Scientists Reconstruct Millennium's Coldest Winter 290
Ponca City, We love you writes "In England they called it the Great Frost, while in France it entered legend as Le Grand Hiver, three months of deadly cold that fell over Europe in 1709 ushering in a year of famine and food riots. Livestock died from cold in their barns, chicken's combs froze and fell off, trees exploded and travelers froze to death on the roads. It was the coldest winter in 500 years with temperatures as much as 7 degrees C below the average for 20th-century Europe. Now as part of the European Union's Millennium Project, Scientists are aiming to reconstruct the past 1000 years of Europe's climate using a combination of direct measurements, proxy indicators of temperature such as tree rings and ice cores, and data gleaned from historical documents."
Bring back the Frost fairs. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The rate of flow and the layout of river have changed which are the primary reason you don't have the Thames freezing any more, the BBC has pictures of parts of the Thames frozen during from this and previous years but that is in slow moving areas.
Also during the years they had some of the longest lasting fairs they were doing construction on the river and daming up parts or slowing the flow of sections and those were the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because climate scientists would rather act as gatekeepers for patches submitted by kids in their basements than focus on the work they're paid to do.
And how do you know that open source principles aren't in play with the work they're doing? Just because they don't have a project up on SourceForge doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't working with any and all interested parties. It might just be that they don't throw the
Re:So what about global warming ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would just have a lot more faith in the models if they were open source.
Yes, because climate scientists would rather act as gatekeepers for patches submitted by kids in their basements than focus on the work they're paid to do.
"Open source" doesn't have to mean "patches welcome :)".
Re:So what about global warming ? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, if the climate models could re-create the last 1000 years
It's not too difficult to construct a model that simulates past events, because you know exactly what behaviour it should have.
I would just have a lot more faith in the models if they were open source. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not sure - some of them may be available),
No offence, I notice the qualifiers, but I suspect you're not well up on how the (academic) scientific world works.
First, you should note the difference between a scientific model and a computer model. Generally the scientific model is the theory and the computer model simply an implementation of it in program form (though some have argued that a computer model *is* a scientific model, but let's not confuse things).
Anyway, the theory is certainly not kept secret -- it's published in papers and discussed and argued over. That's the whole point of science!
The computer model though is generally not kept secret either. There's no need. The scientific theory is the key, and it doesn't harm the scientists to let others play with their model. Many programs used (I would guess) are open source or public domain. Even if not explicitly so, researchers will often supply copies of the code on request. If the code is not supplied, it's probably because the scientists haven't got around to it yet, or because no one needs it, or because the code involved is trivial.
but apparently it's more important that researchers keep their competitive advantages away from other researchers than to allow people to replicate their results.
I don't know where you've got this idea from, but this doesn't really happen. Researchers may keep ideas quiet until they publish to avoid someone else claiming the glory, but after they publish it's in their interests for as many people to use their work as possible. If people replicate their results, then that's independent verification of their results -- wonderful! If people build on their model to produce a better one, they get cited and gain influence -- great! The difficulty for researchers is actually the opposite problem -- getting people to notice and user their work. I'm sure there are counter examples, but that has been my experience.
Re:So what about global warming ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the code is not supplied, it's probably because the scientists haven't got around to it yet, or because no one needs it, or because the code involved is trivial.
I'm involved in scientific computer modeling, and I've had requests from other researchers to use my code. Though I love everything open-source and believe in sharing information, so far I've decided not to give my code to anybody. The reason is that when you write code only for your small research group, it's usually not very well documented or easy to use. Therefore I know I would get flooded with support requests and questions about the code, and unfortunately I don't have time for that. I wonder how other researchers have dealt with this problem.
Re:So what about global warming ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have "optimized" (by running profilers on it) a very VERY good program for molecular simulation. It can do molecular dynamics, monte carlo, gradual insertion and what not...
It is designed to run on super-computers, and the next best contestant (Towhee), which is open source, is no where near it. For a simulation that takes 10 days on Towhee, we take only 3 days.
And it all is proprietary. It was written and maintained by a group of PhD students over many years, and they used to distribute binaries to those who needed them. No source code!
I got the source code in the name of profiling, but actually because they offered a PhD position to me, and I was supposed to work on it.
In short, competitive computer models remain closed source. The theory might be well published, the implementation remains within those who want to publish some-thing before someone else does.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's a pissing contest first, and the progression of science comes a distant second?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So what about global warming ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your faith in the scientific method is very sweet; unfortunately it has been shown (Wegman, McIntyre et al.) that Climate Scientists often don't publish all of their data and code. With a lot of these studies it's almost impossible to provide independent verification and a lot of work involves reverse engineering from their results to find out exactly what they did (`Mannian' PCA for example).
With respect to getting people to notice their work, in Climate Science it consists of a simple press release warning of (take your pick) catastrophic warming, catastrophic flooding, catastrophic cooling, catastrophic extinction, catastrophic weather, dead penguins (Linux fans please note!).
Re:So what about global warming ? (Score:5, Informative)
This goes right to the peer review process. This stuff is supposed to be validatable, but even years after publication which is supposed to be post-validation, you are fighting to get the data needed to validate. Often a requirement of a Journal (such as Science, or Nature) is also that the data is to be archived and available, but the standard when it comes to Climate researchers who are publishing is that its simply OK that the data is neither archived nor available... that nobody bothered to do any validation at all.
