December 2011 Open Thread

Comments

  1. #1 Billy Bob Hall
    December 1, 2011

    I told you so. :-) [gloat].

  2. #2 David Duff
    December 1, 2011

    Apologies! So it really wasn’t “hide the decline“, just as all of you kept telling us as you constructed your, er, ‘context’.

    No, instead, it was DELETE the decline! Poor old Briffa, cut off in his prime, one almost feels sorry for him, I mean, how much more humiliation can he take?

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/

  3. #3 chek
    December 1, 2011

    I mean, how much more humiliation can he take?

    Far more than scientific illiterates like you and McinTyres can dish out, that’s for sure.

  4. #4 Wow
    December 1, 2011

    > No, instead, it was DELETE the decline!

    Odd. The deletion of the data and the inclusion of false data was actually the problem of one of your mates, and displayed by the Daily Fail in the UK.

  5. #5 Kevin C
    December 1, 2011

    David: Do you realise that the graph concerned was not a figure for a peer-reviewed paper; it was a cover illustration?

    Have you ever produced a cover illustration for a peer-reviewed journal? Or indeed selected one as an editor?

    Here is an example from the journal ‘Structure':
    [Structure cover]. I could show you dozens of other examples.

    Cover illustrations have to convey something without the benefit of extensive supporting text. So they necessarily follow different conventions, and are interpreted differently, from the figures in the papers.

    This is absolutely clear from Briffa’s publication record, and from the others concerned. When producing a paper, they show all the data along with discussions of all the features. For this cover illustration, they are plotting something different: Rather than plotting the output of their proxies, they show their own best estimate of the millenial temperature record groups, because that’s what the WMO report is about.

    Does Briffa believe his proxy is more accurate than the thermometers after 1960? No.

  6. #6 Alpha Tango
    December 1, 2011

    Kevin – you are in denial to not accept that this is pure chicanery.

  7. #7 Kevin C
    December 1, 2011

    Then someone should probably tell Nature, Springer, Elsevier, and pretty much every other journal publisher in every field that we need to change the way we do cover illustrations. Where should we start?

  8. #8 John
    December 1, 2011
  9. #9 Bill Williams
    December 1, 2011

    “Does Briffa believe his proxy is more accurate than the thermometers after 1960? No.”

    You could take that premise further.

    “Can Briffa (or anyone) explain why his proxy works as a thermometer up until 1960? No. Does this make it somewhat questionable as a temperature proxy, since it appears to diverge from temperature for unknown reasons? Yes.”

  10. #10 Kevin C
    December 1, 2011

    OK, I so can’t believe that this is even an issue that my attempts to explain it are very poor. Let me try and do it properly.

    Let’s take an example which has nothing to do with climate. Consider the cosmic distance ladder:

    • - We can determine the position of nearby stars by parallax – out to say 50ly.
    • - Beyond that we can estimate distances by assuming stars are similar in real brightness to nearby stars with the same spectra, and scaling the distance according to how much dimmer they are. It’s crude, but it works.
    • - But there are also ‘standard candles’, which can fix the positions of certain distant objects, and by extension other stars which are clustered with them.
    • - And dynamic parallax gives further distance estimates for some clusters and nebulae.

    In a particular astronomical paper a researcher may publish a set of distance estimates using a particular method. And we can legitimately ask ‘What can we determine about the structure of the galaxy using such-and-such a method’.

    But we could also ask someone who has worked on the problem a different question: ‘What is your best understanding of the structure of the galaxy making use of all available data including yours?’. That’s a legitimate question. And the answer will involve a synthesis of multiple data sources with regard to the reliability of those sources over different ranges. That’s also a legitimate answer. (And it would make a great cover illustration.)

    I don’t see how the climate case is different. It is legitimate to ask ‘what it your temperature reconstruction on the basis of such-and-such a proxy?’. But it is also legitimate to ask ‘what is your best estimate of temperatures over the last millenium on the basis of your data and other sources?’. It’s a legitimate question, and it’s exactly the question that the WMO graph was answering.

    The only problem I see is that the inside cover text of the WMO report was unclear about exactly what was being shown, as the Muir-Russell report rightly identified.

  11. #11 Wow
    December 1, 2011

    > Does this make it somewhat questionable as a temperature proxy, since it appears to diverge from temperature for unknown reasons?

    No.

    Using a mercury thermometer to measure a smelting kiln temperature will not work, since the response of that thermometer to temperature is only definitionally correct over a certain calibrated range (mercury boils at molten steel temperatures). But an optical pyrometer will work to calculate the temperature of your melt.

    However, that optical pyrometer will not tell you the temperature of your home.

    Does that mean that temperature measurements are unreliable?

    No.

    Does it mean you have to discard a method of temperature measurement when you find that it no longer applies?

    Yes.

  12. #12 Kevin C
    December 1, 2011

    Bill: Yes, it is a valid question whether the proxy is invalidated by it’s recent divergence from temperatures. But exactly the same problem comes up in the cosmological distance ladder (and geology, etc). Does a contradictary result invalidate the method? Not necessarily. Does it affect our confidence in the method? Yes. And as a result a lot of work has been done comparing the MXD proxies with the long CET record and other proxies.
    The answer to your question is in that literature.

  13. #13 Wow
    December 1, 2011

    > you are in denial to not accept that this is pure chicanery.

    Nope, he’s correct in his denial.

    Denialism is the refutation of any evidence for a proposition.

    Given the proposition is that a conver illustration proves data has been faked and there is no evidence for that connection, whereas there is evidence that no such connection exists, refuting the proposition is not denial.

    Then again, given the likes of you continue to call yourselves skeptics, flying in the face of all evidence of denialism, that you fail to understand what the term means is no surprise to anyone here.

  14. #14 Andy
    December 1, 2011

    Kevin,

    If Briffa’s graph was so unimportant, why was it chopped off to hide it’s decline?

    It doesn’t matter whether the graph is on the front cover or buried inside the paper, selective editing is not science, it is merely propaganda, which takes into the realms of Gore’s laughable and error-ridden ‘Inconvenient Truth’.

    Additionally, I noticed that in one of the Climategate emails Mann suggests hiring a private detective to spy on McIntyre and try and connect him to ‘Big Oil’. Spying on other scientists is not science, it is espionage.

    Propaganda and espionage – sounds like East Germany circa 1970 doesn’t it?

