CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[waldo]

Yawn. Here we go again! Instead of actually addressing arguments you try to change the topic. McIntyre submitted a comment to PNAS explaining the problem. Mann pretended there was no problem and the incompetent editor allowed him to get away with it. McIntyre did what was expected. The scientific journal failed.

no - that McIntyre comment has been shown to have no merit... MannBradleyHughes issued a formal reply that was published in PNAS. McIntyre/McKitrick have not subsequently responded, now 2+ years later. Again:

Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

the point you're attempting to distract away from is that, again, McIntyre has never issued a formal challenge that includes any semblance of an actual reconstruction, proper. None, never, ever... what's he waiting for? What's he afraid of?

Here is Gavin Smith acknowledging that Steve Mc is right too in comments on RC:

So are you ready to admit that the conclusions of Mann 2008 depend on Tijlander and that Mann should be issuing a correction?

dunno... you tell me!

Update 22 Aug 2010

: Additional significance tests that we have performed indicate that the NH land+ocean Had reconstruction with all tree-ring data and 7 potential "problem" proxies removed (see original Supp Info where this reconstruction is shown) yields a reconstruction that passes RE at just below the 95% level (approximately 94% level) back to AD 1300 and the 90% level back to AD 1100 (they pass CE at similar respective levels). So if one were to set the significant threshold just a bit lower than our rather stringent 95% significant requirement, the reconstruction stands back to AD 1100 with these data withheld. Recent work by Saltzer et al [ Salzer et al, Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 2009] suggests there is little reason to withhold tree-ring data however.

[TimG]

MannBradleyHughes issued a formal reply that was published in PNAS. McIntyre/McKitrick have not subsequently responded

Nothing in Mann's response actually addressed McIntrye's criticisms. Nothing McIntrye does or does not do changes the fact that Mann misused a proxy and that misuse means some of his conclusions don't stand up.

So if one were to set the significant threshold just a bit lower than our rather stringent 95% significant requirement, the reconstruction stands back to AD 1100 with these data withheld.

Claim from Mann 2008:

Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 [700AD] years whether or not tree-ring data are used.

Even if they fudge the numbers the claim in Mann 2008 is still false and changing the validation criteria is a material change to the method which requires a correction.

That said, they use these apparently arbitrary validation criteria because in statistics it is easy to fool yourself by tweeking the data to fit your desired results. For that reason, the criteria is usually justified and set before analyzing the data. Trying to justify a reconstruction by relaxing the criteria after seeing the results is an act of desperation. I am sure there are many scientists that would love to have their rejected papers re-examined with lower validation criteria. Such a response from sceptics would be (rightly) met with derision. Why should Mann and co be treated any differently?

Edited September 17, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

A really good summary of the state of climate science by John Nielsen-Gammon a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University:

This is not rocket science. The Earth is warming; there’s an important human contribution, and it’s something to worry about. This is the scientific consensus. Earth scientists are substantially split only on whether the warming is potentially catastrophic.

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/09/dont-tell-me-what-i-think/

[waldo]

no - that McIntyre comment has been shown to have no merit... MannBradleyHughes issued a formal reply that was published in PNAS. McIntyre/McKitrick have not subsequently responded, now 2+ years later. Again:

Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

the point you're attempting to distract away from is that, again, McIntyre has never issued a formal challenge that includes any semblance of an actual reconstruction, proper. None, never, ever... what's he waiting for? What's he afraid of?

Nothing in Mann's response actually addressed McIntrye's criticisms. Nothing McIntrye does or does not do changes the fact that Mann misused a proxy and that misuse means some of his conclusions don't stand up.

no - again, and again... there was no, as you state, "proxy misuse". Again, your parroting of McIntyre's nonsensical fixation with "upsidedownness" and correlation/calibration has no foundation. Again, McIntyre has never issued a formal challenge that includes any semblance of an actual reconstruction, proper. None, never, ever... what's he waiting for? What's he afraid of?

the bullshit you speak to is yours. As close to this issue as you one-sidedly are, you must be selectively and purposely blind to the separate (multiple persons) analysis done on the transparently available Mann2008 matlab code... code analysis that reflects upon both of the separate processes referenced within that MBH comment reply (i.e., regression and screening, both of which are directly responding to the initial MM comment... and both of which, per the code, are factually correct). Again:

Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.

Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds.

Even if they fudge the numbers the claim in Mann 2008 is still false and changing the validation criteria is a material change to the method which requires a correction.

and this is the delicious irony come to the forefront... don't ya just luv it when a plan comes together! Watching you dance towards this was sweet:

Your arguments? What arguments? All I read is regurgitated McIntyre swill... you're a fine parrot! While you're presuming to make an actual argument, don't forget to answer the following, "what

exactly

" questioning... again, "what

exactly

", are you presuming to use to refute the 08 paper claim -

exactly

!

too rich... after all your nonsense over regression processing, over the select tiljander proxy correlation, over the "meat-grinder" algorithm, over the pre-screening, over calibration, over contamination, over recognized priori, etc.,; you now want to accept the 08 paper claims and presume to refute them with... what

exactly

? Please... please... let the irony meter register off-scale! What

exactly

?