The peer review process is a complete failure in the climate sciences. It appears to truely be a clique of climate scientists blindly signing off on each others work while they rake in the government grants.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He would like to but the references were unfortunately lost in a hard drive melt down.
You just need to trust him on this.
Re:So what about global warming ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that the current "global warming" programs have been written with the assumption that global warming is real, and that they have built this "fact" into the programs. Since there is no way to review the source code to see if this is true, they protect themselves from discovery of this fact. In any other area of science, peer review is considered important, but in this area anything that supports it is lauded, but anything that negates is either ignored or loudly declaimed.
You MUST believe whatever they tell you, or the inquisition will come after you.
There are many bizarre ideas that you must believe to belong in the global warming cult. Such as, the sun has no effect on the earth, carbon produced by SUV's (which is less than 2% of that produced by natural means) is the major cause of global warming, volcanoes don't produce greenhouse gases, the Earth's temperature has never varied more than 1/10 of a degree over the last million years.
What can you say about a program that assumes that the sun and volcanic eruptions have absolutely no effect on the global temperature?
Until you seperate global warming from religion, you will not get any real science done. Until the real cause is understood, there cannot be a usable correction. Any "fix" without understanding the real problem would be like changing the tires on your car when you see an pool of oil under it. You've done something, spent a lot of money, but fixed nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the climate models could re-create the last 1000 years, that would be a pretty good validation. I doubt they can though.
Our sun is about to enter the 309 year cycle with that ice age:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle [wikipedia.org]
Re:Bad Science (Score:5, Funny)
This article, and the research it talks about, is nothing but bad science. Computer models? Tree rings? Proxy indicators? This isn't the internet we're talking about, people, its the climate. IE the temperature. And how do you measure temperature? Well, I use a thermometer, why can't these people?
They've found a way to turn a supercomputer into an extremely powerful thermometer, far better than that wimpy glass tube you have.
We all know that, over time, layers of sediment build up, and so, by digging into the ground you are seeing the earth as it was some time ago - so why don't the scientists just use a thermometer to measure the temperature of the soil at different depths?
Because their superpowerful supercomputing thermometer is far to big to stick in the ground like that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I use Firefox to get the temperature.
I hope this is a lab model (Score:5, Funny)
Scientists Reconstruct Millennium's Coldest Winter
I hope this is a lab or computer model, and does not involve spraying particulates into the upper atmosphere.
A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it impossible that this particular result is being publicised to remind the general public that we have been like this before in history, and that global warming may not be to blame as regards are current weather? At the very least, I am afraid this piece of news may have this as a result.
Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation (Score:4, Interesting)
The article may be a contributing factor to global-warming denialists, but they'd have continued denying anyway. The fact that they might seize on this, and twist it to their aims, is neither here nor there.
The great frost was a relatively little known event historically, to the point that wikipedia only recently got a page about it, and as of this moment, it still hasn't appeared in the page detailing the events of 1709.
Even for those who want to claim it somehow invalidates global warming, it should be noted that the great frost was followed over the next few years by a period of rapid temperature increases. If they want to somehow draw a comparable link between 1709 and 2009, you can throw that back at them as another meaningless statistic.
Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation (Score:4, Insightful)
My biggest issue with the global warming debate, is that it's not a debate. It's religion. Your side calls the other "denialists", the other side call yours "fanatics" or "hysterics".
It doesn't help that scientists/politicians/news have claimed the onset of catastrophic climate change in both directions several times before in recent history. The burden of proof is just huge ("yeah, right, like we'll believe you _this time_"), and that cannot be ignored by deriding the ones that point out flaws.
In all other scientific theories, if a prediction is proven wrong it requires updating or invalidating the theory. When it comes to global warming it is never anything but "the denialists reading it wrong".
You can't first claim "this is probably the last year you can ski here". Then, after several years of record snow fall, change it to "this is extreme weather, just like we said global warming would lead to!" and expect that to convince anybody that disagrees with the theory.
This "the world is flat", "no it isn't" bickering is what makes me not give a damn. Come back when this is no longer a religion and I'll reconsider.
Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation (Score:5, Insightful)
There has never been a "this is probably the last year you can ski here" statement from climate scientists. It's straw man attacks like these that make denialists into denialists: instead of criticising the models, the predictions and the findings, you come up with your own stuff. Or you choose to criticise moonbat environmentalist hippies instead of the science.
Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation (Score:5, Informative)
There has never been a "this is probably the last year you can ski here" statement from climate scientists. It's straw man attacks like these that make denialists into denialists: instead of criticising the models, the predictions and the findings, you come up with your own stuff. Or you choose to criticise moonbat environmentalist hippies instead of the science.
Exactly right.
For example, the oft-troped canard that scientists claimed we were heading for a new ice age back in the 70's.
Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2.
But of course, the denialists (yes, I'll use that term, because that's what they are) still repeat this debunked claim. In that way, they are damn similar to creationists: Repeating old discredited arguments based on misinformation to back their points.
This means YOU, Anonymous Coward above ("It doesn't help that scientists/politicians/news have claimed the onset of catastrophic climate change in both directions several times before in recent history.")
(Source : http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm [skepticalscience.com] )
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is just not possible at all
Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation (Score:5, Insightful)
This is probably a troll, but...
