More bad news for Mann and Briffa

Yep - that is Roy's normal plan of attack.

Again - he has made something up and is unable to support it.

That is nonsense Roy. And repeating it over and over again doesn't make it less nonsensical

Our review indicates that for some areas of the globe (for example, Scandinavia, China, the Sierra Nevada in California, the Canadian Rockies and Tasmania), temperatures, particularly in summer, appear to have been higher during some parts of this period than those that were to prevail until the most recent decades of the twentieth century. These warmer regional episodes were not strongly synchronous. Evidence from other regions (for example, the Southeast United States, southern Europe along the Mediterranean, and parts of South America) indicates that the climate during that time was little different to that of later times, or that warming, if it occurred, was recorded at a later time than has been assumed. Taken together, the available evidence does not support aglobal Medieval Warm Period, although more support for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from low-elevation records.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m4m476w270215w15/

Despite clear evidence for Medieval warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20–30 year intervals, with composite values during these times being only comparable to the mid-20 th century warm time interval.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51

Do you have anything to support your statement Roy? Please - no references to Margaret Thatcher this time.

 

Right bugalugs - here is some more background that confirms that Mann's work has been confirmed multiple times by multiple people using multiple sources;


"Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.



Figure 2: Original hockey stick graph (blue - MBH199 compared to Wahl & Ammann reconstruction (red). Instrumental record in black (Wahl 2007).

While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). What are some of the proxies that are used to determine past temperature?"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

 

oops...just noticed I attributed a quote of Roy's to Cornfed (2 posts up )

Sorry - what a terrible thing to do

my apologies

 

..right here: http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/

Copy/paste the case number "A09120086" into the search box to download the results of the National Science Foundation Inspector General's just-concluded investigation into Michael Mann's conduct.

For those who don't want to wade through the document, here is the final conclusion:

Cue the tin-foil-hat loonballs to start accusing the National Science Foundation of participating in the "Grand Global-Warmist Conspiracy" (a "conspiracy" that in reality exists nowhere except in their delusional little minds)...

 

Thanks caerbannog - nice reference.

 

So does tree growth have a linear or inverse parabolic relationship to temperature? If its is the former Mann is right. If it is the latter myself and all the skeptics are right. Oh what a tangled web we weave. You are right that the authors of this paper may have been trying to push global warming hysteria by concluding that global warming will lead to reduction in timber yields. But as is the case with all deception you begin to contradict your own previous lies. By concluding that tree growth declines when temperatures exceeded a certain point the researchers here contradicted a fundamental assumption of dendroclimatology, that tree ring growth linearly correlates to temperature. Without that assumption dendroclimatology falls flat on its face as it becomes impossible to tell just how pronounced previous warming periods were. Once you pass that maximum of the parabolic relationship to temperature warming starts to look like cooling. Its so elementary that I find it funny that you warmmonger who constantly spout just how simple AGW is ‘CO2 is a greenhouse gas more if it means more warming yadda yadda yadda’ that for you not to get such a fundamental point about how tree ring growth correlates to temperature is beyond asinine.

 

Thanks Caerbannog. the conclusion of yet another investigation leaves no doubt.

"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed."

 

Actually if you read the report they punted. They simply said that Dr. Mann had no legal obligation to engage in sound scientific practice.

 

Nope - that is spin.

The denier crowd has been claiming for years that it was a fraud. This shows - yet again - that is a ridiculous claim.

http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf



The research in question was originally completed over 10 years ago. Although the Subject's data is still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results. Much of the current debate focuses on the viability of the statistical procedures he employed, the statistics used to confirm the accuracy of the results, and the degree to which one specific set of data impacts the statistical results. These concerns are all appropriate for scientific debate and to assist the research community in directing future research efforts to improve understanding in this field of research. Such scientific debate is ongoing but does not, in itself, constitute evidence of research misconduct.

Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing this investigation with no further action.

Concerning False Claims, 18 U.S.C. §287 and 31 U.S.C. §§3729-33, and False Statements, 18 U.S.C. §1 001, we examined the elements of each suggested offense and have concluded that there is insufficient evidence of violations of any of these statutes to warrant investigation .

