Summary of #30 - Ross McKitrick on big problems with paleoclimate data and land temperature records

This is an AI generated summary. There may be inaccuracies.
Summarize another video · Purchase summarize.tech Premium

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

Ross McKitrick, a researcher of climate change and economics, discusses the controversy surrounding the hockey stick graph, errors in paleoclimate data, and challenges in measuring temperature on the Earth's surface. He argues that there is a confirmation bias in the paleoclimate field, with researchers striving for publications in top journals and attention from the IPCC reports. McKitrick suggests that there is a need for more rigorous testing and validation in the field. Additionally, he points out the difficulties with adjustments made to raw land temperature record data, which are as large as the warming trend itself, and advocates for a detailed and skeptical review of these adjustments. McKitrick argues that the IPCC should openly distance itself from extreme elements in the climate field because contrarians may result from extreme climate damages predicted by the alarmists.

00:00:00 In this section, Ross McKitrick, a professor of Economics at the University of Guelph and climate change researcher, discusses his collaboration with Steve McIntyre on the hockey stick controversy. McKitrick was intrigued by McIntyre's findings that challenged the results of the hockey stick paper and agreed to help him write it up for publication. The resulting controversy centered around issues with the data sources and principal component analysis, ultimately leading to the discovery of an error in Mann's program for calculating principal components.
00:05:00 In this section, Ross McKitrick discusses the errors that occurred in the calculation of principal components, resulting in a distorted shape in the principal components that ultimately distorted the final results. These issues were addressed in a paper published in geophysical research letters and another paper published in environment and energy. In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences panel upheld the points made in these papers and stated that the principal component method was defective and the physical and pine records should not be used in temperature reconstructions. Furthermore, they agreed that the Bristlecone Pines were not reliable temperature proxies, as they were affected more by CO2 fertilization than temperature, and therefore should not be used in climate reconstruction.
00:10:00 In this section, Ross McKitrick discusses the issues with the statistical methodology used in the paleoclimate field. He suggests that there is confirmation bias and a desire to produce dramatic results in order to get published in top journals and receive attention from the IPCC reports. McKitrick highlights the difference in testing and validation between the standards of economics journals and paleoclimate field. He ultimately became cynical about the papers that came out of the latter and suggests that there is a need for more rigorous testing and validation in the field.
00:15:00 In this section, Ross McKitrick discusses the errors surrounding the hockey stick handles, specifically the difficulties in correctly determining error bars in regression analysis. Mistakes in regression analysis often lead to the underestimation of uncertainties, and the data may only indicate a lack of information in certain time periods. McKitrick highlights a paper by statisticians McShane and Winer, where they applied standard statistical forecasting methods to standard data sets and discovered that they can get vastly different profiles of historical events depending on the variation in models. The revelation of proxy data not matching temperature data caused controversy in the National Academy of Science hearings, and scientists came up with ad hoc explanations to justify the proxy's validity. The "hide the decline" episode of ClimateGate involved chopping out parts of the proxy data that disagree with the thermometer measures and smoothing out the remaining parts to make it appear like all the data sets agree, a severe scandal at the time.
00:20:00 In this section, Ross McKitrick discusses his skepticism of using global and hemispheric reconstructions of paleoclimate data, which rely on spotty little samples of proxies from around the world to estimate temperatures dating back centuries. He believes that they are not informative enough and contain many bad methodologies, such as pre-screening to select proxies with a "good" fit, which is merely cherry-picking data. Instead, he recommends using more reliable evidence such as grape harvest records or tree stumps found north of the tree line that have been carbon dated.
00:25:00 In this section, Ross McKitrick discusses reliable paleoclimate data sources including the presence of forests in the far north of the current tree line in the Arctic tundra that can be dated back 500 to 1,000 years. McKitrick notes that local reconstructions using natural sources, such as the tree stumps found above the current tree line on mountainsides, are much more reliable than attempting to match all the wiggles in the proxy evidence. Additionally, he discusses the lack of peer review and data accessibility in the scientific community, as exemplified by the "hockey stick" controversy, and how it is a recent phenomenon that journals require the submission of data and code.
00:30:00 In this section, Ross McKitrick discusses the controversy surrounding the publication of Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph and speculates that co-authors Bradley and Hughes may not have examined the data, but instead relied on Mann's report. McKitrick references the release of the "ClimateGate" emails and reveals that while it was not enjoyable to read through them, it was illuminating to see certain suspicions confirmed. Specifically, McKitrick notes that the IPCC knowingly supported a false story and relied on a data set created by Phil Jones, who also reviewed the comments of critics of his work for the IPCC. In the end, McKitrick submitted 90 pages of evidence, showing that the establishment was keen on putting the issue to rest.
00:35:00 In this section, Professor Ross McKitrick discusses a controversial claim in the IPCC report by Phil Jones. McKitrick had published results showing that Jones's dataset was contaminated with urbanization bias and other land use changes that introduced warming bias. Jones claimed that McKitrick's results were statistically insignificant, which was untrue. McKitrick asked for proof of the statement and Jones replied with the laws of physics, which did not make sense. In the follow-up report, the IPCC backed down from their previous conclusion and admitted that there was significant contamination of the data. However, the data was still used despite the problem, indicating biases in the field. Finally, McKitrick suggests that precise estimates on the amount of warming since 1850 that could be explained by UHI (Urban Heat Island effect) needs further examination.
00:40:00 In this section, Ross McKitrick discusses the various challenges of measuring temperature on Earth's surface. He notes that for the 20th century as a whole, temperature data is available for less than 50% of the Earth's surface, and much of it had to be filled in with assumptions and modeling work. McKitrick highlights that even when temperature data does exist, there are problems with the changes in measuring systems and the fact that data is only sampled through shipping lanes, amongst other issues. McKitrick also discusses the historical temperature records in Southern Ontario, where the records show only a visible trend up until the 1930s, with temperatures since then remaining largely flat. McKitrick notes that there are many problems with the observational record, and that the adjustments made to cool the past and increase recent temperatures seem implausible, as they account for all the warming that has taken place.
00:45:00 In this section, Ross McKitrick highlights concerns over the adjustments made to the raw land temperature record data. He argues that since the adjustments are as large as the warming trend itself, there needs to be absolute confidence in the adjustment processes. However, he notes that the people making the adjustments tend to respond with abuse and indignation instead of addressing the criticisms. McKitrick also points out that the burden of proof is on the people making the adjustments, and there needs to be a detailed and skeptical review of these adjustments. He concludes by stating that he is sympathetic to people who want to dismiss the adjusted temperature record as a product of people putting their thumb on the scale to get a certain result.
00:50:00 In this section, Ross McKitrick explains how the attitudes towards climate change have changed over time and how some individuals are unwilling to address these changes. McKitrick believes that the IPCC's position has shifted concerning the skepticism of climate change, where it is now pushing individuals towards a more skeptical viewpoint. He suggests that on one side, there are those who do not see the need for dramatic intervention, such as himself. On the other side are "alarmists" who respond to the issue with emotion and extreme measures. McKitrick believes that the IPCC should openly distance itself from the most radical elements in the climate field because they are hindering meaningful climate change.
00:55:00 In this section, Ross McKitrick discusses the potential consequences of climate policy and the lack of trust that may result from the failure to experience the extreme climate damages that the alarmists predicted. He notes that emission reductions in the West are more than offset by emission increases in China and India. McKitrick also calls attention to the need for sensible people in positions of influence to talk about climate policy, as the IPCC and the climate science movement may have difficulty putting the brakes on the alarmist message. He argues that an economist can talk about these issues because of their extensive statistical education.