If you can not say with any sort of certainty that it will be 20-22 next week on friday. How am I supposed to take your word for it that it is going to be X degrees warmer/cooler next CENTURY?
I can tell you, right now, today, that the temperature six months from now will be warmer than the temperature today. Why? Because what you're talking about is weather, and it's short-term chaotic. What the climate science community is talking about is climate. They deal with long term trends, where that short-term noise is factored out. The fact you don't understand the difference speaks to your lack of education in science and statistics.
Here is a theory maybe its just warmer because there have been less volcano? Or maybe something in the earths core has started emitting more heat? Or maybe the sun is giving off more solar radiation (on its cycle)? There are tons of these things which can change the weather.
And, believe it or not, climate scientists have looked at them all. Yes, it's true... you aren't actually smarter than the entire world's climate science community. And bad news: none of them can account for the level of climate change that's been observed. In just the last 50 years there's been a staggering increase in global temperatures, and none of those factors that you cited can account for them.
I just am saying that the models are mostly based on data that is being fudged around to fit a particular agenda.
According to whom? Have you looked at the models? Examined the data? And if you're so sure, why haven't you written a peer reviewed article refuting these models you've apparently debunked? I'm sure the scientific community would appreciate it.
Even Einstein did this he had his great 'cosmological constant'. As he was trying to fudge his theory to fit his world view. He called it one of his greatest mistakes.
Ummm, that wasn't a "fudge factor". That was a valid term in the equations he produced. The only "fudge" was to assume the value of that constant was zero. Ironically, in that sense, he got it wrong: Go look at cosmic expansion, specifically the fact that it's accelerating. This just happens to coincide with a positive value for that constant you're happily deriding.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if you're talking about Melbourne, Australia, it won't be. You have to be a tad more careful in making these blanket statements.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One degree is staggering?
Yes. It really is, when you're talking about the global mean, mere fractions of a degree are enormous. YOu do realize this, don't you?
Oh, BTW: that one degree was already erased in the time span from 1998-2008.
Citation, please.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There were some rather dire predictions about the 2006 and 2007 hurricane seasons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and one of the reasons for those predictions was in fact the natural cycle of hurricanes, mentioned here [newscientist.com], and explained away here [earthsky.org] (note that Christopher Landsea actually thought there was no evidence for linking hurricanes with global warming when he withdrew from the IPCC in 2005).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There has never been a "this is probably the last year you can ski here" statement from climate scientists.
Who made the claim is irrelevant. It was all over the media, and the media is what people go by, not scientific papers. If any scientist stepped forward to say "that's bull", they got a tiny little block of text on page 27. If any scientist stepped forward to confirm it, they got the cover.
That's how skewed the coverage is. It's not "allowed" to voice any other opinion but the "correct" one. That's not a good trend, regardless of topic. As this example would seem to show rather well.
So how does the media re
Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you could read the article where it states:
"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."
So you have one Professor going around saying "Hey everyone! The ice will be gone by 2013! - Well actually I don't know that I just wanted your attention so I could point out that the albedo affect of sea-ice plays a slightly larger role than we had previously thought."
Then everyone else responding: "Yes, it does appear that the ice may disappear earlier than we had thought - 2013 is a little unlikely though - maybe 2030 or 2040, but 2013 is not outside the realm of possibility."
The media then listens to this and goes: "Hey everyone! The ice will be gone by 2013!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And who is the "you" you are quoting here? Name a specific person (or committee, whatever) that made such a prediction. Or is it just another straw man, or journalistic hyperble misquoted as if it were a statement by a scientist?
This "the world is flat", "no it isn't" bickering is what makes me not give a damn.
So you will refuse to look at the evidence until there is 100%
And what about proven scientific fraud? (Score:5, Insightful)
"They get called deniers because that is exactly what they are: in the face of overwhelming evidence, they continue to deny, using logic that is identical to 9/11 wonks, moon hoax nutters and, yes, even Holocaust deniers."
And what about proven scientific fraud?
A couple of years ago, two Canadians named Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (aka MM) decided to try to recreate the famous "Hockey Stick." As I recall, one was an economist, the other a mathematician - their work was just to reproduce the results Mann had published using Mann's own model and technique.
They couldn't do it.
In fact, they found two things:
First, Mann and his team had cherry picked their data. They took only the lowest samples from the Medieval Warm Period, and only the highest samples for the modern period. In the case of the former, quite a lot of data was collected and then withheld, data which placed the Medieval Warm Period as considerably hotter than today. This is the equivalent of a historian trying to erase the Roman Empire from history.
Second, Mann's model itself would generate a "hockey stick" out of any data that was fed into it. MM fed a number of samples that were actually random noise into the model, and every single one came out a hockey stick.
Once MM corrected the graph and collected more representative data, what they found was a Medieval Warm Period quite higher than temperatures today, followed by a dip in temperature, and a rise in temperature in the last few years, but NOT one that was out of the ordinary in terms of size or scale.
The paper in which this was published ( http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf [climateaudit.org] ) raised enough questions that in 2006 it was put before a committee led by a statistics professor named Edward Wegman, which performed an independent review of both Mann and his team's "hockey stick," as well as MM's work on debunking it. Not only did they find and report to Congress that the "hockey stick" could not be reproduced, but also that the entire paleoclimate field had become isolated and often unwilling to share important data, or clarify their methodologies - in some cases claiming that a bad methodology was fine because the answer was correct anyway. MM's work was upheld, and the "hockey stick" was debunked.
