The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines

This summer has been brutal here in the United States. Late in June, Nashville, Tennessee set an all time record high of 109^o F (~42.78^o C), and while it is a southern city it is normally only in the 90s and humid not 109 and bone dry in Nashville. Nashville wasn't alone June saw over 2000 record high temperatures set throughout the United States. These temperatures along with other climatic conditions created a Derecho which ripped through the east coast. Meanwhile a huge drought in the Western United States provided a tinderbox setting that allowed for the creation of wildfires in Colorado that are their costliest ever. As the summer has continued the drought has only gotten worse, expanding into the bread basket which is posed to make food prices over the next year skyrocket and lowering the Mississippi River to the point that it is making transport of goods on the river difficult. While most of the focus has been on the United States the Arctic also has reached a record low for sea ice extent, and what makes it even worse is this occurred weeks before the normal low. While it is true that no single event can be blamed on climate change it is the addition of all of these events, and the events in past years, that start to build a consensus toward climate change increasing the severity of overall events.

These leads us to a book published earlier this year by Dr. Michael Mann titled, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Dr. Mann is the lead author on two of the most important papers in climate science, the papers that show the long term temperature trends and have been termed the hockey stick graphs (so you can see where the title of the book comes from). This book starts while Dr. Mann is still in graduate school and in the beginning shows the point where climate research was in the early 90s. Once Dr. Mann gets involved in climate science the two stories converge and we see how his graph was just one piece in greater puzzle of climate change. Once the scientific consensus is truly established, around 2000, the book switches to a tone of how Dr. Mann had to defend himself from attacks against him, mostly from non-climate scientists, accusing him of doing bad science in the creation of the graph. He shows not only what these arguments were but how the scientific community refutes them and how his graph, with only minor tweaks, still survives to this day. This includes a brief description of the hacked emails from a few years ago and how they don't actually say what people think they say. This tells the tale of Dr. Mann's life and how it has changed since the publication of the hockey stick graph.

This book is, in my opinion, one of the most important books out there. Dr. Mann's telling of the story allows you to see him not as the man who is so often ripped on by climate "skeptics" but as a man who got caught in the middle of something just by doing the science. This is true of many scientists in fields of science where there might be some "controversy", such as climate science and evolution. The main difference is that Dr. Mann didn't ask for it he just ended up in this position because of a question he had been wondering for a while. The way the story is told allows the reader to build on knowledge learned earlier, as a true scientist would, but does not expect the reader to come into the book with all of the back ground. He also backs up his claims, scientific or accusations against him, through a many citations as well as many footnotes making it possible to look up all of his claims. You can see the evidence for climate change growing as the book goes on while the attacks against the graph get weaker and weaker till they seem to be just personal attacks, as prior attacks continue to fail.

One of the problems I do see with the book is the amount it does build on itself. I understand the need for this but citations in the book to see earlier chapters can make a reader get lost if, like me, they had to take several breaks from reading the book that spanned time due to other commitments. I understand the need for this, I am certain that it shortens the book and makes it less repetitive, it just made it hard for me as well. Part of the difficulty as far as this is concerned is that I was reading the Kindle version so flipping back to earlier chapters may wasn't as easy as having the physical book, so take this complaint with a grain of salt. My other problem is just how well cited the book is. I am not saying this is bad in and of itself but as I could click on a link and it would take me to the footnote/citation I wish that the citations had been cited as they would in a scientific paper whereas footnotes would be numbered. It would often lead to me getting a little lost as went back and forth a couple of times reading footnotes and citation. Some of the footnotes were also quite long and could likely have been put in the text itself as they typically only added to the information in the book and didn't really take the story off on long tangents.

Overall this book is a must read, not just for those who understand the science of climate change but for everyone especially those who question the science behind climate change because it will give you the full story and allow you to understand just how strong the science is. As I was finishing the book the Heartland Institute posted billboards with mass murderers touting climate change as happening. While this would end up blowing up in their faces it is important to understand the science so that these false comparisons can be shown for what they are, fear mongering pure and simple!

