CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[waldo]

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.

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.

excellent... I do believe I've given you just enough rope! In your glorious pomposity, you have the unmitigated gall to presume to assess, to interpret... the legitimacy of the 4 Tiljander proxies. The test of the value of those proxies is to utilize them, calibrate them, and test for sensitivity. All of which was done by Mann et al 08/09. You haven't anything to put forward to counter the stated results... you have... nothing! Nothing! You can't present a countering reconstruction that disputes the Mann08/09 results. So... you weasel back into the proxy authors paper. You declare the proxy author's paper as the definitive source. Fine: the proxy author, Tiljander, from your declared authoritative source paper, summarily states:

However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated.

yes... from your declared authoritative source: difficult... but could be estimated; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible. Again, as stated in Mann08, from the same verbatim statements you refuse to acknowledge, as a caveat reference, Mann speaks to a possible data quality aspect in association with utilizing the proxies (i.e.; difficult/problematic... but not impossible... but could be estimated). Per your declared authoritative source! Standard proxy calibration technique involves normalizing a series to an annual resolved variance level... I expect Mann might have extended upon your declared authority to estimate calibrations, "averaged over a few years". Of course, as I stated several times earlier to you... the real salient question to arise is whether or not the calibration is on/close across the full range - hence, sensitivity testing... which, again, was done... which, again, resulted in no appreciable difference, whether the proxies were in... or out. No appreciable difference.

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.

]

now, as you've lost the protection of your weasel retreat into your declared authoritative source paper... we are simply left with: The Debunking of TimG's Nonsense - The TimG Parroting of McIntyre - Exposed!

[waldo]

Is it possible we are going from glacial to interglacial? Sure.

not what I asked. You have your opportunity/platform to declare, loudly and proudly, that you don't accept relatively recent enhanced and accelerated warming has occurred. I'm simply asking you to extend upon your repeated, ongoing challenges to the surface temperature record... to loudly and proudly declare yourself, "one of the fringe of the fringe". Just declare it... loudly and proudly! Is there a problem?

[waldo]

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...

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.

sorry to read your head is spinning Pliny. As for the Petermann glacier reference, this was a part of your actual statement:

Just a note on the post regarding the Petermann glacier. A quick glance at the website posted here on that would undoubtedly get some action from politicians who cursorily view the data and deduce that all that ice melted in two years - wow! Something must be done.

the linked article drew clear distinction between 'calved' glacier break-off versus actual inland ice-sheet melt. The scientist being referenced in the articles drew the same clear distinction and specifically stated (in both linked articles), "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." Somehow, out of all that clear distinction, you felt it prudent to pull the silly-buggar routine and speak to "politicians drawing false impressions based upon a cursory review of the articles". The articles were quite clear to me, Pliny. Also, sorry to read your nemesis has returned to mess with ya, again... I note it started a few weeks back with your worrisome references to "controlling the communication". So, did you accept the open invitation to Gore's "24 Hours of Reality"?

[TimG]

Fine: the proxy author, Tiljander, from your declared authoritative source paper, summarily states

Why don't we put the entire quote in its proper context:

The above-mentioned factors, the amounts of inorganic and organic matter, form the basis of the climate interpretations. Periods rich in organic matter indicate favourable climate conditions, when less snow accumulates in winter by diminished precipitation and/or increased thawing, causing weaker spring flow and formation of a thin mineral layer. In addition, a long growing season thickens the organic matter. More severe climate conditions occur with higher winter precipitation, a longer cold period and rapid melting at spring, shown as thicker mineral matter within a varve. However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated.

In other words, we have a proxy where high amounts of organic matter are believed to be associated with 'less snow, increased thawing and a longer growing season' and you believe that indicates a colder climate? Because that is what Mann would have to assume to justify his interpretation of the proxy. Are you sure you want to argue this?

I am looking forward to watching you squirm as you try to justify this latest spew.

And from the conclusions we see that Tiljander clearly believes that high organic material means warmer climate:

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. In the Lake Korttaja¨rvi sediment sequence, the effect of human impact has increased since the mid-18th century and has obscured the signal of natural climate variability.

No matter what Mann does with his algorithm he cannot reverse the interpretation used by Tijander. And Tijander's interpretation means that the sign of the correlation changes for the last 200 years. A fact which Mann did not take into account.