Besides, the work has been confirmed multiple times anyway;

The Mann et al. (199 Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that
examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980
are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which emonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed
hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region. When proxy PCs are employed, neither the time period used to “center” the data before PC
calculation nor the way the PC calculations are performed significantly affects the results, as long as the full extent of the climate information actually in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for achieving this criterion. Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for
the first half of the 15th century (∼+0.05–0.10&#9702, which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

 

No that is the strawman. The argument has never been that he fabricated the raw data. The raw data is what it is, the width and density of tree rings. Its the method that is flawed. And has time has gone on it has become clear that the use of a flawed method is intentional. That goes to point 4 which is the only point that wasn't a strawman and on which the IGO punted ,ssentially claiming that Dr. Mann has no legal responsibility to engage in honest science.

Thats a punt!

I'm not even going to argue the paper by Dr. Mann's own grad student and e-mail buddy as independent confirmation! Wahl/Amman found exactly what M&M did they just put a different spin on it.

 

Yup. Dr. Mann was vindicated again, this time by the NSF. Problem for the smear crowd is that they cheered this investigation.

Ed Barnes (Fox News):

​

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/06/climate-gate-michael-mann/

No follow-up from Mr. Barnes? What a shock.

 

Yes the IGO said that they were in fact tree rings and not fabricated. Beyond that the IGO said nothing other than Dr. Mann has no legal responsibility to engage in good science. If you think a report that says the tree rings were real is vindication then you haven't followed the debate very well. No one has said as the IRO claimed that the raw data was fake, not a temperature proxy, upside down, improperly analyzed, etc etc, thats all true, but fake? No, one one has ever said that the tree rings did not exist.

 

As I said in post #3 of this thread:

"But the fact that both you and windy seem to imagine that the tree ring proxy data is the only source of information that scientists use to reconstruct past climates just demonstrates how shallow your knowledge of this subject actually is. The fact that all of the different proxies show about the same past climate patterns is a fact you would rather ignore than deal with."

Contrary to your delusions, windy, Dr. Mann's original 'hockey stick' graph used three different temperature proxies, tree rings, ice cores and corals. Other scientists have analyzed the range of temperatures over the last thousand years using a variety of other temperature proxies in addition to those, including ocean and lake sediments, fossil pollen, and recorded historical details, and they all reached the same conclusions that the temperature increase over the last half century is beyond the range of natural variation over at least the last thousand years.

Both of those misstatements are deliberately induced paranoid delusions of your denier cult. The methods used by all of those scientists who have produced hockey stick shaped graphs have been reviewed and approved by other independent scientists and peer review panels.

You seem to have no idea what the phrase 'strawman argument' even means, and your misinterpretation of the Inspector General's report is laughably absurd.

 

Actually I know it quite well. Wahl/Amman uses the same proxies as Dr. Mann and is still as reliant on the presence of the bristle cones as Dr. Mann's original.

And they don’t use different proxies for the most part. They all tend to be dependent on the very few hockey stick shaped proxies that give them their shape. Because as Stockton 2007 showed all proxy reconstructions will inherently mine for a hockey stick. The shape of the graph is always dependent on just a few proxies.

To simplify Stockton 2006 to the laymen it is quite simple. Say you have 1,000 series of random red noise. You think that there is a temperature signal in series.

Step #1 you see how the series correlate to the 20th century temperature record.
Step #2 you select out the series that correlated well
Step #3 you weight the series based on how well they correlated
Step #4 you average of the weighted series to give you your final series, i.e. the temperature reconstruction.

This is how temperature reconstructions are done in a nutshell.

But lets remember what I said in the begining. The series are random. But when you go to step #2 and select only those series that correlated well to 20th century temperature they are no longer random. They all have on thing in common, a sharp 20th century uptick. However, before the 20th century the series are still random.

So when you perform step 4 the sharp 20th century upticks will add together while all the random data pre 20th century will cancel out because its random.

So what does the final series look like. Well will have a long shaft for most of its lenght with a strong 20th century uptick. It will be a hockey stick.

In science thsi is what is called the null case. The methods null case is a hockey stick. That is why Dr. Mann's and other's hokey sticks have always failed R and R2 verifciation metrics.

And as was shown in the runs done by Dr. Mann himself stored on his own FTP server the shape of the graph i.e. the hockey stick is 100% dependent on the presence of a few pine trees in Colorado. Trees that even the NAS panel agreed were not a viable temperature proxy.