  15. #15 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    December 1, 2011

    Andy:

    > It doesn’t matter whether the graph is on the front cover or buried inside the paper, selective editing is not science, it is merely propaganda, which takes into the realms of Gore’s laughable and error-ridden ‘Inconvenient Truth’.

    You must never enter the library of a university then, because then you’ll be subject to the propagandistic force of a thousand Josef Stalins.

    > Additionally, I noticed that in one of the Climategate emails Mann suggests hiring a private detective to spy on McIntyre and try and connect him to ‘Big Oil’. Spying on other scientists is not science, it is espionage.

    OK, so scientists investigating think-tank ‘scientists’ = espionage, but politicians (e.g. Cuccinelli, Issa) investigating scientists (e.g. Mann) = dispassionate science. I get the picture.

    Is uploading a file to http://ftp.tomcity.ru a part of normal scientific procedure then, I wonder?

    — frank

  16. #16 Kevin C
    December 1, 2011

    Andy: I already answered your question in my comparisons with the cosmic distance ladder.

    Clearly the cover issue is completely opaque to someone who hasn’t done it, so I withdraw the argument.

  17. #17 chek
    December 1, 2011

    The reasons for the decline (only in some proxies) are well noted in the scientific literature. Any scientist knows this and even McinTyres knows it.

    What he’s doing is feeding the ignorati congregation in his sharktank with ancient meat he’s tarted up to look fresh. He has to do this occasionally because he’s an irrelevance since the Wegman scandal broke.

  18. #18 Wow
    December 1, 2011

    > If Briffa’s graph was so unimportant, why was it chopped off to hide it’s decline?

    The graph wasn’t chopped off. That is why you can see the graph.

    And decline in what?

    You’re incoherent, kid.

    > Spying on other scientists is not science, it is espionage.

    Yes. This is true. However, since Mann isn’t doing the spying, this isn’t stopping any science.

    You’re REALLY incoherent.

  19. #19 Mikearoundtown
    December 1, 2011

    Actually the argument hat it is merely a cover illustration wears thin when the same illustration appears to be in the paper itself.

    http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/Soon.EosForum20032.pdf

  20. #20 MartinM
    December 1, 2011

    Additionally, I noticed that in one of the Climategate emails Mann suggests hiring a private detective to spy on McIntyre and try and connect him to ‘Big Oil’

    Bollocks. He suggests trying to get an investigative journalist interested in McIntyre’s known connections to the oil industry.

  21. #21 rubiginosa
    December 1, 2011

    The Australian thinks Paul Reiter is a pretty cool guy. Eh criticises the IPCC and doesn’t afraid of anything.

  22. #22 MartinM
    December 1, 2011

    Actually the argument hat it is merely a cover illustration wears thin when the same illustration appears to be in the paper itself.

    That is a) not a paper, b) not the report in question, c) not the same illustration, d) not an illustration which uses the ‘trick’ in question.

    Other than that, good point!

  23. #23 Wow
    December 1, 2011

    > wears thin when the same illustration appears to be in the paper itself.

    WRONG.

    Go to the PDF. Page 6 is where that graph is. Now, zoom in 400% and look at the end of the graph.

    On that graph in the PDF, in the content, there is a black dotted line behind the red, in front of the green and purple lines.

    Now zoom into the graph as a jpeg on climate fraudit’s site.

    You can still see the little squarish black blob on the end of the page, but you can’t see the black line there any more after it’s minima at around where the pink shading ends.

    In fact, on CA’s picture, there’s a pink shading, and no pink shading on the graph in the pdf.

    They are not the same graph.

    Or did you just take his word for it they were the same?

    They are

  24. #24 Marco
    December 1, 2011

    I like Andy’s complaint about Mann’s suggestion to get someone to investigate McIntyre. That information comes from a private e-mail that was made public without the sender’s and receivers’ consent.

    Apparently, spying on scientists is fine, suggesting to investigate someone is not…

    the hypocrisy of the deniosphere in a nutshell.

  25. #25 JamesA
    December 1, 2011

    Why are people still hung up on the ‘decline’? Briffa has spent a lot of his career publishing papers critically analysing the accuracy of proxy records, so if he wants to hide anything, he’s chosen a pretty odd way of doing it. Also, now that the ‘decline’ has been brought to everyone’s attention (even though they already knew about it anyway), has that forced anyone to re-evaluate any of the temperature records? Not one bit.

    Neither science nor the earth’s climate can be changed by character assassination, no matter how persistently people try. If McIntyre was serious about the science he would have tried doing his own reconstruction and be honest about the results that he got. All the data and software tools he needs are out there, so what’s stopping him?

  26. #26 Wow
    December 1, 2011

    > Why are people still hung up on the ‘decline’?

    people aren’t.

    Denialists (the small subset of people) have nothing else than misrepresentation of the work of science. THEY are the ones still hung up on “decline”.

    Because they don’t have anything else.

  27. #27 Bernard J.
    December 1, 2011

    >Spying on other scientists is not science, it is espionage.

    So, what do you call it when hundreds of thousands of private inastitutional emails are hacked, along with other data, and released to those who would bring disrepute to those from whom the data were stolen?

    What would you call it when folk encourage code cracking in order to access other parts of the body of stolen material?

    Do tell – I’m very curious.

  28. #28 Lotharsson
    December 1, 2011

    > …so what’s stopping him?

    He’s probably fairly sure he won’t like the results – see BEST – and it would make it harder for him to claim plausible deniability for his dog whistling.

  29. #29 Composer99
    December 1, 2011

    Is it just me, or is there dishonesty following any use of the syllable “er,” (the comma is an invariable part of it) whenever typed by David Duff?

    Seriously, almost every time I see it come up in one of his comments, a porkie is almost certain to follow.

  30. #30 crem
    December 1, 2011

    Wow, I don’t get your point about the graph. You claim that McIntyre is using a different graph based on some minor differences you see in squiggles. Ok, even if this is true (which seems unlikely), are you saying the Fig 1 in the paper (not the the cover graphic) does not cut off the Briffa reconstruction at 1940?

    I am not sure why people have raised a “cover illustration” argument. The CA analysis clearly identified the graph as Fig 1 and this is confirmed by the link above. Fig 1 also clearly cuts off the Briffa reconstruction, apparently at 1940.

    As regards the analogy to using a mercury thermometer to measure a smelting kiln, that really doesn’t work. The whole point here is to measure temperatures in the same range. How can on earth can you tell if the MCA had temperature levels comparable to today’s if the proxy just doesn’t work at today’s level???