Your problem is you seem to think Mann is a god that can extract useful information from anything if he applies the right 'algorithms'. It is a nonsense POV. Just because Mann says he tried to compensate for the bad data in the last 200 years does not mean he did. So repeating Mann's claim over and over again does not support your argument.

Edited September 19, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

I am looking forward to watching you squirm as you try to justify this latest spew.

I certainly have nothing... nothing... to, as you say, squirm over. In all your puffed-up strutting, you pronounced the proxy author's paper as the "authoritative source", while declaring, repeatedly ad nauseam, that the proxy author stated the 4 proxies could not be used, given 20th century contamination related to human activities. Of course, that's certainly not what she said; rather, the paper stated, "it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated". So... again... difficult... but could be estimated; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible.

your repeated, rambling, nonsensical bleat, has you labeling Mann et al, as either dishonest or incompetent. Regardless of whatever numbing, highest-level interpretation you presume to offer for the proxies and their respective application, the bottom-line fact remains... your charges of dishonesty/incompetence can't exist in both sensitivity test scenarios and their related results. As you've been repeatedly presented, sensitivity testing on the overall reconstruction results shows no difference to the reconstruction, whether the 4 proxies are left in or pulled out. Your charge of dishonesty/incompetence for the reconstruction results can't hold if the basis for your presumed dishonesty/incompetence, makes no appreciable difference to the reconstruction results, in or out. Or perhaps you'd like to explain how your charges actually apply and reflect upon the sensitivity test results - you can explain that, right?

essentially all you're doing, all you've done, is make unsubstantiated claims/charges. You refuse to acknowledge that Mann08 fully recognized and addressed the possible data quality problems with the proxies... McIntyre's still pissed at that because, of course, Mann "stole his thunder"!... in fact, Mann, for all intents and purposes, laid a bread-crumb trail for anyone/McIntyre to target the Tiljander proxy usage. How clever of him, hey... how clever of Mann to set McIntyre up - to make McIntyre look the complete idiot? You can continue your whine about the proxies... it doesn't matter... in or out - no effect on the overall reconstruction. Too bad, so sad! Your miniscule brainpower can't seem to fathom that calibration, essentially, is a matter of degrees... how well does the calibration match the modern temperature record... to what degree might the calibration be off. The answer in this case, of course, reflects upon the results of the 'in or out' sensitivity testing - no appreciable difference, whether in or out. So, again... whatever "arguments" you thought you had, they have been summarily dispatched: see - The Debunking of TimG's Nonsense - The TimG Parroting of McIntyre - Exposed!:

and, as before:

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?

[GostHacked]

I certainly have nothing... nothing... to, as you say, squirm over. In all your puffed-up strutting, you pronounced the proxy author's paper as the "authoritative source", while declaring, repeatedly ad nauseam, that the proxy author stated the 4 proxies could not be used, given 20th century contamination related to human activities. Of course, that's certainly not what she said; rather, the paper stated, "it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated". So... again... difficult... but could be estimated; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible.

The real problem here is it is still an estimation, and one based on shorter time periods. Which over time will not give you a very accurate picture. You will have to trend for a couple hundred years to find out if what is claimed is true. The human race is a blip on the cosmic time scale of this planet.

I asked this question to you in one of these climate change threads and got little response from you. How much are we affecting overall climate with the numerous weather modification programs that are currently in existence?

[TimG]

it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated[/b][/i]". So... again... difficult... but could be estimated; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible.

So what? What are "climatic interpretations" and what exactly do you think you could estimate? I read it to mean that you can do what Tiljander has done in the paper which is make vague statements about trends over decades. This statement does not say or even suggest that Mann can do what he claimed to do. In short, if that phrase is all you got you got nothing.

The point that you refused to acknowledge is much more important. Tiljander made it crystal clear that there is only one valid interpretation for the sign of the proxy and that sign changes for the last part of the record. This means Mann's methods cannot possibly work.

Your refusal to even acknowledge that point speaks volumes. You can't refute it. The only counter argument you offered is "Magical Mann" will do some statistical wizardry and pull temperatures out of crap. That is not an argument. It is a statement of religious faith.

Edited September 19, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

A walk through for anyone who is interested in seeing for themselves what this argument is about.

Here is the Tiljander paper:

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

Goto Figure 5.