01:00:00 - 01:10:00

Economist Ross McKitrick highlights flaws in statistical analysis methods used in climate science and climate economics, including the optimal fingerprinting method and the social cost of carbon. McKitrick believes that economists should be allowed to weigh in on such matters if problems go unnoticed, and that many in the climate economics field do not have a big-picture approach to climate policy. He also suggests that reversing back to 280 parts per million CO2 and 1850 temperatures is not a realistic option, as people would have chosen to grow the economy and live with increased CO2 levels.

01:00:00 In this section, Ross McKitrick, an economist specializing in advanced econometrics, points out that many of the techniques used in climate science are applied statistical analysis techniques, which came out of econometrics. He highlights his published paper that critiques the optimal fingerprinting method, which was established 20 years ago. This technique was used to identify human fingerprints on climate change by analyzing data, but McKitrick noticed some obvious flaws in it, including an incorrect use of the ghost Markov theorem and a faulty test statistic. McKitrick questions why people in the climate field didn't discover these flaws themselves. He suggests that those in the field are using tools that they don't understand, and he believes economists should be allowed to weigh in on such matters if the problems go unnoticed by others.
01:05:00 In this section, Ross McKitrick discusses the field of climate economics and its relationship with climate models. He explains that, unlike other fields of economics, climate economics is not a standard field, and people who call themselves climate economists tend to focus on impacts analysis using climate model outputs, usually the RCP 8.5 scenario, which is problematic. McKitrick argues that within the climate economics group, there is an unstated prize for who can come up with the highest social cost of carbon, and it is easy to adjust models to get really high or low social cost of carbon numbers. However, he believes that many climate economists, even those endorsing Net Zero, do not have a big picture approach to climate policy and fail to ask whether this policy is consistent with making people better off around the world.
01:10:00 In this section, economist Ross McKitrick and interviewer Tom Harris discuss the idea of returning to 280 parts per million (PPM) CO2 and the temperature of 1850. McKitrick doubts that even the most enthusiastic climate economists would want to reverse engineer the 20th century and get back to 280 PPM CO2. He argues that if one were to present people with the option of whether to develop fossil fuels or not, and remain at 280 PPM CO2, or grow the economy and live with 500 PPM CO2 and a degree and a half or two degrees of warming, the answer would have been obvious, and people would have chosen the path that we chose.