    As we all know, the millenia temperature reconstructions are heavily dependent on dendro. So if the divergence issue indicates that the dendro records are not a reliable proxy, that is a big deal for the hockey sticks.

  31. #31 Wow
    December 1, 2011

    > You claim that McIntyre is using a different graph based on some minor differences you see in squiggles.

    Yup.

    Therefore it can’t be the same graph.

    > Ok, even if this is true (which seems unlikely)

    No. You see if the graph doesn’t have the same lines on it, it isn’t the same graph.

    Just like neither are this graph:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

    Even though they all have wiggly lines on.

    Different graphs. All graphs, but different.

  32. #32 Wow
    December 1, 2011

    > As regards the analogy to using a mercury thermometer to measure a smelting kiln, that really doesn’t work.

    I know it doesn’t work.

    That’s why they don’t use a mercury thermometer.

    Does this fact that a mercury thermometer cannot measure temperature outside a certain range mean that a thermometer cannot measure temperature within that range?

    No.

  33. #33 John Mashey
    December 1, 2011

    And now for something completely different:
    Pal Review, with de Freitas , Michaels , McKitrick , etc.

  34. #34 Richard Simons
    December 1, 2011

    crem @28

    How can on earth can you tell if the MCA had temperature levels comparable to today’s if the proxy just doesn’t work at today’s level???

    One set of trees was different. Acid rain, I believe.

  35. #35 David Duff
    December 1, 2011

    Hello! Hello! Has anyone seen anything, anything at all, in the MSM about Durban? No, nor me. Not a mention. The only thing I did find was this in the WSJ:

    “As with religion, it ['climate change'] is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term “climate change” when thermometers don’t oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other “deniers.” And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.”

    How very rude! But it gets worse, that is, even more truthful:

    Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the climate apocalypse. Namely, the financial apocalypse. The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won’t be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won’t make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they’ve spent it all on Greece.

    Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent’s heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. “Green” technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.

    You know,being a ‘warmer’ must be terrible nowadays, a bit like being a mother and seeing your new baby slowly dying before your eyes. Do you know, I almost feel sorry for you, but, nah, I’ll just give the baby another kick – heh, heh, heh!

  36. #36 George Turner
    December 1, 2011

    @Wow,

    But they’re not using tree rings to cover a different temperature range than the mercury thermometer. A more apt analogy would be a mercury thermometer that is claimed to accurately record temperatures in your bedroom but for some reason doesn’t work in your living room, according to your irritating mother-in-law who won’t leave the thermostat alone.

    No property of temperature changed between the MWP and today, and trees haven’t significantly evolved since then, so if tree rings don’t track temperature now, they didn’t back then, either, unless by complete coincidence.

  37. #37 Taphonomic
    December 1, 2011

    “Is uploading a file to http://ftp.tomcity.ru a part of normal scientific procedure then, I wonder?”

    If that file had been released under FOIA requests, as it should have been, then such uploading would notm have been necessary.

    Is doing everything you can to subvert the FOIA process a part of normal scientific procedure then, I wonder?

  38. #38 chek
    December 1, 2011

    Well upon my soul, looks like Duff the Fake has completely forgotten his jolly old chap persona, while spewing his usual tissues of lies.

    Still I suppose David the Water Carrier For Lost Causes and Lame-brain Conspiracies possibly doesn’t know about the UK’s Daily Telegraph, Guardian, the BBC, Channel 4, the LA Times, CBS etc. etc. et-bloody-cetera. No links because they’d only trip the spam filter for the sake of one of nature’s most spectacular wastes of space between the ears Duffers, but all readily available.

    One wonders who the Duffus thinks would ever believe a word he sends.

  39. #39 Bill Williams
    December 1, 2011

    “Using a mercury thermometer to measure a smelting kiln temperature will not work, since the response of that thermometer to temperature is only definitionally correct over a certain calibrated range (mercury boils at molten steel temperatures). But an optical pyrometer will work to calculate the temperature of your melt.
    However, that optical pyrometer will not tell you the temperature of your home.
    Does that mean that temperature measurements are unreliable?
    No.”

    Your analogy doesn’t translate. We know the range over which a mercury thermometer will correctly measure temperature. We know how an optical pyrometer responds to temperature, so we know that it won’t work,as you say, in a domestic setting.

    We don’t know why Briffa’s proxy suddenly diverges and we don’t know when/if it has done it over time periods prior to 1960.

    The comparison is somewhat different.

  40. #40 Bill Williams
    December 1, 2011

    “Yes, it is a valid question whether the proxy is invalidated by it’s recent divergence from temperatures. But exactly the same problem comes up in the cosmological distance ladder (and geology, etc). Does a contradictary result invalidate the method? Not necessarily. Does it affect our confidence in the method? Yes.”

    Yes I would agree. The problem in this particular case being that the said affect on confidence wasn’t acknowledged (at least no publicly). Simply cutting out data that doesn’t fit and then assuming that the rest, because it does fit, is therefore correct, is not particularly convincing.

  41. #41 Wow
    December 1, 2011

    > The problem in this particular case being that the said affect on confidence wasn’t acknowledged

    Nope, it was acknowledged in Nature, ferchrissakes! YEARS before! Discussed FOR YEARS. WELL KNOWN.

    Completely acknowledge by the people who work on this.

    You’re just insisting that they’d change it without any idea of what they knew, because you want to make up a crisis.

    It’s nonexistent.

  42. #42 Wow
    December 1, 2011

    > But they’re not using tree rings to cover a different temperature range than the mercury thermometer

    That wasn’t what the analogy was about.

    It was about whether inapplicability in one area removes applicability to ALL uses.

    And it doesn’t.

    > so if tree rings don’t track temperature now, they didn’t back then, either

    Ah, and you know HOW MUCH about biology?

    Bugger all.

    Do you know what happened in the 70’s? Smog ring a bell?

    The possible reasons for the difference are all in the literature that you won’t read because you’re convincing yourself of an obvious lie.

    And the fact that it tracks so well is proof that it works.

  43. #43 Wow
    December 1, 2011

    > If that file had been released under FOIA requests, as it should have been

    Nope, you know NOTHING about FOIA in the UK.

    That file DID NOT have to be released under FOIA, therefore the theft of it is illegal.

  44. #44 crem
    December 1, 2011

    Wow, you are incorrect about the Nature article. That dealt with with densities, not ring widths.

    To cut to the chase, do you think it was copacetic to truncate the Briffa series in 1940?