lets recap: your oft stated target has been your many times repeated refrain, "the TEAM" (aka your other many times repeated refrain, "the Climate Mafia"). We now culminate with you wildly flailing and wailing, clamoring for RC, for "Mann's pitbull, Gavin", for Mann himself... for supposed cornerstones of your expressed, "the TEAM/the Climate Mafia"... presuming to help pull you out of your sputtering tailspin! Coupled with your heightened bluster-bus across these past few thread pages, we are left with a summation that, ultimately, MM couldn't... and can't... critique the results from Mann et al (2008)/(2009). You can keep whining and sniveling over respective iterative SI updates (none of which are illegitimate)... you (parroting for McIntyre), are certainly capable of expressing your whine/snivel directly with PNAS, although I expect it would prefer to have you present an actual constructive, formalized submission... do you think you could find time to help McIntyre with this; after all, as he, apparently, often states, "he just can't find the time to get started" - hence, the "never-ending, year-upon-year, blog audit"!!!

[TimG]

no - again, and again... there was no, as you state, "proxy misuse". Again, your parroting of McIntyre's nonsensical fixation with "upsidedownness" and correlation/calibration has no foundation.

I walked you through the Tiljander paper. I showed you how the correlation with temperature changes in the 20th century. I showed you how the authors of the paper explicited stated that the 20th century is containminated and cannot be used because of this change in sign. You simply ignored the argument. Repeating Mann's excuses will not make them any more correct. You have not presented any argument that justifies the use of proxies with characteristics like Tiljander in Mann 2008.

The post is here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19451&view=findpost&p=709411

I also used Mann and Gavin's own words to show that Tiljander matters. I referenced their comments because you can't ignore them by trashing them like you usually do. But you are creative found other excuses to ignore what they say.

You really have no argument left. That probably explains why you are now whining about papers that SteveMc should be publishing.

You try change the topic as many times as you like. I will simply repost this until you provide a reply that actually addresses the points I made. Don't try to avoid addressing them by claiming that Tiljander "doesn't matter" because I have debunked that argument.

Edited September 17, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

I walked you through the Tiljander paper.

you truly are deluded... again, no temperature series was ever developed by anyone, including the proxy author... who has steadfastly avoided being drawn into this McIntyre "snit over nothing"! The only test on the viability impact of the proxies is to... wait for it... wait for it... utilize them... apply a calibration and test for sensitivity! You can keep warm & fuzzy in your McIntyre bizarro world; you can keep quoting from the Tiljander2003 paper forever - none of it has any affect on reality:

I take it from your response that you are:

1) Unable to provide a credible justification for using the Tiljander proxies in Mann 2008.

[waldo: I'm not required to provide a justification... ask the paper's authors. They are a part of the proxy mix (4 of the ~1200 proxies in total... if I recall correctly). Your parroting has you questioning their usage - good on ya, bully.

Lets recap:

of these 4 proxies that has you, "flying shyte":

=> the proxy author did not construct a temperature series - none exists.

=> As I'm aware, no chemical analysis of the 4 proxies has ever been done.

=> Certainly, given the proxy authors paper, questions exist over possible contamination of the proxies in most recent years (related to human infrastructure related activity). The Mann08 paper thoroughly acknowledged questions concerning data quality... proxies passed the papers screening processing and were calibrated, accordingly.

=> The only question to arise is whether or not the calibration is on/close across the full range... one aspect of

testing the sensitivity

of this is to, quite obviously, check the significance of the overall reconstruction with the proxies in compared to their exclusion... this was done within the Mann08 paper, as repeatedly stated to you, over and over.

There was no significant affect on the overall reconstruction if the 4 proxies were left in... or removed. Again, no significant affect - no appreciable difference.

]

2) Unwilling to admit that the Tiljander proxies do "matter" since one of the key claims of Mann 2008 (the no-tree ring reconstruction one) depends on using Tiljander.

[waldo: duh! The "doesn't matter" context is in terms of the overall reconstruction impact... the 4 proxies in versus the 4 proxies out... what discernible difference can be shown in comparing the in vs. out. As stated, now too, too, many times,

Mann2008 - SI - Fig. S8 shows that comparison; i.e., no discernible difference to the reconstruction

.]

You try change the topic as many times as you like. I will simply repost this until you provide a reply that actually addresses the points I made. Don't try to avoid addressing them by claiming that Tiljander "doesn't matter" because I have debunked that argument.

you have debunked nothing... your McIntyre parroting charade has been exposed:

Lets recap:

=> your nonsense over regression processing - exposed! (

MBH: Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. edit to add: of the Tiljander proxies, one is negatively correlated, the others positively correlated... none of them "change correlation sign" over time.

).

=> your nonsense over proxy pre-screening/priori/"meat-grinder algorithm" - exposed! (

MBH: Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds

).

=> your nonsense over proxy contamination/correlation/calibration - exposed! (see sensitivity test: Mann2008 - SI - Fig. S8;

MBH: Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use

)

=> your nonsense over quoted statements, of you presuming to run to, whining and sniveling away... presuming to call on/leverage the same persons/group you so regularly, derisively and disparaging castigate as, "the TEAM (aka the "Climate Mafia")" - exposed!