Look at the curve for Relative Xray Density.

Look at the levels between 1000AD and 1300AD - Note how low they are.

Look at the levels from 1900AD to 2000AD - Note how high they are.

Now goto the conclusion:

Note the statement:

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.

It is clear that the author feels that high Xray density means cold weather. Low means hot.

Now go back at look at Figure 5.

Note that graph is saying that the climate has cooled down over the last 200 years.

Does that make sense?

What would happen if someone pushed this data through an algorithm that only looked at the last 200 years and used that to determine the sign of the proxy?

It would determine that high X ray density means high temps and low X ray density means low temps.

Exactly the opposite of what is said in the paper.

Waldo is claiming that Mann can do this because Tiljander said 'climatic interpretations could be estimated' and, by implication, that means Mann *must* have estimated them correctly.

The trouble is that is not possible to do with Mann's algorithm since his algorithm will always produce estimates that contradict Tiljander by assuming that a high X ray density means a warmer climate because his algorithm makes it decisions by comparing the last 200 years of data to actual temperatures.

Edited September 19, 2011 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

.....The trouble is that is not possible to do with his algorithm. Mann's algorithm will always produce estimates that contradict Tiljander by assuming that a high X ray density means a warmer climate because his algorithm makes it decisions by comparing the last 200 years of data to actual temperatures.

I don't find that argument remotely credible when I look at the data.

I think this passionate exercise has only convinced me further to ignore any and all climate change priests and their fan base to focus on the data only, real and imagined. I've been looking at Bayesian probability analyses in that regard, and will move on to other such studies that are divorced of such hot and sweaty Mann/Gore impulses.

[waldo]

I certainly have nothing... nothing... to, as you say, squirm over. In all your puffed-up strutting, you pronounced the proxy author's paper as the "authoritative source", while declaring, repeatedly ad nauseam, that the proxy author stated the 4 proxies could not be used, given 20th century contamination related to human activities. Of course, that's certainly not what she said; rather, the paper stated, "it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated". So... again... difficult... but could be estimated; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible.

The real problem here is it is still an estimation, and one based on shorter time periods. Which over time will not give you a very accurate picture. You will have to trend for a couple hundred years to find out if what is claimed is true. The human race is a blip on the cosmic time scale of this planet.

wrong perspective... this is proxy based reconstruction of past temperature... the estimate ('prediction') aspect is with respect to how skillful the respective proxies are to predicting shorter timescale fluctuations in past temperature. That is to say, given the proxy author paper's suggestion that, "it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated", she is drawing attention to a calibration period extending beyond annual (to a few years); i.e., less than decadal but greater than annual. She has offered a verbal qualitative assessment on using her proxy within a reconstruction. In spite of TimG's earlier incorrect protestations to the opposite, the proxy author is most emphatically not stating not to use the proxy.

I asked this question to you in one of these climate change threads and got little response from you. How much are we affecting overall climate with the numerous weather modification programs that are currently in existence?

I think this is a worthy discussion avenue... one that, of course, has implications towards the/any viability of geo-engineering. We've had many tangential discussions around geo-engineering; off the top I can't recall if the topic ever had a dedicated thread. My suggestion, if you're inclined, would be for you to either find an appropriate thread to extend upon your thoughts on weather modification (possibly one that has a geo-engineering theme within it), or start a new thread. Certainly, we don't want to start down that path within this thread... TimG has already managed a monumental distraction from CERN/CLOUD and TimG's earlier unsubstantiated claim that its preliminary results provide an attribution study... one that provides an alternative causal linkage for global warming. TimG didn't take kindly to the repeated calls for him to qualify his claim... so, of course, as is his way, he distracted this thread away with his frivolous, mindless, nonsensical, McIntyre inspired nothingness.

for what little I can offer at this stage, my recollections of past interest reflect upon inadvertent (as distinct from direct) weather modification (i.e., inadvertent as in, for example, land use implications, pollution aerosol aspects, etc.). Certainly, meteorological associations have great interest in this weather modification regard. Clearly, this discussion topic will degrade rapidly if it moves away from science based interpretation and into the realm of 'conspiracy' (ala chemtrail vs. contrail)...

