Superfact 26: The disputed Hockey Stick Graph showing that recent global warming is unprecedented in the context of the past thousand years has been shown to be correct.
The Mann, Bradley, and Hughes hockey stick curve published in 1998 in Nature and showing a sharp upturn in global temperatures in recent years as well as relatively flat temperatures in the previous 1,000 years, ignited a firestorm.
Initially some scientists criticized it for being wrong, and the rightwing media and think tanks, and especially politicians criticized the graph and even attacked the scientists involved accusing them of being frauds. Al Gore was harshly criticized for using the hockey stick in his documentary “an inconvenient truth”. There were congressional hearings, politicians intimidating scientists, fake scandals, threats, and lawsuits.
The propaganda campaign against the hockey stick graph succeeded in winning over the public and that included me. I was for the longest time convinced that the hockey stick graph was wrong and perhaps a fraud. I was wrong. I had been bamboozled just like large segments of the American public.
The scandal around the hockey stick curve and the related climate-gate (fake scandal) was used to question the entire concept of global warming / climate change. As you may know, the evidence clearly shows that global warming is happening and is caused by us.
It should be noted that the way Mann, Bradley, and Hughes implemented their statistical analysis was not 100% correct, but the discrepancy was very small and did not make a big difference. However, this discrepancy was very useful for their detractors.
The controversy led to an investigation resulting in the so-called North Report. The 2006 North Report published by the United States National Academy of Sciences endorsed the MBH studies with a few reservations.
Subsequent research has resulted in more than two dozen reconstructions, using various refined statistical methods and combinations of proxy records. They are not identical to the original hockey-stick graph but closely resemble it and consistently show a slow long-term cooling trend changing into relatively rapid warming in the 20th century.
Since there is now a scientific consensus supporting the hockey stick graph, it is important news, and a lot of people still have not gotten the memo or are refusing to believe it, I consider it a super fact.
Before The Hockey Stick Graph
Before the hockey stick curve there was a lot of talk about the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Many people used these periods to cast doubt on global warming claims by scientists. I should say that the climate scientists claim about global warming was not based on the temperature record for the last 1,000 years. It was because the observed recent uptick in average global temperatures was not expected naturally.
Their worries were based on the fact that our greenhouse gas emissions could explain the uptick whilst there was no climate cycle or natural phenomenon that could explain it. That combined with the fact that the manner in which the warming was happening (it’s fingerprint if you will) showed that it was our greenhouse gases causing it.
So, the comparably high temperatures during the medieval warm period and the very cold temperatures during the little ice age should not have mattered much. But as you can see in the graph below, the old temperature graphs could be used by global warming skeptics.
It should be noted that previous estimates for the temperatures during the medieval warm period and the little ice age were based insufficient data and guesstimates.
The graph below from the 1990 IPCC report shows three curves, a red, a blue and a black one, and a green extension to the blue from 1998 to 2007. The red graph shows a large bulge corresponding to the medieval warm period, a significant drop corresponding to the little ice age, and a minor uptick in recent temperatures. The blue curve shows a flattened medieval warm period with only a minor little ice age and sharper uptick in recent temperatures. The green extension stretching from 1998 to 2007 shows a significantly sharper uptick in temperatures. The black curve is an alternative temperature curve by Moberg.
As you can see the estimates for the average global temperatures during the medieval warm period and little ice age were too large. When the hockey stick curve came along (next graph), a propaganda tool was diminished, which led to the media storm.
Multiple Hockey Stick Graphs
As mentioned, various refined statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, has resulted in another couple of dozen hockey stick curves that largely agree with the original MBH hockey curve. Below are a few examples taken from various sources. The first two graphs below are taken from the real climate website, a website created by climate scientists.
IPCC 3rd Assessment Report
Eight Hockey Sticks by New Scientist
The graphics below are focused on the northern hemisphere. The top graph shows the 2001 IPCC hockey stick curve with data from thermometers (in red). Below that graph are eight more hockey stick curves plus a red dotted line corresponding to the instrumental record. This was compiled for New Scientist by Rob Wilson of the University of Edinburgh, UK.