=> your nonsense over the prevailing statements - exposed! (Here, read it, again:)

Update 22 Aug 2010

: Additional significance tests that we have performed indicate that the NH land+ocean Had reconstruction with all tree-ring data and 7 potential "problem" proxies removed (see original Supp Info where this reconstruction is shown) yields a reconstruction that passes RE at just below the 95% level (approximately 94% level) back to AD 1300 and the 90% level back to AD 1100 (they pass CE at similar respective levels). So if one were to set the significant threshold just a bit lower than our rather stringent 95% significant requirement, the reconstruction stands back to AD 1100 with these data withheld. Recent work by Saltzer et al [ Salzer et al, Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 2009] suggests there is little reason to withhold tree-ring data however.

You really have no argument left. That probably explains why you are now whining about papers that SteveMc should be publishing.

I must admit, in pummeling you, I have used a few arguments up... however, don't worry - many, many, many... are left. What is very germane to any of this is the inability of McIntyre to come forward out of the isolated depths of his blogDom... to reach beyond his admiring lappers, gophers, malcontents, idgits, syncophants, etc.,... to actually, after a decades+, most selective, most targeted, "never-ending" blogAudit, actually engage the scientific community with a reconstruction of his own! Wow, what a concept! Imagine, McIntyre could finally put it to rest, he could finally slay that elusive hockey-stick dragon... he could finally wrench himself free from the clutches of an intact hockey-stick... he could finally, finally... "break the hockey-stick"!

what's McIntyre waiting for, TimG? What's holding McIntyre back, TimG? When the significance of the hockey-stick has diminished against the marching progression of other scientific knowledge, what keeps McIntyre fixated on it, TimG? ... other than it feeds the raw meet to his minions... other than that, what keeps McIntyre so engaged with the hockey-stick, TimG?

Edited September 18, 2011 by waldo

[TimG]

you truly are deluded... again, no temperature series was ever developed by anyone, including the proxy author...

WTF? Are you really that clueless or are you being pedantic because it gives you an excuse to avoid admitting you are completely wrong?

Tiljander is assumed to be temperature PROXY. That is why Mann used it. Its relationships with temperature are clearly stated in the paper. Your claim is so absurd I cannot believe that a human being capable of using a computer would say something so ridiculous. I assume this is an act of desperation on your part: make absurd peudo-scientific claims in order to befuddle readers who don't understand the underlying issues.

In any case, I am sure that anyone else who actually looks at the Tiljander paper will come the same conclusion I did.

For reference, this is from the conclusion:

We were able to distinguish two known climate periods, the cold event at around 900 BC and the Medieval Climate Anomaly at AD 980–1250. There are also minor evidences of the climate fluctuations during the Little Ice Age: two periods AD 1580–1630 and AD 1650–1710 indicate a slightly wetter and colder climate than today.

Your word games over whatever meaning you attach to the phrase 'temperature series' don't fool anyone. Call it a 'temperature proxy series' if it makes your pedantic mind happy. It does not change the argument.

As for your other nonsense which you keep repeating: Mann tests on the Tiljander proxy in Mann 2008 are completely inadequate because he only tested them WITH the tree rings included. If he removes the tree ring then validation fails. This means his claim in Mann 2008 that he produced a proxy that does not depend on tree rings is false. So don't waste your time claiming Mann "tested" Tiljander and it made no difference - it does an he admitted it in the Mann 2009 SI

Lastly, Mann's claims about being is methods insensitive to sign ONLY applies if the sign does not change in the middle of the series. This is the case with the Tiljander proxy and that is why he used the thing 'upside down'.

Edited September 17, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

Tiljander is assumed to be temperature PROXY. That is why Mann used it.

excellent! We are making progress... you finally have grasped it!!! However, the point you keep ignoring... is the application of that proxy, regardless of what you/McIntyre/others think of it's worthiness. Again, Mann2008 fully acknowledged questions related to the quality of the proxy... and proceeded to screen/calibrate/sensitivity test the proxy. As you also keep ignoring, Mann2008 SI - Fig. S8, shows the results of that sensitivity testing. Regardless of all your trumped up bullshit the (Tiljander) proxy made no difference to the reconstruction, whether in... or out... of the collective grouping of proxies within the reconstruction.

As for your other nonsense which you keep repeating: Mann tests on the Tiljander proxy in Mann 2008 are completely inadequate because he only tested them WITH the tree rings included. If he removes the tree ring then validation fails. This means his claim in Mann 2008 that he produced a proxy that does not depend on tree rings is false.

no - see SI updates; most particularly the one I keep feeding you... the one I will continue to feed you:

Update 22 Aug 2010

: Additional significance tests that we have performed indicate that the NH land+ocean Had reconstruction with all tree-ring data and 7 potential "problem" proxies removed (see original Supp Info where this reconstruction is shown) yields a reconstruction that passes RE at just below the 95% level (approximately 94% level) back to AD 1300 and the 90% level back to AD 1100 (they pass CE at similar respective levels). So if one were to set the significant threshold just a bit lower than our rather stringent 95% significant requirement, the reconstruction stands back to AD 1100 with these data withheld. Recent work by Saltzer et al [ Salzer et al, Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 2009] suggests there is little reason to withhold tree-ring data however.