[waldo]

So what? What are "climatic interpretations" and what exactly do you think you could estimate? I read it to mean that you can do what Tiljander has done in the paper which is make vague statements about trends over decades. This statement does not say or even suggest that Mann can do what he claimed to do. In short, if that phrase is all you got you got nothing.

what? So now you take to trashing your own declared authoritative source... claiming, as you state, "what Tiljander has done in the paper which is make vague statements about trends over decades". Oh my!

The point that you refused to acknowledge is much more important. Tiljander made it crystal clear that there is only one valid interpretation for the sign of the proxy and that sign changes for the last part of the record. This means Mann's methods cannot possibly work.

and you're an idgit continuing to fixate on a meaningless so-called "sign change"... again, as I have emphatically stated to you, now several times, the Tiljander proxies hold respective correlations, positive or negative... none of the proxies "change correlation sign" over time. Are you too obtuse to grasp this point? Notwithstanding some suggestion coming forward that Tiljander may have actually got one of the 4 correlations wrong herself (if I recall correctly, the lightsum).

one of the significant questions, as I keep repeating, is how well the calibration was performed... to which, validation analysis, sensitivity results and statistical significance bear... all of which are available within Mann08/09. None of which you have provided as a countering statement against the Mann08/09 reconstructions. Yours is nothing but a rabid, fever-pitched discourse on the fallacious never-ending McIntyre blogfest! The real issue is how well the respective proxies present a climate signal, weak/moderate/strong... the prevailing sentiment seems to be... the proxies offer a rather weaker climate signal within them - something that seems to be clearly presented when the sensitivity tests show no difference to the reconstruction, whether the proxies are left in, or removed.

you have provided no formalized counter to the Mann08/09 reconstructions... a formalized counter that presents an alternate reconstruction, one that uses all of the fully and transparently available Mann08/09 methodology/code/materials/etc. You have provided no formalized counter to the Mann 08/09 reconstructions... one that uses any other alternate methodology/code/materials/etc. You have provided neither of these possible avenues to have countered the Mann08/09 reconstruction results... you have provided nothing... but bluster! You speak of a, "religious faith" - clearly, in the absence of you having provided anything... anything... that formally counters the Mann08/09 reconstructions, yours is quite assuredly a testimony to the church of McIntyre's never-ending blogfest audit! You clearly are a disciple of the never-ending auditor... the guy who, after a decade+, just can't seem to pull any of it together... just can't seem to get started!

these are the prevailing items of note: neither of which you have... or can... provide a formal counter against.

=> the prevailing journal comment:

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

=> the prevailing reconstruction results statement of account:

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.

=> alternatively, in the face of failing to provide formal countering position/statement, the prevailing TimG contribution: bluster bus! Notwithstanding, The Debunking of TimG's Nonsense - The TimG Parroting of McIntyre - Exposed!

[TimG]

what? So now you take to trashing your own declared authoritative source... claiming, as you state, "what Tiljander has done in the paper which is make vague statements about trends over decades".

Yes it is an authoritative source but that does not mean you can pluck one vague phrasing from the middle of it and use it claim the rest of the paper can be ignored. Tiljander made specific claims on how the proxies should be interpreted and Mann ignored those claims.

and you're an idgit continuing to fixate on a meaningless so-called "sign change"... again, as I have emphatically stated to you, now several times, the Tiljander proxies hold respective correlations, positive or negative... none of the proxies "change correlation sign" over time.

ROTFL. Keep digging waldo. I think my explanation here has adequately walked through the actual data in the paper and shown exactly why the proxy correlations DO change sign. Repeat your assertions as much as you like - all you show is that you are desperate zealot who is incapable of admitting he is wrong.

BTW: It is good to see you concede that if it can be shown that the proxy correlations DO change sign then that is lethal for Mann's algorithm.

Edited September 19, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

what? So now you take to trashing your own declared authoritative source... claiming, as you state, "what Tiljander has done in the paper which is make vague statements about trends over decades". Oh my!