The Hockey Stick Wars
I also wanted to add a few examples related to the propaganda wars against the first hockey stick graph and its author Dr. Michael Mann and climate science in general. If you haven’t followed this topic, I can add that it did get intense.
On April 23, 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to the University of Virginia (UVA). The CID demanded that UVA provide every email, record, or document it had related to Dr. Mann from his time there from 1999 to 2005. This resulted in a strong reaction from the scientific community.
On 2 March 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that Cuccinelli as Attorney General had no legal authority to demand the records from the university. Dr. Mann was also severely harassed and received chilling death threats against himself as well as his family, as documented in his book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines”.
In February 2024, Michael Mann won a defamation lawsuit against conservative writers Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn (Mann v. Competitive Enterprise Institute). The jury awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages and $1 in compensatory damages. The lawsuit was over blog posts written by Simberg and Steyn that accused Mann of manipulating data in his famous “hockey stick” graph. It was not so much about questioning the science but rather about the fact that they intentionally tried to ruin his reputation using false information.
For example, they were comparing him to the infamous pedophile Jerry Sandusky. Jerry Sandusky was a football coach at Penn State University and Dr. Michael Mann is a distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State.
To see the other Super Facts click here
Newstrade
Lulu: “Our Dada says he is reminded of the famous New Yorker cartoon that goes, ‘Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.'”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ha ha yes I saw that cartoon once before. It is a funny one, but sad.
LikeLike
I am on the fence with this one Thomas… As it depends upon which scientist you speak too.. And I never liked Hockey sticks… Too many bruises 😉
I have seen data that says the Arctic now has more ice than in recent years!! … So the debate goes on.. It used to be called Global warming… Yet is it? Charts of any kind rely on the data fed into them, via those wanting the desired results a lot of the time..
And didn’t one famous Al Gore say it would be melted and sea levels rise and we would be flooded by now?? ..
You see most of these climate change people make millions off of it.. At the expense of ordinary people who foot the bills …
Did you know here in the UK our Energy costs are through the roof around 3 times higher than yours… Due to taxes and levies and schemes that are now leaving us without power, because of Climate change Net zero!… We were one week away from having no Gas a couple of weeks ago as a whole country!!… Yet we had North Sea Gas…..
I am all for saving the planet… But only when ALL the world gets involved not while China and India and other countries belch out pollution .. And when the UK only contributes to about 1% of global emissions they want us completely NET Zero Carbon
free… Yet we have 15 minutes smart cities, fines that working people can’t afford to travel in their own cities to work.. I could go on…
The Net Zero may sound a great idea… But it is insane…
Has science really looked into what that means.. NO PLANTS no food..
I know Thomas this is a controversial subject but we have been warmer than we are right now in the past.. There are ICE Core samples that prove it with also higher carbon emissions too… Now according to science Man was not around then to cause that rise… So its a natural cycle of Earth…
Anyway… I thank you for your Hockey stick graphs and the chance to debate… Its neither right or wrong…I appreciate the work you put into your post Thomas… xx I hope you have a great weekend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much for your comment, Sue. I hope you don’t mind if I correct some misunderstandings in your comment. I am addressing most of them, making this comment long. I hope you don’t mind.
It is true that you can always find a contrarian scientist on almost every topic and nothing in science is 100%. However, on this topic there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening, and that we are the cause, and now there is a consensus on the hockey stick too. You can find scientists who disagree, but they are few and often suspicious. If you look at the evidence, it is easy to understand why there is a consensus.