Lastly, Mann's claims about being is methods insensitive to sign ONLY applies if the sign does not change in the middle of the series. This is the case with the Tiljander proxy and that is why he used the thing 'upside down'.

nonsense. Bizarre! (note: don't hesitate to provide a formal McIntyre update comment/paper to this linked MBH comment... PNAS or other) - edit to add: of the Tiljander proxies, one is negatively correlated, the others positively correlated... none of them "change correlation sign" over time.

The Debunking of TimG's Nonsense - The TimG Parroting of McIntyre - Exposed!

:

Edited September 17, 2011 by waldo

[TimG]

excellent! We are making progress... you finally have grasped it!!!

I knew it all a long. The problem is I forgot I was dealing with a petty pendantic debater who nitpicks about words even when they make no difference.

no - see SI updates; most particularly the one I keep feeding you... the one I will continue to feed you:

And I pointed that Mann's desperate attempt to salvage his paper still requires that Mann withdraw his claim that he produced a reconstruction without tree rings back to 700AD. I also think the chances of you letting a skeptic get away with changing the validation criteria after a bonehead error was corrected is exactly zero so I think you are a shameless hypocrite if you expect others to accept such moves when Mann does it.

of the Tiljander proxies, one is negatively correlated, the others positively correlated... none of them "change correlation sign" over time.

Go and look at my post on Tiljander. I provided exact quotes from the paper that support my claim. The only difference between my wording and Tiljander is he doesn't specifically mention the sign change although it is clear from the data. Tiljander just says the data cannot be used after 1900. If you disagree - make an argument by quoting from Tiljander. Edited September 17, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

I knew it all a long. The problem is I forgot I was dealing with a petty pendantic debater who nitpicks about words even when they make no difference.

I can certainly appreciate you have difficulty with preciseness, accuracy and accountability... extreme difficulty. Clearly you revel in the exactness of such McIntyre nits as "upside-down"!

And I pointed that Mann's desperate attempt to salvage his paper still requires that Mann withdraw his claim that he produced a reconstruction without tree rings back to 700AD. I also think the chances of you letting a skeptic get away with changing the validation criteria after a bonehead error was corrected is exactly zero so I think you are a shameless hypocrite if you expect others to accept such moves when Mann does it.

no - as you've been schooled many times over now... see 08/09 SI updates... links have been provided - don't be afraid to click em! BTW - any suggestion of a, as you say, "bonehead error", is one that has been summarily dispatched - see

The Debunking of TimG's Nonsense - The TimG Parroting of McIntyre - Exposed!

:

Go and look at my post on Tiljander. I provided exact quotes from the paper that support my claim. The only difference between my wording and Tiljander is he doesn't specifically mention the sign change although it is clear from the data. Tiljander just says the data cannot be used after 1900. If you disagree - make an argument by quoting from Tiljander.

just so your lack of inaccuracy doesn't continue on all fronts... the Tiljander he... is a she. Nowhere does she categorically state the proxy cannot be used; again, she has been quite adamant in not allowing herself to be drawn into this McIntyre nit. But, hey now, I thought you were the one that just said:

Tiljander is assumed to be temperature PROXY. That is why Mann used it.

your/McIntyre's, cough, cough... "value assessment"... on the worthiness of the proxy within the Mann08 reconstruction is irrelevant. You/McIntyre are certainly quite capable of bringing forward your own countering reconstruction using whatever proxies you desire... including the Tiljander ones. What are you waiting for... what's McIntyre waiting for - other than not wanting to bring to an end facets of his never-ending sham/scam. What's he waiting for, TimG? He's had a decade+ now to bring forward a published reconstruction, TimG... what's he waiting for?

[TimG]

Nowhere does she categorically state the proxy cannot be used;

She says human activity 'obscures' the proxy signal. But when you look at the data it clear that there is no signal to be found in the last 200 years. There is no rational basis for using the last 200 years of data.

I also note that you keep trying to change the topic. I gave you the paper. I pulled out the quotes that make it painfully clear that the sign of the correlation between temperatures and proxies changes for the last 200 years. This makes it impossible to use regression analysis on this data unless you discard the last 200 years.

If you dispute my interpretation of Tiljander then provide a counter argument by quoting Tiljander.

Stop re-posting the nonsense from Mann. None of it addresses the points I made.

If you continue to refuse to actually address the arguments I make I will assume it is because you are too embarrassed to admit that you (and Mann) are completely and totally wrong.

Edited September 18, 2011 by TimG

[jbg]

you truly are deluded... again, no temperature series was ever developed by anyone, including the proxy author...

Well you repeatedly mocked my use of actual temperature records, because they showed a minimal rise and really no trend. You can't have it both ways.