Yes it is an authoritative source but that does not mean you can pluck one vague phrasing from the middle of it and use it claim the rest of the paper can be ignored. Tiljander made specific claims on how the proxies should be interpreted and Mann ignored those claims.

no - the proxy author stated, unequivocally, that, "it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated". As I replied to GH:

...given the proxy author paper's suggestion that, "

it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated

", she is drawing attention to a calibration period extending beyond annual (to a few years); i.e., less than decadal but greater than annual. She has offered a verbal qualitative assessment on using her proxy within a reconstruction. In spite of TimG's earlier incorrect protestations to the opposite, the proxy author is most emphatically not stating not to use the proxy.

and you're an idgit continuing to fixate on a meaningless so-called "sign change"... again, as I have emphatically stated to you, now several times, the Tiljander proxies hold respective correlations, positive or negative... none of the proxies "change correlation sign" over time. Are you too obtuse to grasp this point? Notwithstanding some suggestion coming forward that Tiljander may have actually got one of the 4 correlations wrong herself (if I recall correctly, the lightsum).

ROTFL. Keep digging waldo. I think my explanation here has adequately walked through the actual data in the paper and shown exactly why the proxy correlations DO change sign. Repeat your assertions as much as you like - all you show is that you are desperate zealot who is incapable of admitting he is wrong.

BTW: It is good to see you concede that if it can be shown that the proxy correlations DO change sign then that is lethal for Mann's algorithm.

what a dullard you are. Clearly you haven't even the most basic of understandings... correlations do not change! There is no mystical "flip" happening. My reference to the a 'possible' changed correlation was in terms of the defined correlation that each of the respective proxies has... as I said, there is some suggestion that the proxy author may have actually made a mistake in defining one of the proxies temperature correlation. You keep making this same fundamental error... but why should anyone be surprised!

as before, these are the prevailing statements in effect... this is a summary account of your debunking and exposed parroting:

you have provided no formalized counter to the Mann08/09 reconstructions... a formalized counter that presents an alternate reconstruction, one that uses all of the fully and transparently available Mann08/09 methodology/code/materials/etc. You have provided no formalized counter to the Mann 08/09 reconstructions... one that uses any other alternate methodology/code/materials/etc. You have provided neither of these possible avenues to have countered the Mann08/09 reconstruction results... you have provided nothing... but bluster!

You speak of a, "religious faith" - clearly, in the absence of you having provided anything... anything... that formally counters the Mann08/09 reconstructions, yours is quite assuredly a testimony to

the church of McIntyre's never-ending blogfest audit

! You clearly are a disciple of the never-ending auditor... the guy who, after a decade+, just can't seem to pull any of it together... just can't seem to get started!

these are the prevailing items of note: neither of which you have... or can... provide a formal counter against.

=> the prevailing journal comment:

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

=> the prevailing reconstruction results statement of account:

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.

=> alternatively, in the face of failing to provide formal countering position/statement, the prevailing TimG contribution: bluster bus! Notwithstanding,

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

[TimG]

no - the proxy author stated, unequivocally, that, "it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated".

I would hardly call that an unequivocal statement. As I said before: one vague statement does not give Mann a license to ignore the rest of of the paper. No amount of repetition will turn that phrase into the trump card that you so deperately want it to be.

as I said, there is some suggestion that the proxy author may have actually made a mistake in defining one of the proxies temperature correlation.

ROTFL. You are admiting that Mann changed the sign! Finally. Why did you argue so much?

Of course, the suggestion that Tiljander made a mistake is nonsense. The MWP is a well established phenomena in the northern hemisphere which plenty of evidence from many different sources. There is no valid interpretation of the Xray proxy other than the one Tiljander proposed (as anyone who goes through the data in my post above can see). And given that interpretation there is no way for Mann to use it in his algorithm.

That said, it does not surprise me that Mann is trying to argue that Tiljander made a mistake because Mann has a history of finding the proxies that have the shape he needs and then fabricating whatever justification he needs to use them. He did this with strip bark bristle cones and he is doing that with Tiljander now. Evidence that the proxies are hopelessly contaminated means nothing to Mann. Looking like a hockey stick is the only evidence that Mann needs. Mann is an embarrassment to scientists.

Edited September 20, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

You declare the proxy author's paper as the definitive source. Fine: the proxy author, Tiljander, from your declared authoritative source paper, summarily states:

However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated.

yes... from your declared authoritative source: difficult... but could be estimated; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible.

no - the proxy author stated, unequivocally, that, "

it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated

". As I replied to GH:

...given the proxy author paper's suggestion that, "

it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated

", she is drawing attention to a calibration period extending beyond annual (to a few years); i.e., less than decadal but greater than annual. She has offered a verbal qualitative assessment on using her proxy within a reconstruction.