Book Citation
Mann, Michael E. 2012. The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press, New York, 384p.

Book review page

Why do people still refer to Hovind?

Seriously I wonder that all the time. Anyway another great take-down of Hovind/anti-evolution arguments by Potholer54

Crazy March

By now most people probably know that NOAA has said that March 2012 was the warmest March on record, well if you are wondering why Greenman3610 has a great two part video series, below, explaining why.

Himalayan Glacial Melt

So as I covered in my last post, and many others, climate change is happening and we know this through several different lines of evidence. One of those lines of evidence is ice loss and while most of the focus has been on sea ice, particularly in the Arctic, continental glaciers, like those on Antarctica and Greenland, have been losing ice as well. A new study was recently released that set to find out how much and showed that overall these continental glaciers are losing ice. The news media decided to pick on something else from the paper and that was the Himalayan glaciers and decided for some reason that over the last 10 years there has been no ice melting there. Potholer54 decided to actually read the paper and he decided to point out what the media decided to ignore.

Climate Change is Real!

This week's eSkeptic featured an article by Dr. Donald Prothero in which he discusses climate change; how we know it occurring, how we know we are causing it, and why people try to deny it. It is overall a good article and he presents many facts so I recommend you read it in its entirety (this link will skip the heading portion of this week's eSkeptic) but I wanted to focus on one thing he said.

“I agree that climate is changing, but I’m skeptical that humans are the main cause, so we shouldn’t do anything.” This is just fence sitting. A lot of reasonable skeptics deplore the “climate denialism” of the right wing, but still want to be skeptical about the cause. If they want proof, they can examine the huge array of data that directly points to humans causing global warming.²⁰ We can directly measure the amount of carbon dioxide humans are producing, and it tracks exactly with the amount of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Through carbon isotope analysis, we can show that this carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is coming directly from our burning of fossil fuels, not from natural sources. We can also measure oxygen levels that drop as we produce more carbon that then combines with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide. We have satellites in space that are measuring the heat released from the planet and can actually see the atmosphere get warmer. The most crucial proof emerged only in the past few years: climate models of the greenhouse effect predict that there should be cooling in the stratosphere (the upper layer of the atmosphere above 10 km (6 miles) in elevation, but warming in the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere below 10 km (6 miles), and that’s exactly what our space probes have measured. Finally, we can rule out any other culprits (see above): solar heat is decreasing since 1940, not increasing, and there are no measurable increases in cosmic radiation, methane, volcanic gases, or any other potential cause. Face it—it’s our problem.

I will admit I was at this point for a few years as well but it is the combination of all the evidence that he mentions, along with other pieces of evidence, that eventually made me realize I was wrong. That is how science works and that is why people who are ignoring the science of climate change are wrong.

What you should actually get out of college

I am going to start by saying that this post may seem to get a little politicy and that is because politics have gotten in the way of getting a college education. And one more thing most of this post is actually after the video so don't just watch the video and move on.

The last time I did a post on college it got a lot of views and actually got 2 comments, seriously people I want you to comment on the posts here it only helps me. Now those 2 comments happened to be spam so yeah I kind of expect more of that. Anyway I wanted to do this post because of a couple of things I have seen recently. The first is this video featuring Rick Santorum.



First lets pretend for a minute that CNN knew how to format a video for YouTube so it didn't come out all stretched out like that. I will grant Santorum that most college professors are left leaning to very liberal and that some, a small minority in my experiences, may actually try to "indoctrinate" their students. Most of my experience showed that professors tried to teach their students facts and if those facts run counter to what you grew up believing or being taught then you have to do some serious searching. What a lot of other professors do is try to teach you how to think critically this allows students to eventually look at some of what they were taught growing up and realize that it is wrong or that why they believe that was actually wrong so they need to rethink if they actually believe that. It seems to me that what the religious right is actually fearing about college is not the education itself it is the fact that students are being taught facts and that they are being taught how to think critically.