[waldo]

Go and look at my post on Tiljander. I provided exact quotes from the paper that support my claim. The only difference between my wording and Tiljander is he doesn't specifically mention the sign change although it is clear from the data. Tiljander just says the data cannot be used after 1900. If you disagree - make an argument by quoting from Tiljander.

just so your lack of inaccuracy doesn't continue on all fronts... the Tiljander he... is a she. Nowhere does she categorically state the proxy cannot be used; again, she has been quite adamant in not allowing herself to be drawn into this McIntyre nit. But, hey now, I thought you were the one that just said:

Tiljander is assumed to be temperature PROXY. That is why Mann used it.

your/McIntyre's, cough, cough... "value assessment"... on the worthiness of the proxy within the Mann08 reconstruction is irrelevant. You/McIntyre are certainly quite capable of bringing forward your own countering reconstruction using whatever proxies you desire... including the Tiljander ones. What are you waiting for... what's McIntyre waiting for - other than not wanting to bring to an end facets of his never-ending sham/scam. What's he waiting for, TimG? He's had a decade+ now to bring forward a published reconstruction, TimG... what's he waiting for?

She says human activity 'obscures' the proxy signal. But when you look at the data it clear that there is no signal to be found in the last 200 years. There is no rational basis for using the last 200 years of data.

I also note that you keep trying to change the topic. I gave you the paper. I pulled out the quotes that make it painfully clear that the sign of the correlation between temperatures and proxies changes for the last 200 years. This makes it impossible to use regression analysis on this data unless you discard the last 200 years.

If you dispute my interpretation of Tiljander then provide a counter argument by quoting Tiljander.

Stop re-posting the nonsense from Mann. None of it addresses the points I made.

excellent... we're making further progress! So, after all your bluster-buss has been exposed as a fumbling, bumbling nothingness, your real (McIntyre inspired/parroted) nit comes down to using the full proxy or a truncated version of same. One could make a decision, either way... and test appropriately for sensitivity to that decision. As you have repeatedly been told... as you repeatedly ignore... that sensitivity test was done (08/09 - SI - Fig.S8)... results of sensitivity testing showed that it made no difference to the overall reconstruction - in or out... no difference! As you're certainly aware, full, open, transparent access to Mann et al, code/materials exists... don't hesitate to use that and provide reconstruction results that counter the, "no difference" affect result. Or, as I keep prodding you/McIntyre... don't hesitate to come forward with your own reconstruction; one to counter the results of Mann et al, 08/09. Is there a problem this hasn't been done yet/ever? What's McIntyre waiting for, TimG? What's he waiting for? What's the never-ending blog auditor waiting for?

If you continue to refuse to actually address the arguments I make I will assume it is because you are too embarrassed to admit that you (and Mann) are completely and totally wrong.

waaaah! TimG offers a dismissive handwave and declares "victory"! Of course, what else can you do... in the face of,

The Debunking of TimG's Nonsense - The TimG Parroting of McIntyre - Exposed!

:

[waldo]

Well you repeatedly mocked my use of actual temperature records, because they showed a minimal rise and really no trend. You can't have it both ways.

good on ya for wildly interpreting on something you clearly know nothing about... for a climate interpretation, the proxy author relied upon, "relative X-ray density to provide a general picture of the sediment composition"... she explicitly spoke to the difficulty in, "calibration against meteorological data". Possible issues with the proxy are well understood... again, Mann08 draws explicit attention to questions concerning the data quality of these 4 (of the total 1200+ proxies) used in the reconstruction, proceeds to use them and runs a sensitivity test against that decision... again, showing they made no difference to the reconstruction, in or out, of the total complement of proxies used within the reconstruction.

re: the mocking (your word choice) of your approach with respect to surface temperature => you presumed to question the greater U.S. continental surface temperature record and temperature (trending) increases therein, on the basis of your review of a couple of local, regional temperature stations. Your "critical" process involved dumping reams of raw data into several MLW posts and pronouncing you couldn't see a/any correlation between your physical eye review (I believe I referred to it as "eyeballing") of the raw data of a couple of local, regional temperature stations... and the long-term trend of temperature across the continental U.S.. So... I took the raw data from one of the local, regional stations you mentioned, and proceeded to plot/trend it, providing the correlation that your "eyeballing raw data" couldn't realize - see here: The use of the proxy data within reconstructions involves significant sophisticated data methods (normalization, calibration, weighting, etc.)... your 'eyeballing of raw data', presuming to 'look' for a comparative correlation, not so much!

[jbg]

So... I took the raw data from one of the local, regional stations you mentioned, and proceeded to plot/trend it, providing the correlation that your "eyeballing raw data" couldn't realize - see here: The use of the proxy data within reconstructions involves significant sophisticated data methods (normalization, calibration, weighting, etc.)... your 'eyeballing of raw data', presuming to 'look' for a comparative correlation, not so much!

You still mocked and ignored the fact that over more than a century the ups and downs far swamped any overall trend. And if warming doesn't verify at stations as far apart as North Dakota and New Jersey it just doesn't verify.

No amount of pseudo-scientific babble can obscure that.

[waldo]

You still mocked and ignored the fact that over more than a century the ups and downs far swamped any overall trend. And if warming doesn't verify at stations as far apart as North Dakota and New Jersey it just doesn't verify.