  45. #45 Damian
    December 1, 2011

    This is why they’re called zombie arguments.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but:

    (1) Only a subset of tree rings diverge.

    (2) There were accurate thermometers before the divergence problem occured, and the subset of tree rings that eventually diverged were consistent with thermometers up to that point.

    (3) There are numerous other proxies that track temperature, and they are largely consistent with the tree rings in question up to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can be fairly confident that the tree rings were an acceptable proxy up to that point.

    (4) Nothing has been hidden. This problem has been known about for a long time and has been argued in the literature. I’m really not sure what else people expect? Do not mistake your own ignorance about a subject matter for a conspiracy. That’s just silly.

    (5) This is how science works. It matters not what one individual scientist or even layperson believes. What matters is whether enough qualified experts are convinced that a problem has been sufficiently explained. If enough experts were not convinced about the reliability of certain proxies the papers that relied on those proxies would fail to gain prominence.

  46. #46 Marco
    December 1, 2011

    As also briefly noted at RC, McIntyre is making up another story, and effectively defending the Soon & Baliunas paper. Of course, once again reality is not very nice to the deniosphere (and McIntyre definitely is right there at this moment), and anyone reading the EOS criticism of the Soon & Baliunas paper will note that it is filled with pointers to false and unsupportable claims in the S&B paper, none of which related to the MXD divergence issue.

    It reminds me of McIntyre defending the McShane & Wyner paper, ignoring the blatantly false claims in that paper about what Mann et al did. Something he would have HAD to know, considering he’s been ‘auditing’ those papers to death.

  47. #47 David L.
    December 1, 2011

    All this arguing over the details of the cover art.

    Please, answer one question: What is the irrefutable evidence that tree rings prior to 1940 scale with temperature (and only temperature) when they don’t scale with temperature post 1940.

    Without this evidence I won’t believe anything about this graph: from beginning to end, with or without the end chopped off.

  48. #48 crem
    December 1, 2011

    Damian,

    Just calling something “zombie arguments” does not make them so. To your credit, you do give a number of reasoned arguments but they include some misconceptions and miss some background:
    – yes, the series was an accurate thermometer before divergence but this was in a specific range. Divergence occurred as the instrumental record began to rise. Do you see why these proxies cannot therefore be relied upon to judge whether MCA temperatures were comparable to today’s?
    – we don’t know if all the other series diverge. Many of them have never been updated for periods coinciding with the more recent temperature rise. Ababneh did update the Greybill sheep mountain chronology in 2007 and it also does not track the instrumental record.
    – actually, this specific issue (ring widths) was barely mentioned in the academic literature at the time of the EOS paper. Even today, we really have nothing more than speculative theories for the divergence.
    – enough qualified experts are not convinced about the reliability of these proxies. Even the landmark NAS panel (which largely supported the hockey stick) concluded that BCPs are a poor proxy and should not be used for temperature reconstructions. And yet they remain a staple of recent work.

    There are real issues, and using dismissive terms like “zombie arguments” adds little.

  49. #49 Jes
    December 1, 2011

    I do know lots about FoI in the UK. I handle all the requests for a data-rich government department. Tell me why these files are exempt information?

  50. #50 Composer99
    December 1, 2011

    David L:

    If you are going to dismiss “all this arguing over the details of the cover art” why are you then asking for “irrefutable proof” in order to “believe anything” about it?

    Here is a webpage discussing the divergence problem in dendrochronology with links to multiple papers discussing it in the peer-reviewed literature.

    Go. Read. Learn.

  51. #51 a canuck who HATES lies
    December 1, 2011

    We hate liars, especially when their hands are in our wallets and the governments support this grand robbery!

    THE UN are liars – they are behind this bad science to make money and fools of us all.
    I’m so fed up with it all.

    NOW really motivate to start a call to boycott the blue boxes and all these other useless recycle programs (within in my province ONT) until our hydro bills are affordable again.

  52. #52 elspi
    December 1, 2011

    Which part of bore-holes don’t you idiot trolls understand.
    We invert the 1-dim heat equation on a bore-hole with the appropriate underlying geology and we get the actual temp function for the last 2000 years over the hole.

    Not a proxy, but the actual temperature. Thus we can check the tree rings proxies against the actual temp for the last 2000 years, and we see they are in good agreement.
    This is what PROVES they work

    QED.

  53. #53 Composer99
    December 1, 2011

    crem:

    Recent research on the MCA shows it was not a global phenomenon. See discussion on Mann 2009 [here](http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm).

    The map showing the reconstruction of MCA temperature anomaly (compared to a 1961-1990 baseline) compared to a map showing the temperature anomaly for 1999-2008 compared to the same baseline should probably clear things up.

    If you’re going to argue a proxy record is no good please do so using citations to literature on the topic.

  54. #54 Composer99
    December 1, 2011

    a canuck:

    Since it is the climate science pseudoskeptics & denialists who are spreading dishonest claims & mendacious misrepresentations, your handle is a sad, ironic misnomer.

    Please do not allow yourself to be misled any more: get the science straight from the horse’s mouth and review the literature. If a lack of formal training & experience in the field is a constraint (and it’s a very reasonable one), then be sure to review sources which accurately interpret & represent the literature rather than misinformation sites such as WUWT.

  55. #55 cerm
    December 1, 2011

    Composer 99,

    I am always skeptical of links to Skeptical Science. I have found they have a bias that does not always show the full story. No-one wants to rehash all the arguments over the MWP which is beyond the original narrow discussion here about whether it is copacetic for the EOS graph to truncate the Briffa series in 1940 (will you address this?). However, I will make the point that if you take Mann 2008 and eliminate the sediment series that he mistakenly inverted and also remove the BCP series as recommended by the NAS panel, you get a MWP that is within the error bars of today’s temperature. Don’t take my word for it – check the updated SI at Mann’s own website. (But you probably won’t see this at Skeptical Science!)

  56. #56 chek
    December 1, 2011

    a canuck who HATES lies

    F**king dumb, self-loathing projectionists.

  57. #57 Ian Forreste
    December 1, 2011

    crem said:

    I am always skeptical of links to Skeptical Science. I have found they have a bias that does not always show the full story

    Yes, they are biased all right, biased towards honesty and truthfulness unlike dishonest lying deniers like you and those you worship.