Which brings up this bill in the Virginia Legislature. Currently this bill is only in a subcommittee and so it still has a long way to go but what it would do if passed is nothing less than turn all colleges in the state of Virginia into schools that would not challenge a person's beliefs and wouldn't actually teach students anything. Here is the full text of the bill:

HOUSE BILL NO. 1207

Offered January 19, 2012
A BILL to protect the right of students to assert conscientious objection to any requirement of an academic degree program in an institution of higher education; liability.
----------

Patrons-- Pogge and Cole

----------

Referred to Committee on Education

----------

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. § 1. No public or private institution of higher learning shall expel, suspend, punish, penalize, discipline, deny academic credit to, require participation in a remediation program for, or discriminate against a student because he refuses to perform academic coursework or any other degree requirement on the grounds that it would force him to violate a sincerely held religious belief.

§ 2. The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia shall not recognize any accrediting agency that denies full accreditation to, or otherwise takes any adverse action against, an academic program in any institution of higher learning in the Commonwealth because the institution exempts students from academic coursework or a degree requirement that would force any student to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs.

§ 3. The Attorney General or any student, prospective student, or former student aggrieved under this act may bring a civil action against the institution of higher learning, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, or the relevant accrediting agency for damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and any other relief authorized by law and shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs if that party substantially prevails on the merits of an action brought under this section.

What this bill does is says that a public college cannot force a student to take a class that is against their religious beliefs. This would allow students to get a degree in biology without taking a class on evolution or allow a student to take a geology class and answer a question on a quiz asking the age of the earth as only 6000 years old. This totally defeats the point of college. A student goes into college with a certain set of beliefs and knowledge and if these are not challenged while the student is in college they likely never will be and this will only make the students that come out of colleges more ignorant.

I did my undergrad at a public university in Virginia and seeing this upset me. My degree would start to become meaningless. What has probably surprised me the most is that I have only seen one mention of this bill and that was how I found out about. Nothing from NCSE or any other organization to show that they even acknowledge that it is even in existence. Maybe I have missed something, and if I have please post it in the comments below, and if there has been something I will take back what I am currently saying. Remember you have the right to religious freedom but you do not have the right to not be offended or to have someone make you question your beliefs!

Sorry, about that now back to our regularly scheduled programing.

Interview of Dr. Hayhoe

Another video, this time by Greenman3610, is an interview with Dr. Katharine Hayhoe from Texas Tech University. It is sad some of the intimidation that she has had to face because she dared say that the climate is in fact warming and we are likely the cause of it. Having met her a couple of times I know she is extremely nice and I can't imagine why people would act like this other than to discourage her continued research.

Explanation of Human Ancestry Made Easy

So a few years ago Potholer54 made a video series pretty much explaining the history of the earth and life and one of those videos was Human Ancestry Made Easy. He apparently got some questions about some of the content. Now I use the term questions loosely here because it is pretty obviously creationists trying to show that evolution doesn't work, even though it does and they are wrong. I think the bigger issue is just the way Potholer54 phrased the statement and he at least tries to explain it here, although I don't think he did a perfect job with it either but he at least got closer.

2011 was the...

9th warmest year of the recorded period, from 1880 till now. This is according to NASA who have apparently finished calculating their data. It is also the 9th warmest year in the past 10 which has now seen 9 of the top 10 warmest years on record. This is what we should expect to see if the climate was in fact warming, every year won't be the warmest but decades on a whole should be getting warmer. In fact this is true, the 00s were warmer than the 90s the 90s warmer than the 80s, something is clearly happening you have to be openly trying to ignore the data not to see that. The image below is from NASA and shows the yearly temperature average since 1880, I have also included a little blurb from the same article below but I recommend you read the whole thing.

From NASA:

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.

We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting," said GISS Director James E. Hansen. "So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record."

The difference between 2011 and the warmest year in the GISS record (2010) is 0.22 degrees F (0.12 C). This underscores the emphasis scientists put on the long-term trend of global temperature rise. Because of the large natural variability of climate, scientists do not expect temperatures to rise consistently year after year. However, they do expect a continuing temperature rise over decades.