“I have seen data that says the Arctic now has more ice than in recent years!!” I don’t know what data you are referring to, but there are a couple things to keep in mind. The arctic ice is much larger in winter than it is in summer, regardless of the year. In addition, the size of the arctic ice fluctuates from year to year and yet there is a clearly shrinking trend. Take a look at my superfact #25 (Global Warming is Happening and is Caused by us) the second youTube video from the top. It is a historical satellite compilation of the arctic sea ice by NASA from 1975 to 2025. You can see with your own eyes that the arctic ice is indeed disappearing. There isn’t really any debate on that issue.
You can find all super-facts under the super-facts menu above.
About “global warming” it is still called global warming even though climate change has become the more popular moniker, and then there is climate disruption and climate crisis. I used to have a big dog. I used to have Leonberger. I used to have a big pet. They are all true and yet I am talking about the same thing.
Regarding “Charts of any kind rely on the data fed into them, via those wanting the desired results a lot of the time”. The charts are produced by NASA, NOAA, the scientific and meteorological institutions around the world, the universities around the world, and tens of thousands of scientists. Would they all in unison be using false data to trick us? Besides if you are from a northern climate, close to the arctic where it happens more, like me, you can observe it with your own eyes.
“And didn’t one famous Al Gore say it would be melted and sea levels rise and we would be flooded by now??” Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist, but I still doubt he would say this. Could you find this quote in its full context?
I can add that sea level rise, which has been measured carefully by satellites, is happening, but slowly. So far, it is mostly from thermal expansion not melting ice. When water gets warmer it expands (assuming it is above 4 degrees Celsius). However, in the future it is land ice, such as Greenland, (not floating ice like the arctic), that will be the biggest contributor to sea level rise, but right now it is thermal expansion. Depending on how we act, some low-lying island nations may disappear this century, but England and Texas are not likely to be flooded for hundreds of years.
“we have been warmer than we are right now in the past.. There are ICE Core samples that prove it with also higher carbon emissions too…” That is true. Climate has changed naturally many times, hotter, then cooler, then hotter again, and sometimes with mass extinctions as a result. There are also orbital cycles and organisms that have evolved causing climate change and asteroids that have crashed into earth causing climate change. However, it is important to understand two things. First is that the current average warming / climate change is extremely fast. It is not taking a million years. Secondly, we know it is us causing it, chiefly, via our burning of fossil fuels (see the evidence in my super fact post #25).
Who are “these climate change people” you speak of? I didn’t understand this claim.
Regarding your claims about energy costs, if you read my super fact #16 (Wind power is providing more than a quarter of Texas Power) you’ll see that in the US the cheapest unsubsidized and levelized energy sources are wind and solar. There are a number of links to reliable sources in that post. I doubt the claims you make in this regard because they contradict the economic analysis I’ve read. Perhaps you could provide reliable sources for these claims?
I certainly agree with you that all the world needs to be involved, but that is general already the case. It is great that the UK only contribute 1% to global emissions, but then the UK has less than 1% of the world’s population. India contributes 7% of global emissions but its population of 1.4 billion people is 18% of the world’s population. The more severe particulate pollution in those countries mostly affects them locally, not us. It is true that they could do better and that they are late starters in this arena, but they are working on it. We in the west are already industrialized and I think we should lead the way (that’s just an opinion). I don’t we’ll reach Net Zero by 2050, but I don’t think it is a crazy goal and I don’t think trying will hurt the economy much, on the contrary it is likely to save it (also just an opinion).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Thomas… I am sending my Longer comment after this one, but as it has 3 links in it, it may well go straight into your Spam folder.. So look out in your Spam…
LikeLiked by 1 person
It gave me a hard time but I was able to approve it. My guess is too many links.
LikeLike
Thank you Thomas , I appreciate the details you go into in your Data collection Thomas, It’s who you are,
You love Data research and are good at it..
I am not a Data analysis.. I observe…
The Met office recently told England that we had one of the Hottest years Last year!! In England… Well if you lived in England , I can assure you, you would have challenged that, like many have..
I however look through a different lens at the world. I did find you a reference to a statement Made by AL Gore, which stuck in my memory banks for years..