  58. #58 Composer99
    December 1, 2011

    crem:

    I have just been to Mann’s website and reviewed the [2008 paper](http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf) and found it does not appear to support your claim that “you get a MWP that is within the error bars of today’s temperature”. See Figure 3. If you are thinking of a different version please provide a direct link.

    Also, I note that you are referring to Mann et al 2008 (focusing on Northern Hemisphere reconstructions) instead of Mann et al 2009 (global reconstructions) which is the paper that the Skeptical Science link discussed. Why the attempt at misdirection?

  59. #59 David Duff
    December 1, 2011

    Oh, no, even the kiddie-winkies don’t believe you!

    email 682: Tom Wigley tells Michael Mann that his son did a tree ring science fair project (using trees behind NCAR) that invalidated the centerpiece of Mann’s work:
    ‘A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR. He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation’

    Wigley, of course, is an NCAR scientist. His son looks as though he will turn out to be one, too! And Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ is look as hooky as, er, well, a hockey stick! I ownder if Briffa has any kids?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/01/hockey-stick-falsification-so-easy-a-caveman-kid-can-do-it/

  60. #60 caerbannog
    December 1, 2011

    Duff, you incompetent clown.

    The trees behind NCAR are low-elevation ponderosa pines — of course tree-rings there will be strongly correlated with precipitation.

    That’s why temperature reconstructions rely on “temperature stressed” trees found near timberline (elevation and latitude), i.e. in regions so cold that tree-growth is limited by temperature, not precipitation. The low-elevation trees behind NCAR are not nearly as temperature stressed as they are moisture stressed.

    Duff, you really are denser than 2000-year-old bristlecone heartwood.

  61. #61 Andy
    December 1, 2011

    Only just come back to the thread after working all day.
    It seems my ‘propaganda’ and ‘espionage’ comment rather hit a raw nerve, judging by some of the vitriolic comments that people have typed up. I’ll do my best to answer some of them (although in a slightly jumbled chronological order)

    Bernard J: “what do you call it when hundreds of thousands of private inastitutional emails are hacked, along with other data, and released to those who would bring disrepute to those from whom the data were stolen?”
    The UEA isn’t a private institution, it’s a public one, so there should be full public disclosure of the emails. The fact that Phil Jones spent so much time convincing others to surreptitiously delete emails demonstrates that he knew these emails had the potential to be shown to the public. As for ‘disrepute’, if the Hockey Stick Team’s actions were beyond reproach, how could they be brought into disrepute? Personally, I’ve worked for publc institutions and couldn’t care less if my emails were released to the public as I know I’ve got nothing to hide. If the Hockey Stick Team’s science was so solid and their actions beyond reproach, why did they get so worked up?

    Wow: “Apparently, spying on scientists is fine, suggesting to investigate someone is not…”
    Nobody’s spying on scientists, they’ve just had the emails they wrote that have been stored on the servers of a public institution released to the public. If they’ve got nothing to hide, what’s the problem?
    However, Mike Mann shouldn’t be using publicly-funded time and resources to try and sanction the use of investigative journalists to spy on other scientists.

    Wow: “The graph wasn’t chopped off. That is why you can see the graph.
    And decline in what?”
    Yes it was chopped off (Jones admitted the ‘trick’) and it shows a decline in positive temperature change (you just have to read the label on the vertical axis)

    James A: “If McIntyre was serious about the science he would have tried doing his own reconstruction and be honest about the results that he got”. From what I’ve seen, McIntyre has always been completely open and honest about his results. You seem to imply he has been dishonest – I’d love to see your evidence.

    Martin M: “Bollocks. He suggests trying to get an investigative journalist interested in McIntyre’s known connections to the oil industry.” You’re right Martin and I was wrong – Mann suggested hiring an investigative journalist to spy on McIntyre rather than suggesting the use of a private detective to spy on McIntyre. You warmists (I assume you are one) should try admitting when you are wrong – you’ll find it very liberating ;) BTW let’s try and keep the swearing out of the debate. Not only is it terribly uncouth, but it tends to suggest desperation and insecurity on you part.

    Frank: “OK, so scientists investigating think-tank ‘scientists’ = espionage, but politicians (e.g. Cuccinelli, Issa) investigating scientists (e.g. Mann) = dispassionate science. I get the picture.”
    Two things:
    Firstly: since when do politicians have to be ‘dispassionate’ scientists? Personally, I quite like my politicians passionate rather than damp rags.
    Secondly: scientists should not be investigating other scientists. Instead they should be getting on with the science and leave it to the politicians to carry out investigations into the subterfuge, lying, and wasting of the public’s money by a cabal of scientists proposing a hypothesis that has been cobbled together with the use of woefully inaccurate models that failed to predict the currently flat-lined temperatures (when it comes to useless models and predictions, I love to amuse myself by thinking of Hansen’s terrible ‘Scenarios A, B and C’ Opredictions that stubbornly refused to come true.

    Various commenters: Some of you have suggested the offendIng graph was only on the front cover, when you all know it was also presented in ‘Fig 1′, so you were wrong. Mind you, I still don’t understand why it is acceptable to print any misleading graph on the front of any scientific publication. I don’t know about you, but I prefer ALL my graphs with none of the avaliable data removed, front cover or not.

  62. #62 chek
    December 1, 2011

    “but I prefer ALL my graphs with none of the avaliable applicable data removed

    There, corrected that for you.

  63. #63 John McManus
    December 1, 2011

    re: the confused canuck

    I apologise.

    John McManus
    Nova Scotia
    Canada

  64. #64 David Duff
    December 1, 2011

    Well said, Andy, but “BTW let’s try and keep the swearing out of the debate” is, I’m afraid, a whistle in the wind as far as this lot are concerned. It stems not so much from desperation as panic, I think. One must be charitable because, after 30-odd years of belief in “the cause“, it must be heart-rending to realise slowly but surely that you have been conned. Truly cringe-worthy!

  65. #65 caerbannog
    December 1, 2011


    One must be charitable because, after 30-odd years of belief in “the cause”, it must be heart-rending to realise slowly but surely that you have been conned. Truly cringe-worthy!

    So says the individual who isn’t bright enough to figure out why paleoclimatologists don’t use tree-ring data from low-elevation moisture-stressed ponderosa pines for temperature reconstructions.

  66. #66 chek
    December 1, 2011

    it must be heart-rending to realise slowly but surely that you have been conned.

    Thus spake the moron Duff for whom the implications of comment #58 (and every other refutation he’s been unable to address here, ever) have yet to sink in.