No amount of pseudo-scientific babble can obscure that.

so you're repeating yourself, again... you are consistent, hey? In spite of me showing you a plotted trend of one of your selected local, regional stations, one that clearly showed a positive temperature trend (~2.5°F annual average mean temperature rise)... in line with the greater U.S. continental rise... you're still prepared to play the fool - good on ya!

let's put some real definition to your denial: do you categorically deny that global warming has/is occurring (yes or no)? Do you categorically deny that warming across the continental U.S. has/is occurring (yes or no)? Truly, this is your opportunity to proudly and loudly announce the level of your actual denial of the AGW theory... to set yourself within the 'fringe of the fringe'... do you deny warming has/is occurring (yes or no)?

[jbg]

... do you deny warming has/is occurring (yes or no)?

You can count me as a denier if you insist on using Holocaust terminology. Is it possible we are going from glacial to interglacial? Sure.

But that's not what you're looking for and you know it.

[TimG]

As you have repeatedly been told... as you repeatedly ignore... that sensitivity test was done (08/09 - SI - Fig.S8)... results of sensitivity testing showed that it made no difference to the overall reconstruction - in or out... no difference

WRONG. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Mann did no tests for the sensitivity to support the claim that be produced a reconstruction that does not depend on tree rings. To do this he would have had to test it without the dubious proxies AND without tree rings. When you do so such sensitivity tests one of the major conclusions falls apart.

But you know that. I have posted that argument many times. But you keep repeating it. It is because you are stuck. You don't have any counter arguments and you ego won't let acknowledge that you are wrong. So you keep posting stuff that has been refuted.

TimG offers a dismissive handwave and declares "victory"!

Whenever I post links you go through them and gleefully post quotes that you feel support your POV. With Tijlander - nothing. All you do is quote what Mann says which offers no new information since I am disputing Mann's claims. One might assume that you did not even bother to read it but I doubt that given your posting history. I think the absence of quotes from Tijlander supporting your POV makes it pretty clear that you can't use the paper to support your POV. The paper supports my arguments but you lack the emotional maturity required to admit it.

Here is the link again for anyone who wants to check the facts for themselves:

http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/others/Tiljanderetal.pdf

Edited September 18, 2011 by TimG

[Pliny]

see:

Deflect, deflect deflect.

Don’t Be Fooled By the Solyndra Bankruptcy Circus — Solar Is Booming

see:

Petermann Glacier before-after-photos 2010-2011 - From Byrd Polar Research Center

... similar to/extension of earlier link provided... as stated, "implications to inland ice acceleration and draw-down of the ice sheet remains to be seen, but will be revealed by the GPS data recovered." If you are questioning the actual extent of Greenland ice-sheet melt, proper, please advise.

cut and paste cut and paste.

If you are a supporter of science, please advise.

[waldo]

excellent... we're making further progress! So, after all your bluster-buss has been exposed as a fumbling, bumbling nothingness, your real (McIntyre inspired/parroted) nit comes down to using the full proxy or a truncated version of same. One could make a decision, either way... and test appropriately for sensitivity to that decision. As you have repeatedly been told... as you repeatedly ignore... that sensitivity test was done (08/09 - SI - Fig.S8)... results of sensitivity testing showed that it made no difference to the overall reconstruction - in or out... no difference! As you're certainly aware, full, open, transparent access to Mann et al, code/materials exists... don't hesitate to use that and provide reconstruction results that counter the, "no difference" affect result. Or, as I keep prodding you/McIntyre... don't hesitate to come forward with your own reconstruction; one to counter the results of Mann et al, 08/09. Is there a problem this hasn't been done yet/ever? What's McIntyre waiting for, TimG? What's he waiting for? What's the never-ending blog auditor waiting for?

WRONG. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Mann did no tests for the sensitivity to support the claim that be produced a reconstruction that does not depend on tree rings. To do this he would have had to test it without the dubious proxies AND without tree rings. When you do so such sensitivity tests one of the major conclusions falls apart.

But you know that. I have posted that argument many times. But you keep repeating it. It is because you are stuck. You don't have any counter arguments and you ego won't let acknowledge that you are wrong. So you keep posting stuff that has been refuted.

you just refuse to read... you can't lift your myopic self out from under McIntyre's never-ending blogfest! Here, read it again... I'll keep posting it, every time:

no - see SI updates; most particularly the one I keep feeding you... the one I will continue to feed you:

Update 22 Aug 2010

: Additional significance tests that we have performed indicate that the NH land+ocean Had reconstruction with all tree-ring data and 7 potential "problem" proxies removed (see original Supp Info where this reconstruction is shown) yields a reconstruction that passes RE at just below the 95% level (approximately 94% level) back to AD 1300 and the 90% level back to AD 1100 (they pass CE at similar respective levels). So if one were to set the significant threshold just a bit lower than our rather stringent 95% significant requirement, the reconstruction stands back to AD 1100 with these data withheld. Recent work by Saltzer et al [ Salzer et al, Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 2009] suggests there is little reason to withhold tree-ring data however.