All temperature reconstructions will mine for hockey sticks as was shown in Stockwell 2006. In the case of most all of the famous hockey stick reconstructions that needed hockey stick proxy is tree rings, either the Bristle Cones for Colorado, or the Yamal chronology which is dependent on one tree. Oh yes and there is always the upside down lake sediment that shows when right side up shows a strong MWP.

Honestly Livefree how many times do I have to take you to school on this? You can link Wiki all you want but you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. If you don’t understand it you should try and argue with me. Its down right sad.

 

I read it which I'm sure you haven't. I found that the only point that was a real point of contention was #2 #3 & #4. To which the IGO basically said that Dr. Mann has no legal obligation to conduct sound science. As far as the IGO was concerned the destruction of Wahls e-mails and his avoiding FOIA requests and his genearly poor science wasn't illegal so that was it.They investigated no further beyond that. It was a punt. They investigated things that no one has claimed that Dr. Mann did like 'fabricating his raw data' and said that what he has been accused of isn't a crime so they investigated no further.

 

The debate is stupid since other studies have confirmed the same trends and validity of the data.

Fine -you don't like Mann. OK - got it. What does that change - nothing.

Even if you thrown Mann's work away you still have multiple other reconstructions that confirm the same pattern.

 

Start naming them. I'll shoot them down. Esper, Jones, Brifa, etc. etc. they are all just as flawed as Mann. Which isn't surprising since they are all e-mail buddies who conspire to make sure that they are all on the same page.

You are speaking in vague generalities. I dare you to point to one reconstruction that I cannot shoot down as flawed. I know them all and I know how flawed each and every one of them are.

You cant assume that they are correct just because. Did the other studies use correct proxies or did they all uses flawed proxies? Did they use correct methodology? Did they pass valid statistical tests? The answer is always no. You are just repeating the same mistake that the NAS panel made. They assumed that only Dr. Mann's analysis had mistakes and that the others were valid. They said that Dr. Mann's use of RE was invalid and R2 and Dubin-Watson should have been used but the other reconstructions they pointed to as confirmation failed the aformetioned stastical tests. They said that hte use of Bristle Cones was wrong but the reconstructions they pointed to as confirmation also used bristle cones. In short they never bothered to check if the other reconstructions made the same mistakes.

 

Wow - working the conspiracy angle into it already. Typical.

OK - go. Let's hear how you have proved that they are all flawed.

 

He'll "shoot them down" just like he "shot down" the homegrown raw-data global-average temperature results that I put up earlier on this message board. IOW, he won't.

Linkies:
http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...st-10-years-lies-alarmism-10.html#post4151913
http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...st-10-years-lies-alarmism-11.html#post4153304
http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...st-10-years-lies-alarmism-12.html#post4156707

For all of Windigo's "chest thumping", he hasn't demonstrated any technical/analytical skills beyond the mastery of the "ctrl-c/ctrl-v" keystroke sequence in any of his posts here...

 

Start naming them. I guarantee you that you wont find one that used correct proxies, correct methods, and passed valid statistical tests. There isn't a single hockey stick in existence that does. They all fail to satisfy one, two or all of the above criteria. The only temperature reconstructions that satisfy the aforementioned criteria aren't hockey sticks.

As for conspiracy. What do you think that all of them e-mailing each other to be on the same page is? It's conspiracy. Not necessarily criminal conspiracy. But yes they all have engaged in conspiracy. That much is fact. There is no such thing as an independent confirmation from any team members.

If conspiracy didn't exist we wouldn't have a word for it and criminal statutes for it.

 

I ctrl+v very rarely.

As for your post I see you are still thumping your chest because I went on a vacation and didn't post anything on the board for close to a month. Stop tying to felate yourself, its sad.

 

Well, it looks to me like the right end of the graph peaks at about +.4, while the highest Medieval peaks are at about 0. Can you kindly point out which two records show a peak MWP warmer than the 1990's?

Also, since MBH98 only went back to 1400, why should we expect it to show the MWP at all?

If Phil Jones is a fraudster, may we assume you will not be using HADCRUT data from now on?

Well, perhaps I'm not seeing what you're seeing. I do see an increase during the 18th century in 5 out of the 6 studies, amounting to between .1 and .2 C. This is followed by a somewhat larger decrease at the beginning of the 19th century (again in 5 out of 6).

But MBH98 also shows a .1C increase in the 18th century, and somewhat larger decrease at the beginning of the 19th century. So I'm not sure exactly what your complaint about MBH98 is. Can you explain this point better for me?