in Europe. As CRU was the UK partner Phil Jones seems to have been involved in this also;
http://ralph.swan.ac.uk/millennium/Millennium8a2.htm
Both papers are well worth reading, not only because they are fascinating, but they also provide a better understanding of current interpretation of past recorded climate.
I have collected many of the pre 1850 sets on my site;
http://wwww.climatereason.com
Phil Jones concluded;
“Globally, minimum temperatures appear to be warming at a faster rate than
Maximum temperatures (Karl et al., 1993), particularly since the 1950s (IPCC,
2001), possibly associated with a change in cloud cover. Jones et al. (1999)
found no significant increase in very warm days in the Central England Temperature series in recent years, but there was a marked decrease in the frequency of very cold days. A decrease in the diurnal temperature range has
also been found in Northern and Central Europe (Heino et al., 1999)”
Can I reiterate the obvious point that the world is becoming less cold rather than notably warming-as a result the low temperatures during the LIA interludes brought down the mean average. We should hardly be surprised as we move away from the LIA, that low temperatures will recede which will impact on the overall mean average temperatures.
Perhaps you can tell us what you believe Peter? Do you seriously argue that the temperature trend was downwards or constant until 1880 when all of a sudden it shot up?
Your thoughts are awaited as is the evidence.
Tonyb
PeterM
You wrote to Brute (21):
Actually, to be more precise, IPCC are saying between 1.1 and 6.4C temperature increase from 1980-1999 average to the year 2090-2099 average, with a “best estimate” for the scenarios ranging from 1.8 to 4.0C.
In other words, IPCC is projecting a maximum increase of 6.4C over 9 decades or 0.71C per decade.
Over a complete century (10 decades) this would be 7.1C increase
The CET chart shows the “climate model prediction” “100 years from now” (= year 2110).
The actual end 2009 temperature appears to be 10C.
The “Climate Model Prediction” for year 2110 appears to be 17C, or 7C higher than the 2009 level.
So the CET chart shows the maximum “Climate Model Prediction” of IPCC in degrees C (not F, as you assumed).
When you make statements, Peter, do not simply “shoot from the hip”. Otherwise you may end up “shooting yourself in the foot”, as you have done here.
Max
TonyB:
Re your (illuminating) #23, my apologies for not providing the original source of my chart at #15. Here it is:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi
It’s interesting that this shows an temperature increase for central England (a part of your “steadily warming world”) of only 0.26C per century. That’s surprisingly little and were it to continue to 2100 (as I’d be inclined to expect) would, far from being a concern, be quite welcome.
BTW there’s an error in the reference to your own (very useful) site. It should read:
http://climatereason.com/ (you included “wwww”).