Whenever I post links you go through them and gleefully post quotes that you feel support your POV. With Tijlander - nothing. One might assume that you did not even bother to read it but I doubt given your posting history. I think the absence of quotes from Tijlander supporting your POV makes it pretty clear that you can't use the paper to support your POV. The paper supports my arguments but you lack the emotional maturity required to admit it.

you are so obtuse to the point of boredom... you quoting whatever from the Tiljander paper means diddly. You've already been told umpteenth times that Mann fully acknowledged questions raised about the data quality of the 4 proxies. You've been quoted the following from Mann08 several times... it couldn't be any clearer... any plainer - yet, you can't be bothered to even acknowledge it. Here, chew on it again:

Potential data quality problems. In addition to checking whether or not potential problems specific to tree-ring data have any significant impact on our reconstructions in earlier centuries (see Fig. S7), we also examined whether or not potential problems noted for several records (see Dataset S1 for details) might compromise the reconstructions.

These records include the four Tijander et al. (12) series used (see Fig. S9) for which the original authors note that human effects over the past few centuries unrelated to climate might impact records (the original paper states ‘‘Natural variability in the sediment record was disrupted by increased human impact in the catchment area at A.D. 1720.’’ and later, ‘‘In the case of Lake Korttajarvi it is a demanding task to calibrate the physical varve data we have collected against meteorological data, because human impacts have distorted the natural signal to varying extents’’)

. These issues are particularly significant because there are few proxy records, particularly in the temperature-screened dataset (see Fig. S9), available back through the 9th century. The Tijander et al. series constitute 4 of the 15 available Northern Hemisphere records before that point.

so, again... Mann fully acknowledged questions concerning the proxies, proceeded to utilize them with caveats attached, calibrated accordingly and..... sensitivity tested the outcome showing that, again, the reconstruction results showed no difference with the proxies in, or out. No difference - no matter how much you bluster. Whatever "arguments" you thought you had, have been summarily dispatched: See - The Debunking of TimG's Nonsense - The TimG Parroting of McIntyre - Exposed!:

now... unless you're prepared to present an actual formal counter reconstruction that actually challenges the Mann08/09 use of the Tiljander proxies... actually offers that counter reconstruction within a formal refutation of the Mann08/09 processing/methodology, then all you're doing is perpetuating the McIntyre never-ending blogapalooza!. In the real world, "blog scientist" McIntyre does not get a free pass!

As you're certainly aware, full, open, transparent access to Mann et al, code/materials exists... don't hesitate to use that and provide reconstruction results that counter the, "no difference" affect result. Or, as I keep prodding you/McIntyre... don't hesitate to come forward with your own reconstruction; one to counter the results of Mann et al, 08/09. Is there a problem this hasn't been done yet/ever?

What's McIntyre waiting for, TimG? What's he waiting for? What's the never-ending blog auditor waiting for?

[waldo]

Deflect, deflect deflect.

not deflections at all, Pliny. Your "point" on the canard "settled science" and your "point" concerning "model progression", were both commented on earlier... I simply provided you a timely reminder by re-quoting those earlier comments, again... here, once more can't hurt, hey?

see:

another canard, one you beak-off on quite regularly... again, "the science is never settled"; confidence and uncertainty associated with certain facets of the science, may presume towards a "settling" - one that is, per norm, always subject to new advances/understandings.

see:

you suffer from a standard denier myopic that presumes climate scientists aren't actively engaged in model development/refinement - the reality is anything but that... there are organizations dedicated to model progression... there are regular world-wide expert meetings and workshops aimed towards improvements and refinements in methodology and underlying processes. The present state of atmospheric aerosol modeling is known and recognized to be lacking/uncertain... hence, the long-standing desire for a vehicle, like CERN/CLOUD, to help bring forward new learnings/understandings relative to atmospheric aerosols. Your title's attempt to cast aspersion towards climate models is misplaced... the "will need to be modified" is simply a reflection of anticipated results relative to aerosols - results that are eagerly awaited with presumptions towards

bettering the models

.

cut and paste cut and paste.

Pliny, you provided an unsubstantiated and unqualified remark concerning the Solyndra initiative... I simply provided you a link offering perspective on just where Solyndra fits within the greater status/progress of the solar industry within the U.S.. Certainly, if you have questions/concerns regarding that provided link, don't hesitate to bring them forward. Here... the link again: Don’t Be Fooled By the Solyndra Bankruptcy Circus — Solar Is Booming

similarly, I provided you a link that spoke to the recent Greenland Petermann Glacier incident - I qualified the link as being similar to the earlier one provided... I went a bit farther by providing a direct quote concerning inland implications. I also pointedly asked if you were challenging the actual extent of Greenland ice-sheet melt. Well... are you? Here's that same link/quote, again:

see:

Petermann Glacier before-after-photos 2010-2011 - From Byrd Polar Research Center

... similar to/extension of earlier link provided... as stated, "

implications to inland ice acceleration and draw-down of the ice sheet remains to be seen, but will be revealed by the GPS data recovered.

" If you are questioning the actual extent of Greenland ice-sheet melt, proper, please advise.

[TimG]

you quoting whatever from the Tiljander paper means diddly. You've already been told umpteenth times that Mann fully acknowledged questions raised about the data quality of the 4 proxies.