  67. #67 John
    December 1, 2011

    There are many trolls here, even more than usual.

    Duff, the “incompetent clown” dropped a link and begged for assistance again, didn’t he?

  68. #68 John
    December 1, 2011

    What’s this? Could it be Duff pronouncing that the science is settled?

    >One must be charitable because, after 30-odd years of belief in “the cause”, it must be heart-rending to realise slowly but surely that you have been conned. Truly cringe-worthy!

    It’s been two years since you started stating that any moment now the science will collapse.

    Two long, long years in which the evidence has only strengthened.

    Two long, long years in which all the deniers have done is build a bizarre conspiracy theory out of stolen emails.

    Truly cringe-worthy! Ha! Black lesbians! Er!

  69. #69 Andy
    December 1, 2011

    Chek:
    “but I prefer ALL my graphs with none of the avaliable applicable data removed
    There, corrected that for you.”
    Firstly: I really can’t abide the ‘fixed that for ya’ thing that some people insist on using. You can say what you like about me, but please don’t change my words. I find it very condescending and I believe it just makes you look smug
    Secondly: you talk about ‘applicable’ data. Since when was the chopped data not applicable? Rather than not being applicable, I think it instead showed a rather inconvenient truth.

    Hi David,
    I notice the last two commenters have accused you of being dumb and called you a ‘moron’. I’m sorry you have to put up with this abuse, but I find that the more perceptive your point, the more sweary and shouty the warmists get.
    Keep at it my friend and we’ll change some minds; haven’t you noticed that there are warmists who became sceptics, but no skeptics who’ve suddenly embraced the AGW mantra?
    Thankfully, it seems politicians are listening to their more well-informed members of the electorate who don’t want to pay through the nose for a pseudo-scientific fraud and so the politicians are starting to back-off from the carbon-craziness. It must drive the warmists to despair!

  70. #70 John
    December 1, 2011

    Here’s some more evidence that proves somebody here has been conned:

    2011: world’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume

    >Global temperatures in 2011 are currently the tenth highest on record and are higher than any previous year with a La Niña event, which has a relative cooling influence

    It’s obviously, er, meaningless because fat lesbians something hacked emails heh heh heh

  71. #71 Andy
    December 1, 2011

    John: “Two long, long years in which the evidence has only strengthened.”
    I wouldn’t call continuing flat-lined temperatures a strengthening of the global-warming mantra.

  72. #72 John
    December 1, 2011

    >John: “Two long, long years in which the evidence has only strengthened.” I wouldn’t call continuing flat-lined temperatures a strengthening of the global-warming mantra.

    No, of course you wouldn’t. I, on the other hand, am much smarter than you and know about pesky things like “evidence” and “research” and all those things you people like to ignore while you quote mine emails and gossip on internet forums.

  73. #73 John
    December 1, 2011

    What global warming? What evidence?

    >The seasonal Arctic sea ice minimum, reached on 9 September, was 4.33 million square kilometres. This was 35% below the 1979-2000 average and only slightly more than the record low set in 2007. Unlike the 2007 season, both the Northwest and Northeast Passages were ice-free for periods during the 2011 summer. Sea ice volume was even further below average and was estimated at a new record low of 4200 cubic kilometres, surpassing the record of 4580 cubic kilometres set in 2010.

  74. #74 JamesA
    December 1, 2011

    @Andy:
    >James A: “If McIntyre was serious about the science he would have tried doing his own reconstruction and be honest about the results that he got”. From what I’ve seen, McIntyre has always been completely open and honest about his results. You seem to imply he has been dishonest – I’d love to see your evidence.

    I didn’t say he was being dishonest, I’m saying he’s not serious about science. He spends the best part of his life making snide digs at the scientists’ handling of the data, all the while he is perfectly capable of repeating the analysis himself (as others have done, e.g. BEST) and settling the issue. What’s stopping him?

  75. #75 MH
    December 1, 2011

    @62. David Duff, what is “the cause”? What is its manifesto and goals? Just asking…

  76. #76 Andy
    December 1, 2011

    Sorry James I slightly mid-read your thoughts. However, McIntyre never set out to make any reconstructions, he just worked hard on highlighting all the weaknesses and faults in Mann et al’s Hockey Stick

    John: yep, ice has been melting in the Arctic and the Northwest Passage has been open (like it has been countless times in the past). Equally, Antarctic ice has been increasing and that damned ‘hotspot’ way up over the tropics that all the models predicted should be there has still stubbornly refused to show up…. If you want to wave around alarming situations I can always wave some rather un-alarming ones around as well.

  77. #77 Andy
    December 1, 2011

    Right, I’m off to bed.

    David Duff: keep up the good fight sir, if you can weather the storm of abuse you have suffered here.

    Goodnight everyone and thanks to the blog-master for letting me comment here. The time I’ve spent here has further strengthened my scepticism.

    It’s currently the warmest November here in the UK for many, many years and I’m loving it. I really hate it when it’s cold. Don’t you?….

  78. #78 Ian Forrester
    December 1, 2011

    Andy has so little to say in his last post but all of it is wrong.

    [Here is some recent data on the Arctic Ice](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-hockey-stick-melt-unprecedented-in-last-1450-years.html).

    [The Antarctic sea ice is expected to expand](http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice.htm) for a number of reasons, one of which is that the ice cap is melting at a much higher rate than expected resulting in less salinity in the surrounding ocean thus more ice. Quite simple if one stops to think about it.

    [The tropospheric hot spot has been identified](http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm). Andy doesn’t seem to understand that this hot spot is not a finger print of AGW but is only indicative of a warming climate whatever the cause.

    Too bad deniers don’t spend time actually reading the real science rather than wasting all their time on lying denier blogs.

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    December 1, 2011

    > As we all know, the millenia temperature reconstructions are heavily dependent on dendro.

    That would be why they also do reconstructions without dendro and get reasonably similar results, eh?

    > Divergence occurred as the instrumental record began to rise. Do you see why these proxies cannot therefore be relied upon to judge whether MCA temperatures were comparable to today’s?

    Don’t you love how one “skeptic” argues against the position of another, and yet they both somehow agree that they are right and the scientists are wrong?

    > As for ‘disrepute’, if the Hockey Stick Team’s actions were beyond reproach, how could they be brought into disrepute?

    Ah, the Soviet police state defence – if you have done nothing wrong, then you can’t complain when people take your private conversations and … interpret selected extracts on your behalf via the mass media.

    > From what I’ve seen, McIntyre has always been completely open and honest about his results.