Sources so far:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanOp-Ed.pdf [uoguelph.ca]
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html [uoguelph.ca]
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354 [climateaudit.org]
When it comes to the IPCC report, the committee broke its own rules to use Mann's "hockey stick." This is documented here: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html [squarespace.com]
This is very far from "logic that is identical to 9/11 wonks, moon hoax nutters and, yes, even Holocaust deniers" - it is, however, a damning observation that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The IPCC, though, and the "global warming consensus" people, still claim the hockey stick is valid and label anyone who say
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You might want to look at the source there. Realclimate is a website operated by Michael Mann, who created the "hockey stick" graph in the first place - and who also shocked the Wegman panel by citing his own papers as "independent verification."
If you want some more detailed information on this, you should read this: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf [uoguelph.ca] - it discusses the way MM found climatology circles to work, as well as discussing the censored data and why it's important
Re:And what about proven scientific fraud? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, I have a bias...never suggested otherwise. I do want to point a couple of things out:
1. It wasn't just MM disputing the "hockey stick" - a independent panel of statistics experts reporting to Congress examined it, Mann's work, and found that MM were the ones in the right.
2. The "hockey stick" was found to be the result of faulty mathematics...by people who specialize in mathematics. That makes them experts in their fields.
3. If Mann is so right, why doesn't his model stand up to scrutiny? Why did it CENSOR the data from the Medieval Warm Period? Why does it produce a "hockey stick" shape out of red noise around 99% of the time? Why does it rely on only one source for modern temperature figures, and that source itself is notoriously unreliable as a climate indicator?
Let me put it this way - Mann and company are hiding and misrepresenting data and methodologies, and asking us to just take their word for it. MM are pointing out there is a problem, making all of their work publicly available, and have received independent verification that their math is correct from experts in statistics and statistical analysis.
Who do you find more trustworthy?
Ask and you shall receive... (Score:5, Informative)
Ask and you shall receive:
1. There were two congressional panels, not one. The one done by the statistics experts that upheld MM's findings was headed by Edward Wegman - its report can be found here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf [uoguelph.ca]
A commentary by McKitrick explaining the report can be found here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanOp-Ed.pdf [uoguelph.ca]
2. The National Research Council report can be found here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf [uoguelph.ca]
From what I understand, you have to read this one carefully - apparently the report and the media spin are in opposition. An op-ed discussing this can be found here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NAS.op-ed.pdf [uoguelph.ca]
Documentation of the dishonest approach used to get the "hockey stick" into the IPCC report can be found here: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html [squarespace.com]
Additionally, you will also find these links of interest:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354 [climateaudit.org]
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf [uoguelph.ca]
Now, you talk about the "denialists" (which isn't a real word - trust me on this, I write and edit for a living - the word you want is "deniers"...a "denialist" would be somebody who studies or specializes in denial) as though they are either a conspiracy nut or part of a conspiracy themselves. It's not the case with scientists in the field - why would it be the case with commentators inside and outside of it?
For example, I'm a writer, editor, publisher, and grad student. I got into this as an interested party with a critical mind, and the more I looked at the field, the less it made sense. The more I looked at both sides, the more I saw the deniers using critical thinking and attacking the results and methodologies, and people like Mann and Al Gore launching character assassinations in response. One of these "refuted arguments" is the Medieval Warm Period being warmer than today, but the evidence is so overwhelming in favour of it that Mann put that data into a folder with the word "CENSORED" in it for his own analysis. You can't disprove the existence of the Roman Empire in Europe by stating that the Mayans of the time didn't encounter Romans, but Mann attempted to do something similar with his own work.
Are all climatologists fraudsters? I very much doubt it. But Mann did commit what amounts to an academic fraud that changed his field, and in the process undermined a lot of the research in it and relating to it. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and in order to understand its relation to the greenhouse effect, accurate temperature over time measurements are necessary. But Mann skewed his data and created inaccurate temperature over time results - so any analysis based on that "hockey stick" is using inaccurate information, and is in error. This goes outside of the field - a lot of work is being done to determine the role of solar activity in climatology, but if a researcher is using Mann's results, he's not going to be able to make an accurate analysis.
The analysis from the entire field of climatology since Mann's "hockey stick" is now on very shaky ground, and a lot of work has to be redone before the data is trustworthy again. Mann has become a scientific superstar, but the damage that has been done to our understanding of climate is incredibly high.
Re:Ask and you shall receive... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. There were two congressional panels, not one. The one done by the statistics experts that upheld MM's findings was headed by Edward Wegman - its report can be found here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf [uoguelph.ca]
Sorry, that report is *highly* politicized. Hell, it wasn't even peer reviewed. And despite the issues that report identified, they don't substantively change Mann, et al's results.
From what I understand, you have to read this one carefully - apparently the report and the media spin are in opposition. An op-ed discussing this can be found here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NAS.op-ed.pdf [uoguelph.ca]
On the contrary. The BBC's article on the topic does an excellent job of outlining both aspects of the report: a) that the fundamental conclusions of Mann, et al, are sound, and b) statistical rigor needs to be improved in climate science. Go read the summary yourself, it's pretty clear:
"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."
Sounds to me like you're the one who's spinning.