The first 11 years of the 21st century experienced notably higher temperatures compared to the middle and late 20th century, Hansen said. The only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years on record is 1998.

Sea Level Rise

One last video and then I will try to get some posts with actual substance (who am I kidding right?). This is another one by Greenman3610 in which he interviews the actual scientists at December's annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and discusses the potential sea level rise if the climate keeps changing at the current rate.

Mini Ice Age?

Again the answer is NO! and in the video below Greenman3610 lets the experts explain why, along with pointing out the distortion and lies put forth about it. I know 2 climate change videos/posts in one day I am asking for it aren't I.

Its all the Sun's Fault!

Anyone who has had a discussion with people who deny that humans are causing climate change has surely heard this one before, even if the person doesn't believe the climate is actually changing they will find a way to work in a, "Well even if it is it is all the sun's fault anyway!" There is no doubt as a geologist that the sun is the largest driving force behind climate and this can be traced back through geologic time. The question then becomes well if in the past the sun caused climate change, although not always just the sun itself sometime with the help of how the earth was rotating the sun (we can discuss this at a later date if you want), is the sun doing stuff now that could be causing climate change? The simple answer is NO but I will let Greenman3610 take it from here.

Water Fluoridation

So C0nc0rdance does it again releasing another heavily researched medical video on a controversial medical topic. Yes this video has been out for a while but sorry I was busy traveling over the holidays. Anyway enjoy the video and I welcome any discussion that comes of it, or you could go join the one already in progress in the comment section of the video itself. On a related note you could, and in fact should check out his short 2 part series explaining how the dose makes the poison I posted a while ago.

Monckton the Response

So over the course of a little while ago Potholer54 did a video series discussing the claims of Lord Christopher Monckton(see here part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 5 which you should probably see if you haven't already). Well someone posted a summary of those videos and Monckton responded on the Watts Up With That blog. To that Potholer54 made a 2 video response, below, refuting those claims by Monckton and how he continues to avoid the evidence.

The Hockey Stick Graph is not all there is

I have heard the claim many times in the past that the only reason that we think that climate change is happening is because of the famous hockey stick graph done by Michael Mann and the rest of his research team. Well that isn't true and Greenman3610 does a great job breaking down that argument and showing what evidence there actually is.

A Vaccine Cover-up!

No! but C0nc0rdance breaks down a recent claim that says something very similar to that. It should be worth noting that my big post on vaccines and Autism has seen a lot of action recently not sure why just found it interesting.

Climategate the Second

Many of you might remember a few months ago when a bunch of emails for scientists at the East Anglia climate research group were hacked and released and that skeptics claimed proved that people had been lying about climate change. Well it didn't actual prove that (for evidence see here, here, and here) but that isn't keeping skeptics from hailing a new release of e-mails released from the same group as more evidence of the lie of global climate change. But not to worry Potholer54 is on the case and goes through all the emails and shows they don't actually show what people are claiming they show.

Drought and Climate Change

Another great video by Greenman3610 talking about how climate change is effecting the drought that is destroying agriculture in much of Texas right now.

This Strawman is Getting Old

The last of the Golden Crocoduck videos has been posted by Potholer54 and while there isn't going to actually be voting this year, for reasons you can see here, I figured I would still post this video. I have heard this nonsense so many times and have heard it refuted but as long as creationists keep using it it will keep having to be debunked.

The Daily Show on Climate Change and those oh so evil scientists

I am sure by now most people are familiar with The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, if you aren't you must have been living under a rock. Well last night's episode Jon discussed how the new BEST data continues to support the conclusion that the earth is warming.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Weathering Fights
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Now while that wasn't perfect, the "climategate" scandal was a lot of stuff taken out of context and Jon doesn't ever acknowledge that, he does point out how no body is talking about this, well except for him. That is why I am trying to let everyone know.

Now naturally with more evidence supporting climate change the next "logical" question is what are scientists up to? For this he sends Aasif Mandvi to find out in the clip below the fold.