    LOL! Thanks for that bit of unintentional humour embedded in your transparent refusal to avoid answering the question.

    > Two things: Firstly: since when do politicians have to be ‘dispassionate’ scientists?

    Zero-thly: since when do *scientists* have to be ‘dispassionate’? You’re apparently operating under an illusion on that point. Science works regardless of the level of passion of individual scientists (and regardless of whether individual scientists are as pure and honest as freshly fallen snow).

    Pointing at scientists being snarky about other scientists as “evidence” that the science isn’t solid is merely evidence that you have no actual case against the science.

    > …that failed to predict the currently flat-lined temperatures…

    Sheesh, two wrongs in eight words. Bet you don’t admit either one.

    > Secondly: scientists should not be investigating other scientists.

    McIntyre is a scientist now? Who knew?! Here’s me thinking (a) his B.S. was for studying mathematics, and (b) AFAIK he doesn’t even have a Ph.D. in *anything*, let alone in science.

  80. #80 caerbannog
    December 1, 2011

    Posted by: Andy | December 1, 2011 6:29 PM

    Sorry James I slightly mid-read your thoughts. However, McIntyre never set out to make any reconstructions, he just worked hard on highlighting all the weaknesses and faults in Mann et al’s Hockey Stick

    And what weaknesses/faults, when corrected, changed Mann’s results to any noticeable degree? Replacing Mann’s SVD short-centering with SVD full-centering? The changes in the “hockey stick” output were hardly visible.

  81. #81 Vince Whirlwind
    December 1, 2011

    Flooding scientists with frivolous FOI requests is dishonest behaviour.
    McIntyre is dishonest. And, as pointed out, he has not contributed any original research of his own.

  82. #82 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    December 1, 2011

    Lotharsson:

    > Zero-thly: since when do scientists have to be ‘dispassionate’?

    Indeed.

    > Secondly: scientists should not be investigating other scientists. Instead they should be getting on with the science and leave it to the politicians to carry out investigations

    I wish that were possible, but unfortunately the current crop of Democratic politicians, and even the current US Attorney General, are too busy with such all-important tasks as ‘trying to get re-elected’ and ‘writing speeches’ to bother with protecting the rights of scientists such as Prof. Mann.

    And in case you forgot, Mann is, you know, a US citizen, with all the rights that come with being a citizen.

    — frank

  83. #83 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    December 1, 2011

    The second part was directed at Andy, not Lotharsson.

    — frank

  84. #84 crem
    December 1, 2011

    Composer99,

    Please don’t accuse me of wrongdoing when you don’t know the facts. Mann 2008 most certainly is a global reconstruction. You say you looked at the paper, but somehow you even missed the title: “Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia”. If you don’t concede this, I don’t see any point in continuing this discussion.

    As regards your reference to Fig 3 in Mann 2008, you did not read what I said. I very clearly wrote that you had to look at Mann’s updated SI, not at the original 2008 paper. You just misread this. No problem – you can find the SI here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/

  85. #85 John
    December 1, 2011

    Andy says:

    >If you want to wave around alarming situations I can always wave some rather un-alarming ones around as well.

    Then he says:

    >It’s currently the warmest November here in the UK for many, many years

    Nothing to worry about, obviously. I’m sure it’s going to start cooling any day now.

  86. #86 John
    December 1, 2011

    >Quite simple if one stops to think about it.

    Expecting Andy to do something so quaint as to “think” was your first mistake, Ian.

  87. #87 Composer99
    December 2, 2011

    crem:

    I would give you more credit if you were to, say, note that the paper I have been advising you (& others) to read is Mann et al 2009.

    Also, the figure in the link you have given (thank you, by the way) still does not appear to support your contention (by which I mean the land+ocean full global EIV reconstruction).

    If you are referring to the updated figure [here](http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/NHcps_no7_v_orig_Nov2009.pdf) the description of the proxy records is “NH Land (CPS)”. Suggesting that this particular proxy reconstruction, limited to Northern Hemisphere land-based proxies, leads to your claim

    if you take Mann 2008 and eliminate the sediment series that he mistakenly inverted and also remove the BCP series as recommended by the NAS panel, you get a MWP that is within the error bars of today’s temperature.

    striking me as cherry-picking if ‘today’s temperature’ is meant to refer to global mean temperature, particularly in light of the following:

    (1) CRU temperature dataset is well-known to be cooler on account of omitting much of the Arctic, which is experiencing on average the most rapid warming.

    (2) If the allegations of conspiracy were actually valid, it is the CRU temperature dataset that would have to be discarded.

  88. #88 Bernard J.
    December 2, 2011

    >It seems my ‘propaganda’ and ‘espionage’ comment rather hit a raw nerve, judging by some of the vitriolic comments that people have typed up.

    Eh? What’s “vitriolic” about my question?

    >The UEA isn’t a private institution, it’s a public one, so there should be full public disclosure of the emails.

    So why aren’t all university emails immediately uploaded to the respective institutional web pages? Why can’t Joe Public just walk in off the street and demand access to every computer and hard drive on campus?

    The rest of Andy’s spiel is just froth and bubble – a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    Speaking of… from where did the current gloop of numpties emanate? And if they’re so convinced that the 20th century temperature rise is nonexistent, what physics do they rely on to explain such nonexistence? And what of the non-dendrological ‘hockey sticks’? Are the numpties aware of just how many ‘hockey sticks’ there are? And how do they explain the ‘blade’ in each ‘hockey stick’?

  89. #89 crem
    December 2, 2011

    Composer99,

    So you won’t concede you were wrong in claiming Mann 2008 does not include a global reconstruction. You won’t concede you were wrong when you referred to the paper instead of the SI which I clearly mentioned. You are again wrong on your link. I think made it quite clear that I was referring to a global reconstruction. Please actually click on the link to the SI itself and look at the global reconstructions, graph F for example. Remember that without both sediment and BCPs (as opposed to removal individually), the error bands would be even wider than shown there under basic math. I also have no idea why you insist I should only use Mann 2009. I am pointing out that the argument against a global MWP is not well supported by the corrected Mann 2008, which is one of the most analyzed papers in the history of the climate blogosphere. I do not know Mann 2009 well enough to comment on it and resolve any differences with Mann 2008. If I didn’t make that clear, sorry, but that was always my intent and it is a valid argument.