The more I looked at both sides, the more I saw the deniers using critical thinking and attacking the results and methodologies,
On the contrary, I see a bunch of people who have a series of preconceived notions about the scientific process, and/or earth's climate and our ability to alter it, and are thus coming to conclusions and then searching for evidence to prove them. Like I've said elsewhere, it's disturbingly familiar to the arguments between creationists and biologists.
and people like Mann and Al Gore launching character assassinations in response
Yup, I have to agree with you, there. The attacks have clearly gotten personal. Again, the ID/Evolution debate rings rather true, here.
But Mann did commit what amounts to an academic fraud that changed his field, and in the process undermined a lot of the research in it and relating to it.
Again, you repeat this, despite plenty of evidence that indicates this isn't at all true. Who's cherrypicking now?
realclimate.org the name says it all (Score:3, Insightful)
If your site name itself claims that you own the TRUTH about climate, than you obviously are not part of science.
Try http://sciencebits.com/ [sciencebits.com] for instance for some interesting insights.
Re:And what about proven scientific fraud? (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean Realclimate, the website run by, um, Michael Mann...the man who created the "hockey stick" graph in the first place?
And, while McIntyre may not be a mathematician, Wegman was a professor of statistics, and his panel - which verified MM's findings - were also experts in statistics and statistical analysis. They were able to verify and reproduce MM's work, and not Mann's, and they were using Mann's data and methodologies.
Also, while McIntyre may not be a mathematician, Ross McKitrick, the other side of the MM team, is a professor of environmental economics - and economists spend a lot of time dealing with mathematical models.
WTF is a 'denialist' anyway! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a physicist. I happen to doubt some of the claims that AGW proponents think represent the behaviour of the climate.
Why do you claim the right to call me a 'denialist'. I'm not calling you a 'believer' am I?
One of the huge problems with this whole climate change discussion is that it's gone way beyond science, and has become religion!
One can only hope (Score:2)
that if they can show periods of both cooling and warming that they actually publish it any get past the hyperbole of the groups who profit of the global warming industry. The problem with every generation is that they think they are unique. It has all happened before and will happen again.
Still it is a great thing to announce during a cold snap.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Winter isn't a global phenomenon. It occurs on one hemisphere at a time. AFAIK, Australia has a particularly hot summer this winter. And it's not a particularly cold winter here.
Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation (Score:4, Informative)
Worst. Understatement. Ever.
It got to 46 degrees C (114F) here two days ago, and temperatures all over southern Australia broke records. Over 100 people have died in fires and over 600 houses have been lost (in Victoria - i don't know about other states)
On the northern side of the country they are having some pretty bad floods.
Re: (Score:2)
Forest fires are a natural forest rejuvenation mechanism. Temperature isn't so much the cause as is drought (although they often go hand in hand).
However, if the news is trustworthy, the current fires are most all set by insane criminals.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
However, if the news is trustworthy, the current fires are most all set by insane criminals.
Or their descendants.
Re: (Score:2)
Winter 2009 where exactly? I live in Switzerland and this has been a winter that has finally come close to what I was used to as a kid. I'm still waiting for one that will be on par.
So where is this super-cold winter supposed to be?
Re:A somewhat Conspiracy-Theory-ish observation (Score:4, Funny)
Where I live we just broke a 70 year old record for snowfall in a given period. I see no sign of global warming making this place snowfree anytime soon.
I keep my car running 24/7 to try to help it along, but I still have to shovel the snow _upwards_ when clearing it off the roof.
Recently read that the ski resorts in the Alps are also struggling with the highest snow fall in a decade.
We clearly need bigger cars.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I do, however, see a problem with your humor-gene.
Re: (Score:2)
Global Warming not Global Weather. (Score:2)
The key area of the debate of Global Warming is the fact that the math is based on statistics. While statistics calculations are relatively easy (especially with a computer) the problem is getting good random data, and factoring in additional effects. Then for most people the calculations used are not as intuitive by most people even the ones who are good with math. So it makes the entire concept and all the work done difficult for people to get. So if they don't understand it what will they do... Go with t
Re: (Score:2)
It's not for my locale.
We had record snows... I remember them being the same in 1976, my parents remember winter being this way most of the time in their early lives.
They also said that Detroiters and New Yorkers whined just as much about a little bit of snow back then as they do now.
Call me when I have significantly colder days for longer. We had our very normal stint of 14-24 days below 10degF although none below 0DegF which is abnormal.
Re: (Score:2)
I had several feet of snow fall on Nov 12, (3-4 feet deep on top of the car). Usually it doesn't start coming down like that until Dec, and in 2007 we still had green grass at Christmas.
The average temp would be probably around the -7%C this year, at a guess.
Not that cold (Score:5, Insightful)
"On 10 January, Derham logged -12 ÂC, the lowest temperature he had ever measured. In France, the temperature dipped lower still. In Paris, it sank to -15 ÂC on 14 January and stayed there for 11 days."
For the imperialists among us, -15 C is 5 F. That's really not that cold, and I don't know about the whole "exploding trees" and "combs falling off of chickens" stuff supposedly going on at that temp. I live in Virginia, which is considered the South. We're at a significantly lower latitude than France, and we've had at least 5 days of single digit F temps just this winter alone, and that is typical. Of course our cold temps pale in comparison to Canada, and the northern New England states Maine, New Hampshire, etc.