No he did not. All Mann did was fabricate a bunch of pseudo-scientific gibberish so he can make an excuse to use the data sets. I used to the Tijlander paper to show how the contamination causes the sign of the corrleation to change in the modern period. This means Mann's methods cannot possibly calibrate the data no matter how 'careful' he is. You can repeat Mann's gibberish a thousand times but you do not address the arguments I made unless you refer directly to Tiljander.

unless you're prepared to present an actual formal counter reconstruction that actually challenges the Mann08/09 use of the Tiljander proxies

You are missing the point entirely. I am saying those proxies cannot be used in these types of reconstructions. Period. So there is no way to produce such a paper nor are jounrnals interested in papers on something can't be done. It is a red herring.

The issue is simple: Mann tried to rationalize the use of the Tijlander proxies. If you go back and actually look at the Tijlander proxy data one quickly realizes that Mann's rationalizations are nonsense. I have explained exactly how. You have not refuted it. You cannot refute it by re-quoting Mann.

In any case, I have one question: can you show that any of my claims about Tijlander are wrong?

If not: will you acknowledge that my claims about Tijlander are correct?

Edited September 19, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

No he did not. All Mann did was fabricate a bunch of pseudo-scientific gibberish so he can make an excuse to use the data sets. I used to the Tijlander paper to show how the contamination causes the sign of the corrleation to change in the modern period. This means Mann's methods cannot possibly calibrate the data no matter how 'careful' he is. You can repeat Mann's gibberish a thousand times but you do not address the arguments I made unless you refer directly to Tiljander.

You are missing the point entirely. I am saying those proxies cannot be used in these types of reconstructions. Period. So there is no way to produce such a paper nor are jounrnals interested in papers on something can't be done. It is a red herring.

The issue is simple: Mann tried to rationalize the use of the Tijlander proxies. If you go back and actually look at the Tijlander proxy data one quickly realizes that Mann's rationalizations are nonsense. I have explained exactly how. You have not refuted it. You cannot refute it by re-quoting Mann.

In any case, you are incredibly dishonest debater. I am pretty sure you looked at Tiljander and if it had anything that contradicted what I said you would have quoted it. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that.

I appreciate you've been backed into a corner... that your last line of presumed defense is the Tiljander paper. Of course, you are being quite (knowingly) disingenuous. As you clearly stated yourself:

Tiljander is assumed to be temperature PROXY. That is why Mann used it.

your/McIntyre's "value assessment" on the proxies is irrelevant - it means bupkis! What's really got you/McIntyre in a snit, from day one, is that Mann had the foresight to actually provide a lengthy acknowledgement to questions concerning the quality of the proxies. I've now quoted that acknowledgement to you, verbatim, several times... you simply won't acknowledge it. Again, once more... with vinegar:

so, again... Mann fully acknowledged questions concerning the proxies, proceeded to utilize them with caveats attached, calibrated accordingly and..... sensitivity tested the outcome showing that, again, the reconstruction results showed no difference with the proxies in, or out. No difference - no matter how much you bluster. Whatever "arguments" you thought you had, have been summarily dispatched: See -

The Debunking of TimG's Nonsense - The TimG Parroting of McIntyre - Exposed!

:

now... unless you're prepared to present an actual formal counter reconstruction that actually challenges the Mann08/09 use of the Tiljander proxies... actually offers that counter reconstruction within a formal refutation of the Mann08/09 processing/methodology, then all you're doing is perpetuating the McIntyre never-ending blogapalooza!

. In the real world, "blog scientist" McIntyre does not get a free pass!

As you're certainly aware, full, open, transparent access to Mann et al, code/materials exists... don't hesitate to use that and provide reconstruction results that counter the, "no difference" affect result. Or, as I keep prodding you/McIntyre... don't hesitate to come forward with your own reconstruction; one to counter the results of Mann et al, 08/09. Is there a problem this hasn't been done yet/ever?

What's McIntyre waiting for, TimG? What's he waiting for? What's the never-ending blog auditor waiting for?

[TimG]

I appreciate you've been backed into a corner... that your last line of presumed defense is the Tiljander paper. Of course, you are being quite (knowingly) disingenuous. As you clearly stated yourself:

This entire debate is about Mann's use of the Tiljander paper. That makes the Tiljander paper the most authoritive source. Any argument made must be consistent with what is said in Tiljander paper. So it is more like a no go zone for you because you know that if you actually tried to argue points based on what is said in the Tiljander paper that you have nothing to stand on. That is why you make excuses to avoid talking about it.

You constant attempts to bring McIntrye into the discussion is silly. The argument I am making now is based on my reading the Tiljander paper. It is my argument. The fact that it supports McIntrye's view does not have any bearing on whether it is right or wrong.

Lastly, I really do not know what you hope to accomplish by splitting hairs over the temperature proxy issue. Tiljander did not calibrate the proxies against temperature but Tiljander makes it extremely clear what the relationship with temperature is (more organic matter/dark grey equals warmer temps). The trouble is that relationship does not hold up for the modern period which is why Mann screwed up when he pushed it through his algorithm.

Edited September 19, 2011 by TimG

[Pliny]

not deflections at all, Pliny.

You are just going in circles,waldo. All I said about the Petermann glacier is that a cursory glance by most people would give them a false impression. Do you support science, please advise - because it certainly doesn't sound like it. It does sound as though you support the Chief Chicken Little - Pope Al.