    Given your inability to concede where you are clearly wrong and your refusal to address the original question as to whether it is copacetic to truncate the Briffa series in 1940, I think I am just wasting my time here. I won’t be adding any future replies.

  90. #90 crem
    December 2, 2011

    Ok, I know I said I wouldn’t post any more, but I was curious to look at Mann 2009. It seems like it suffers from some of the same issues as Mann 2008. Gavin Schmidt says: “Note too that while the EIV no-dendro version does validate to 1000 AD, the no-dendro/no-Tilj only works going back to 1500 AD (Mann et al, 2009, SI).” (http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=4431#comment-183182 Read the entirety of Gavin’s comment for context).

    So for those of use who believe in the NAS panel recommendation and also believe sediments are a poor proxy (as believed by Tiljander herself), the conclusions of Mann 2009 will be unpersuasive.

  91. #91 Wow
    December 2, 2011

    > Wow, you are incorrect about the Nature article. That dealt with with densities, not ring widths.

    And narrower rings means a higher density of tree rings.

    Seems you have absolutely no ability to comprehend.

  92. #92 Wow
    December 2, 2011

    > Tell me why these files are exempt information?

    [from here](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/17)

    17 Refusal of request.E+W+S+N.I.
    This section has no associated Explanatory Notes

    (1)A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision of Part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which—

    (a)states that fact,

    (b)specifies the exemption in question, and

    (c)states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

    (2)Where—

    (a)in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as respects any information, relying on a claim—

    (i)that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or

    (ii)that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a provision not specified in section 2(3), and

    (b)at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section 66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,

    the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision will have been reached.

    (3)A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2 applies must, either in the notice under subsection (1) or in a separate notice given within such time as is reasonable in the circumstances, state the reasons for claiming—

    (a)that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in disclosing whether the authority holds the information, or

    (b)that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

    (4)A public authority is not obliged to make a statement under subsection (1)(c) or (3) if, or to the extent that, the statement would involve the disclosure of information which would itself be exempt information.

    (5)A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that fact.

    (6)Subsection (5) does not apply where—

    (a)the public authority is relying on a claim that section 14 applies,

    (b)the authority has given the applicant a notice, in relation to a previous request for information, stating that it is relying on such a claim, and

    (c)it would in all the circumstances be unreasonable to expect the authority to serve a further notice under subsection (5) in relation to the current request.

    (7)A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must—

    (a)contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for information or state that the authority does not provide such a procedure, and

    (b)contain particulars of the right conferred by section 50.

  93. #93 Wow
    December 2, 2011

    > I wouldn’t call continuing flat-lined temperatures a strengthening of the global-warming mantra.

    Since the trend over two points has an infinte variance, this would be rather impossible to proclaim over two years, Andy.

    I guess you don’t mind missing data when it’s you doing the “deletions”, eh?

  94. #94 MartinM
    December 2, 2011

    However, I will make the point that if you take Mann 2008 and eliminate the sediment series that he mistakenly inverted and also remove the BCP series as recommended by the NAS panel, you get a MWP that is within the error bars of today’s temperature.

    I’d love to know how you reached that conclusion, given that no such reconstruction exists in Mann et al 2008, the SI, or the updated SI.

    Ok, I know I said I wouldn’t post any more, but I was curious to look at Mann 2009. It seems like it suffers from some of the same issues as Mann 2008. Gavin Schmidt says: “Note too that while the EIV no-dendro version does validate to 1000 AD, the no-dendro/no-Tilj only works going back to 1500 AD (Mann et al, 2009, SI).” (http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=4431#comment-183182 Read the entirety of Gavin’s comment for context).

    So for those of use who believe in the NAS panel recommendation and also believe sediments are a poor proxy (as believed by Tiljander herself), the conclusions of Mann 2009 will be unpersuasive.

    Oh, I see. You don’t know the difference between bristlecone pines and trees. One is a subset of the other; they aren’t identical. Yes, removing all tree ring data probably widens the error bars rather a lot. Good job there’s no reason to do that, then.

    Remember that without both sediment and BCPs (as opposed to removal individually), the error bands would be even wider than shown there under basic math.

    Not necessarily. Removing a few high-variance series could easily narrow the error bars. This is, as you put it, ‘basic math’, and so the fact that you get it wrong is rather telling.

  95. #95 ianam
    December 2, 2011

    THE UN are liars – they are behind this bad science to make money and fools of us all.

    Who sent all the “skeptical” cretins here?

    The time I’ve spent here has further strengthened my scepticism.

    No doubt your complete and utter denial of reality was reinforced by an encounter with people promoting it … that’s common cognitive dissonance.

  96. #96 Adam
    December 2, 2011

    I’m curious to know if this logic is correct:
    IF the MWP or the Roman Warming period were indeed as warm or warmer than current temperatures
    THEN surely the arctic would have experienced the SAME melting that we are observing now? AND if such periods were longer than current warming periods then I would imagine the ice loss would be far greater and NO long term ice would have survived?

    Yet we observe ice core samples that obviously did not melt during those periods.

  97. #97 P. Lewis
    December 2, 2011

    So, CO2 falling below 600 ppm was the kick start needed for Antarctic glaciation.

    And this work (using alkenone palaeotemperature determination) seems to account nicely for previous conflicting data on the CO2 vs ice relationship (i.e. the counter-intuitive CO2 going up during glaciation):

    Here, we further investigate alkenone records and demonstrate that Antarctic and subantarctic data overestimate atmospheric CO2 levels, biasing long-term trends. [Long suspected IIRC.] Our results show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation and support a substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation, consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds.

    New data validates models, too! Gee whiz!

  98. #98 Lionel A
    December 2, 2011

    Andy

    It’s currently the warmest November here in the UK for many, many years and I’m loving it. I really hate it when it’s cold. Don’t you?….

    Of course the fact that much of the country is facing a drought come next year, in spite of the flooding in other parts, has gone over your head, which I guess most aspects of a complex topic such as this do.

  99. #99 P. Lewis
    December 2, 2011

    Oops! That blockquote was from the abstract of Pagani et al.

  100. #100 jakerman
    December 2, 2011

    >*It’s currently the warmest November here in the UK for many, many years and I’m loving it. I really hate it when it’s cold. Don’t you?….*

    Not if the cost [is this](http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/27/famine-climate-oxfam.html), and worsening outlook along [these lines](http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/30/pakistan-tops-climate-risk-index.html).

    Leading to more of [this](http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/key-issues/climate-change-and-conflict.aspx).

Current ye@r *