So maybe those temps are atypical for parts Europe, but trees, and chickens and many types of livestock endure temps that low regularly every single year, which makes me wonder if there was some hyperbole going on back in 1709.
Re:Not that cold (Score:4, Informative)
We're at a significantly lower latitude than France, and we've had at least 5 days of single digit F temps just this winter alone, and that is typical.
France and other western european countries enjoy (imho) the gulf stream effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream [wikipedia.org]
Buildings, farms and livestock (especially in southern france) aren't designed for such temperature and certainly not for long period under such a temperature.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd like to see the actual breakdown of deaths from cold and from starvation. Even with buildings designed for warmer temperatures, I have a difficult time believing "Livestock died from cold in their barns..." at +5 F. The combined body heat of many livestock gathered in a small indoor space should have raised the temperature significantly.
Perhaps many of the memories of the harsh winter were influenced by the poor crop and
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't necessarily say that all of it happened at -15 C everywhere. Remember the -15 C was only what was recorded in Paris. It was not that temperature everywhere. -15C is however usual for Paris for 11 days; elsewhere it was colder than normal.
From the article it said that the unusually cold winter destroyed the winter crop staples like winter wheat which led to starvation in the summer (when it was to be harvested).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Having lived in Montana during the Great Winters of the late 1960s/70s, when winter temps regularly hit -65F (and sometimes didn't get above -45F for several weeks in January) ... livestock deaths due to cold are rare even among stock that spend the whole winter out on the range, and the real cause of death is usually not so much cold as starvation due to being trapped away from feed (either grass being too far under the snow, or the rancher being unable to get hay to them) following a major blizzard.
I neve
Re:Not that cold (Score:5, Funny)
... but trees, and chickens and many types of livestock endure temps that low regularly every single year, which makes me wonder if there was some hyperbole going on back in 1709.
Are you suggesting Sir that our ancestors might be prone to exaggerating? Telling tall tales? Prone to jest?
Hogwash I say! Pure unadulterated hogwash.
Now if you'll excuse me I've an appointment with Baron Münchhausen.
Re:Not that cold (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not that cold (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A tree will explode if it freezes rapidly. If the tree doesn't have time for the sap to go to the roots, this is a risk. Of course, trees that have a higher sap content or lower sugar content will explode easier (greater expansion and less cold tolerance). Calgary, Alberta, Canada has this problem due to chinooks [wikipedia.org]. You can find a number of trees there with massive splits on the sides from sap rising from the roots during a chinook and then freezing just days later.
Re:Not that cold (Score:4, Interesting)
I had a huge pine tree explode in my back yard at the start of this winter. Usually happens if there's a big ice storm early in the season. The last time I remember widespread tree explosions was in the winter of 1997, which was much worse than this winter. This winter, power was out for four days, and there was a good 2" coat of ice on all the trees. In '97, power was out for weeks, and the ice was 6" thick on large trees and buildings.
Yes, it's literally an explosion. There is a loud bang, and the tree breaks into very small pieces. There is still wood shrapnel across my back yard (since I haven't cleaned it up yet), and the next morning the whole area smelled like pine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where I live in upstate New York, we've hit -15 F (-26 C) several days this year. Further upstate from me has gotten to -25 F (-32 C) below. Friends in Maine tell me they've seen -35 F (-37 C) this winter. These weren't just for a day, but for several, even more than a week at times, before returning to ever-so-slightly warmer temperatures.
Even if things were cold back in 1709, methinks t
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live in upstate New York, we've hit -15 F (-26 C) several days this year. Further upstate from me has gotten to -25 F (-32 C) below. Friends in Maine tell me they've seen -35 F (-37 C) this winter. These weren't just for a day, but for several, even more than a week at times, before returning to ever-so-slightly warmer temperatures.
Even if things were cold back in 1709, methinks they doth protest too much.
And here in London... well, I'll let Wikipedia say it:
London has a temperate marine climate, like much of the British Isles, so the city rarely sees extremely high or low temperatures. Summers are warm with average high temperatures of 23 ÂC (73 ÂF) and lows of 14 ÂC (57 ÂF), however, temperatures can exceed 25 ÂC (77 ÂF) on many days.[76] Winters in London are chilly, but rarely below freezing with daytime temperatures around 2 - 8 ÂC (36 - 46 ÂF), while spring has mild days and cool evenings.
We had 15cm of snow last week (on Sunday/Monday), the most in 18 years. Most years it snows maybe once or twice, if it settles it doesn't last more than a day. I'd protest if it got to -37C! I think I'd have to wear all my clothes.
Re: (Score:2)
In -37 C, you just don't go outside much.
I had never studied London's climate (nor have I had the opportunity to visit, unfortunately), but that does seem mild. Even though we've had -15 F here in the winter, NY summer days can hit 90-100 F (32-37 C) with ease. A bit more extreme than your spot, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
In -37 C, you just don't go outside much.
That's what I think of -5C! (People from Canada/USA/Scandinavia/Eastern Europe just laugh. They laughed at all the English people making a big deal out of "not much" snow, too.)
It does tend to be damp and cold though, which is less pleasant than dry and cold.
I had never studied London's climate (nor have I had the opportunity to visit, unfortunately), but that does seem mild. Even though we've had -15 F here in the winter, NY summer days can hit 90-100 F (32-37 C) with ease. A bit more extreme than your spot, I guess.