A Link here for you to verify that
https://fee.org/articles/al-gore-s-2009-warning-on-vanishing-polar-ice-and-the-perils-of-censoring-misinformation/
As for ‘these people’ Thomas… They are the ones who are telling us all to buy Electric cars while taxing Energy to such levels the normal families can no longer afford to out their heating on.
Wanting everyone to convert to Heat Pumps which even some expert engineers say are rubbish as they need more electricity to pump heat around the home.
These People Like our newly appointed Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who pledge HUGE amounts of money to subsidise corporations in renewables… Towards the Net Zero Goal you speak of that you say is achievable..
While people like these, and others carbon footprint continues escalate to flying in their private jets!..
I am all for helping heal Mother Earth, but have you really looked into the cost of these renewables… I was once all for wind and solar power, until I found the cost, Human cost.. The suffering of those mining Colbert and Lithium .. Lots of African Child labour in those mines too.. An article here in the Associated Press.
https://apnews.com/article/lithium-mining-energy-transition-child-labor-nigeria-africa-22155590dddf7ecc0b9fd55b221c6d9f
And how long will a wind turbine Last? 20 to 30 years? And what happens to it when its worn out.. Well it goes into Land fill sites
More pollutions!
https://www.power-technology.com/features/wind-turbines-are-ageing-what-happens-next/
Yes, the Climate Is changing… I totally agree… It is constantly changing, it is a living planet…. That is why it has cycles, and planetary movements which all affect our world.
And as I said Thomas, no one is right or wrong.. We just look through our very different lens at the world.
I hope you have a peaceful weekend ..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Sue for your detailed comment. Like you said it was put in spam because of the three links. To start off with Mr. Gore, he made an incorrect statement regarding the polar ice cap but notice that he did not say “…it would be melted, and sea levels rise, and we would be flooded by now”. In fact, melting sea ice (floating ice) does nothing to sea level rise. It is thermal expansion and melting land ice that cause sea level rise. I am not defending Al Gore, he is a politician, not a scientist, so I don’t care, but I like to get things correct and I knew that statement was too extreme, even for him. However, the article (which is not from a science organization) is getting ahead of itself with regard to Dr. Maslowski. I think it is best for you to see for yourself. Check out the satellite recordings in the NASA video below (or check out the second YouTube video in #25 super fact post).
About “observe”. I can observe retreating glaciers and shorter snow seasons in northern Sweden but other than that it is very difficult to directly observe global warming despite the fact that it is happening very fast compared to previous climate change in earth’s history. It is not even one centigrade in 50 years and temperatures fluctuate every day. Add to that personal biases, bad memory, and wishful thinking, and the fact that the UK is 0.05% of the earth’s surface 1/2000. How can you make that judgment just by observing? On the other hand, thermometers don’t have political biases or opinions and we have them worldwide. The data is what you need to trust. Do you really think NASA, NOAA, the meteorological institutions around the world, and tens of thousands of scientists are all in on a gigantic conspiracy faking the data?
About “these people”. I don’t know much about UK politics, but I know that fossil fuels are not only typically subsidized in various ways, they also cause a lot of damage to people’s health (100,000’s lives in the US) and the environment, not to mention global warming. That is a very expensive cost that we all pay. In the past fossil fuels never paid for the damage they caused. It is also an expense that we are pushing onto our children. I love my children, and I don’t want that. EVs also cause emissions indirectly, but much less than gasoline cars, even if they get their electricity from coal plants, because of their much higher efficiency (87-91% compared to 16-25% for gas cars). In my home country Sweden, more than half of all new cars are EVs. EVs reduce carbon emissions as well as pollution that harms our health.