Ocean currents bring water from the tropics (Gulf of Mexico) to western Europe. That warms western Europe in the winter, and cools it in the summer. The same happens (to a lesser extent) around Vancouver.
It's predicted that if the Earth warms too much,
Re: (Score:2)
15cm of snow? That's just shy of six inches. Here in Buffalo we call that "Tuesday morning".
Re: (Score:2)
We had a -20 F day a few weeks back one morning in Southern NH. A few hours north of here was even worse, -40 F I heard.
Usually in the winter, Southern NH is in the 10F-30F range. We may have a day or two that drops below 0 or a day or two when it can get into the 50s, but those are fairly rare.
We had couple weeks in a row this year of single digits to near 0 day time temps. It was really unusual for us in the southern part of the state.
Of course, a few years ago, I remember a week of 60 degree temps in the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
non judicious trees that dont handle EXTENDED periods of sub 20 degrees temperature will freeze and "explode" as in very slowly split open from the expanding ice.
the "cold snap" would have to last at LEAST 1 week and have no temperature rises or direct sunlight to cause bigger trees that have enough water in them to "explode".
as for chicken combs freezing and breaking off, sounds like raging old coot embellishment to me, the chicken would have suffered frostbite and had it blackened and dead far before it
Re: (Score:2)
non judicious trees
not to be too much of a nazi but do you mean Deciduous Trees [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No I mean trees with non-sound judgment. Come on it's cold out and they are not wearing a sweater? What's up with that!
Sometimes the spelling checker backfires, this is one of those times.
Re: (Score:2)
"On 10 January, Derham logged -12 ÂC, the lowest temperature he had ever measured. In France, the temperature dipped lower still. In Paris, it sank to -15 C on 14 January and stayed there for 11 days. After a brief thaw at the end of that month the cold returned with a vengeance and stayed until mid-March."
Which means that it stayed at these low temperatures for 11 days, it thawed for 6 days, and then it froze again for 1 and a half month. So it mostly froze hard for
Re: (Score:2)
-15 ÂC is nothing if you're dressed properly. If you're in the position of an 18th century peasant in having no properly heated place to stay and no way to dress properly for the weather, things can get ugly really fast.
Considering the region's usual climate, the buildings most likely didn't much of a thermal insulation to speak of, so when it was -15 ÂC outside, it wasn't very warm inside either. (Somebody probably will correct me if I'm wrong.) Animal shelters probably had no heating at all. Mak
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I wonder how we'd cope now? (Score:5, Interesting)
And with roads and rivers blocked by snow and ice, it was impossible to transport food to the cities. Paris waited three months for fresh supplies.
OK, modern power transmission and transport infrastructure is much more sophisticated. But still very vulnerable to extreme weather conditions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_storm#Notable_ice_storms [wikipedia.org]
Modern 'just in time' supply chains have less stock everywhere in the pipeline, so are intolerent of the slightest disruption. How would we do if this kind of thing hit again?
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting side effect of the drive towards efficiency that our economy has leaned heavily on. We're seeing the results now that things are getting rough. You've got a ton of companies that were just barely profitable, and once things started going even a bad, it was only a matter of a couple months before many of companies started collapsing or having to cut big portions of their workforce and we end up in that downward spiral of economic tanking.
In theory, it's good for the consumer to have compe
A story for Depression II? (Score:5, Insightful)
When oil will start to become as common as it was in 1709 and we'll have more homeless?
-15 C? Give me a break. I live in Minnesota. -15 C is a _good_ night in January. I've seen more than -30F (-34C if I Qalculate! correctly) and over -100F (-73C) wind chill by the old calculations. I had to start the car once at -24F this year -- and that was what it got _up_ to by a sunny holiday 11 am.
Dang. Never seen a tree explode though. That sounds exciting.
Re:A story for Depression II? (Score:5, Informative)
I expect you're prepared for that. Happens every year?
Living in London, I'm not prepared for -15C, but that's OK, it never happens. I'm not really prepared for -5C. When there was 15cm of snow last Monday most people didn't go to work: very little of the public transport was running, mostly because it's not worth spending millions on snow/ice clearing equipment that'll be used once every 20 years. They also ran out of salt/grit, the emergency stockpiles weren't big enough.
The last time I took the "wow! it snowed!" photos was 2007. It seemed a huge fall of snow at the time. Looking back, you can still see the grass, and it only lasted a day.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point the GP is trying to make is that cold isn't really as severe as the article was trying to make it sound. Reading the article it sounds like it got to near absolute zero, and everything was starting to super-conduct.
I'm sure if the environment hasn't adapted to that kind of cold it can cause severe problems for people. But I've never seen a tree explode, and I've gone through -25F on an extraordinarily cold day in Minneapolis.
Re:A story for Depression II? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not really prepared for -5C.
Buy a sweater. There now you're prepared.
Ok, maybe two sweaters in case one gets a hole in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what a Qalculate is, but (as you probabably are aware) Google is great at unit conversion. You can 'search' for "-30F in C" which yields "(-30) degrees Fahrenheit = -34.4444444 degrees Celsius". You can also do things like "1 us gallon in cc" with gives "1 US gallon = 3 785.41178 cc".
Similarly, you can do wacky things like "1 gallon per hour in hogsheads per fortnight" which yields "1 (US gallon per hour) = 5.33333333 hogsheads per fortnight".
Re: (Score:2)
Wind chill on the old scale, too, which tended to run a lot lower than the new one.
it's all relative (Score:5, Insightful)
First, cold is relative. If you're in a place that rarely goes below freezing, then having it suddenly go to -15C is a huge change. If you live somewhere that gets colder than that, well then good for you. But not everyone does. I suppose you'd tell people in Hawaii that they're morons for not keeping snow gear around for that once-in-a-lifetime snowfall that they might get.
And second, we're talking about life 300 years ago. If it suddenly got that cold, you couldn't just turn up the heat, or run down to the corner store and get a thicker hat and blanket. These were different times. There was no electricity. Whatever supplies you had were pretty much what you lived with.
So to say "But it gets colder where I live" really doesn't say anything of value. It just shows how self-centered and narrow-minded you can be.
Re: (Score:2)
So to say "But it gets colder where I live" really doesn't say anything of value. It just shows how self-centered and narrow-minded you can be.
Most of the "But it gets colder where I live" are directed at the exploding trees, dying livestock, and chicken-combs falling off.
Re: (Score:2)
So, it is no miracle you don't see exploding trees in your cold locale.
Now get the Amazon rainforest to -15C and I promise you a whole lot of snap, crackle and pop!
Don't call people names (Score:2)
Freedom. (Score:2)
Warm? Cold? (Score:2)
I invite knowledgeable sceptics to respond (this
Re:Warm? Cold? (Score:5, Interesting)
We started out with the view, based on historical anecdote, that there had been a Roman Warming and Medieval Warming, that were roughly as large as today's warming. There had also been coolings, notably in between the warmings, and in the late 17th century when the Thames froze, and during the early 19C during Napoleon's famous retreat.
The Hockey Stick proxy work appeared to refute this. It seemed to show that temperatures had not varied a whole lot until the 1980's, at which they took off in an unprecedented way. However, the HS work was exploded, primarily not because of misuse of PCA (though that happened) but because the key proxies it depended on were the Bristlecone Pines, which no-one seriously thinks are temperature proxies. This has been gone through ad nauseam, and you will often find people arguing that the results have been replicated independently, but if you look at the proxies used, and the people doing the studies, you'll find they are not independent.
So this leaves us with a reinstated RWP and MWP and the cooling periods, in short, greater natural variability than the HS alleged. To the extent that the IPCC does not accept this, it is just wrong.
We now get the interesting counter argument, which has become more popular as the HS has been discredited, which goes: Ah yes, but if the MWP existed, it proves that the climate is more sensitive than we have thought, and so we should be more worried rather than less about CO2. The attempt is now to make the existence of the MWP into an argument for higher climate sensitivity. This replaces the previous argument that its supposed absence was an argument for alarm, because it proved today's uniqueness. It is logically fallacious of course, since by hypothesis, we do not know what caused it, and so we cannot say anything about its magnitude, and so cannot reach any conclusions about sensitivity based on it.
Where do we end up? We end up having to argue that todays warming is unique in having been caused by CO2. But this is now much harder to prove, since the problem is we have had two other comparably sized warming periods not caused by rising CO2. How do we exclude the cause of them from operating now, especially if we have no idea what it was?
We also have another difficulty rarely alluded to. It is not just the warming due to CO2 that is problematic, it is the independent assertion that lowering CO2 would produce cooling. This has never happened before. Cooling has always preceded falls in CO2 in paleo times. In modern times it has always happened independently of CO2 levels. If we were to do it, at vast expense, how do we know it would work?
And finally, there is the issue of feedbacks. That would take us too far afield, but its agreed that what warms the planet is not primarily the CO2. It is the feedbacks that supposedly amplify the initial warming, from CO2 in the modern case, but could be from anything. The existence of these feedbacks, and whether they are positive or negative, is heavily disputed.
Its a mess. The best advice one can give is, the science is not settled. But another five years of cooling measured by satellite, that will settle it, if it happens.
Stradivarius.... (Score:2)
Related to the Maunder Minimum ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The cold winter in 1709 was towards the tail-end of the "Maunder Minimum [nasa.gov]" in sunspots and solar activity. Given that sunspot numbers are again unusually low [nasa.gov], maybe it will happen again [popsci.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Don't warry, we have already technology in place to shield us from cold due low solar activity. It is, basically, thick layer of CO2 [turning to sun my naked ass].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but according to the global warming experts, the sun has absolutely no effect on the global temperature.
Day being typically warmer than night is purely an illusion, and if the sun disappeared tomorrow global temperatures wouldn't change.
Little Ice Age (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is not absolute temperature, it the difference between what is expected and the actual temperature was.
The supply of seasoned wood would not have been large enough to last a longer colder than expected winter. Similar for food supplies for both people and livestock.
Barns would not have been build with thermal insulation as a primary concern, far more important would have been rain proofing and making sure enough air gets in to prevent suffication so a very cold snap would have caused serious iss
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I wouldn't have thought climate scientists would have much of a problem with climate proxy indicators being referred to as indirect evidence so there's no need for your use of the pejorative term "euphemism" there.
And if you think "circumstantial evidence" includes race, sex, and religion in a court of law, you clearly don't have an understanding of this term either.
Read up a bit on the science involved and you might be surprised to find some of these proxy indicators are little different than using the ex
Quite so... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, it was a sensationalist headline, but that's not quite the same as being disreputable.
Quite so...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html [newscientist.com]