As I mentioned in my previous comment wind turbines are not expensive. All energy sources are associated with decommission issues and construction costs, but wind power is very advantageous in this area. If you include construction, decommissioning and everything not related to energy production (levelized cost), and you exclude subsidies, etc., wind power and solar still comes out as the cheapest energy sources in the United States. Check out my super fact post #16 and the data I linked to. About the Lithium article. Lithium batteries are used for a lot of things, not to mention cell phones, and you don’t need Lithium batteries for wind power even though it is sometimes done. The other article you referenced states that up to 95% of the materials in a wind turbine can be recycled, and there are a lot of environmental hazards and political issues associated with the fossil fuels they replace. According to our world in data they are better than the fossil fuels they replace. I am not an expert in this field, but I think it is a bit more complicated than you state.
As you state climate has always been changing, there are orbital cycles, variations in the orbital eccentricity, the axial tilt, axial precession, changes in the sun’s irradiance, then we have to consider volcanoes, and several very slow phenomena causing climate change such as the evolution of life and continental drift. However, we know that the recent warming is none of that. We know that we are the ones causing it, primarily because of our carbon emissions. For starters, NASA measures the orbital cycles and according to orbital cycles it should be getting colder, not warmer, NASA also measures the sun’s irradiance and according to it, it should be getting colder not warmer. In addition, if it was any of that, both the lower and upper troposphere would be getting warmer, but the lower troposphere is getting warmer whilst the upper troposphere is getting colder, the same effect as a blanket, which is what you get from greenhouse gas emissions. Isotope studies show that those greenhouse gas emissions are from 100-million-year-old fossil fuels.
There are a lot of facts going into this, but if you read my super fact #25, you’ll see an impressive summary of the evidence showing that not only do we know that global warming is happening, we also know that we are causing it. It is not natural. We know this with certainty. If that feels shocking or strange to you, well that’s why I call it a super fact. Facts that many don’t want to believe but we know are true, is the point of my blog.
I also hope you have a peaceful and enjoyable weekend.
LikeLike
Very interesting. It really shoots up in the late 1900s. There’s been a few records broken too with high temperatures 🌡 in the last few years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes you are right Sara. According to NOAA the hottest year on record (average global temperature) since records began in 1850 was 2024. NOAA also claims that “The planet’s 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in the past decade.” They also list a bunch of records.
https://www.noaa.gov/news/2024-was-worlds-warmest-year-on-record
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yikes there we have it. It’s hard to deny data.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes you are right Sara
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the evidence is irrefutable, but the deniers persist. Of course, money is the root cause of that! Oddly enough, we are having a colder winter this year than several years prior. The overall trend has been for milder temperatures and less snow. When I think back to winters of the 1970s and 80s, they were brutal by comparison. And last summer was the hottest on record here as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes you are right Debbie. That’s what I believe I can see in northern Sweden as well, shorter snow seasons and milder winters, retreating glaciers. It is a little bit harder to see that here in Texas. However, the smoking gun is the temperature record that the world’s meteorological institutes and NOAA and NASA have kept, including the satellites. The fossil fuel industry is an 8 trillion dollar business so that matters too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Thomas, all I can say, based on my own observations, is that we had extraordinarily high temperatures during spring of up to 38C and there wasn’t a drop of rain. Now our temperatures are much lower, about 25C, and we are getting a lot more rain than usual. I like rain, but I think it’s a bit different from how it has been in the past.
LikeLiked by 2 people
38C is very hot. Some places are getting dryer, like western United States, some places like east Texas are getting more sudden excessive rain and flash floods. The average 1.5C increase in temperature is not what is most noticeable to people in most places, it is the changes in the weather. Our home insurance have gotten very expensive here in Texas, 42% over the last five years (even more for us), because the insurance companies have to pay for the increase in storms, flash floods, and large hail, and an increased risk for wild fires. Insurance companies have to keep track of this.
LikeLike
Yes, it is the same here. Our medical insurance has also increased a lot as there is so much more sickness around. There are theories that higher temperatures result in more illness too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So South Africa does not have national medical insurance like Sweden and Canada? Medical insurance is certainly a thorny issue.
LikeLike
No, we are like the USA. There are state facilities but you don’t really want to have to use them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh I see
LikeLike