In spite of TimG's earlier incorrect protestations to the opposite, the proxy author is most emphatically not stating not to use the proxy.

I would hardly call that an unequivocal statement. As I said before:

one vague statement does not give Mann a license to ignore the rest of of the paper

. No amount of repetition will turn that phrase into the trump card that you so deperately want it to be.

clearly, you're in full-blown distraction mode! My referencing that statement within the proxy author's paper was simply a most prolific retort to what had been your repeated bleat that, "the proxy author had stated/indicated that the respective proxies were so 20th century contaminated, that they should not be used". Using your own, as declared, "authoritative source", I simply showed you otherwise. Of course, your distraction mode has you hyperventilating about some presumed egregious slight in, as you say, "ignoring the rest of the paper"... of course, in your dullard best, you still haven't grasped the significance (rather, insignificance) of correlation sign as used within the Mann regression/calibration process. Of course, don't let that stop you from strutting about like a mindless McIntyre acolyte.

what a dullard you are. Clearly you haven't even the most basic of understandings... correlations do not change! There is no mystical "flip" happening. My reference to the a 'possible' changed correlation was in terms of the defined correlation that each of the respective proxies has... as I said, there is some suggestion that the proxy author may have actually made a mistake in defining one of the proxies temperature correlation. You keep making this same fundamental error... but why should anyone be surprised!

ROTFL. You are admiting that Mann changed the sign! Finally. Why did you argue so much?

wow! I thought you would have at least tempered your displayed ignorance by now, at least somewhat. Looks like we've come full circle, hey? Given you've had the following repeatedly thrust upon you, over and over. How about once more, hey?

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

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.

of course, McIntyre has long ago realized his mistake... he simply can't, after a brazillion false/misleading ClimateFraudit threads&comments, admit so to his adoring fanboyz/minions. Of course, that he never dared to challenge the PNAS reply with a return comment or full paper (in any journal!), speaks volumes. Again, the sign of the data does not affect the multivariate analysis... the end result is unchanged regardless of whatever correlation sign is used. Clearly this is a mind-numbing concept for McIntyre lappers to grasp! Again, the most salient point, regardless of what respective proxy data has 'whatever correlation sign', is whether or not the data has a climate signal within it. Ergo... the calibration, validation and sensitivity aspects of the Mann08/09 paper... you know, all the things you have steadfastly refused to recognize, acknowledge and discuss... choosing instead to throw up distractions, left and right.

Of course, the suggestion that Tiljander made a mistake is nonsense. The MWP is a well established phenomena in the northern hemisphere which plenty of evidence from many different sources. There is no valid interpretation of the Xray proxy other than the one Tiljander proposed (as anyone who goes through the data in my post above can see). And given that interpretation there is no way for Mann to use it in his algorithm.

That said, it does not surprise me that Mann is trying to argue that Tiljander made a mistake because Mann has a history of finding the proxies that have the shape he needs and then fabricating whatever justification he needs to use them.

of course, this was always the underlying theme of your parroted charade... proxy reconstructions by their very nature cast review upon the MWP & LIA. Denialists, like you, get a tad antsy when anything presumes to offer greater clarity into past temperatures in the MWP (regardless of whether that 'anything', in itself, is also regional focused). My somewhat 'off-the-cuff' reference to a possible misinterpretation on one of the proxy correlations by the author Tiljander, stems from a blog discussion I followed between Finnish scientists - 'blog scientists'... I've certainly never seen that described 'possible misinterpretation' ever attributed to your boogeyMann Please, don't hesitate to attribute that, as you state, "Mann argument" concerning a possible misinterpretation... you know, actually substantiate this, your latest distraction! Notwithstanding, of course, the correlation sign of that particular proxy, as you have been repeatedly advised, has no bearing on the Mann08/09 multivariate analysis... which really begs the question as to why you would posit that, as you say, "Mann is trying to argue that Tiljander made a mistake". Bizarre!

while waiting for you to substantiate this, your latest distraction: The Debunking of TimG's Nonsense - The TimG Parroting of McIntyre - Exposed!

[TimG]

wow! I thought you would have at least tempered your displayed ignorance by now, at least somewhat.

Perhaps the biggest irony is you are so clueless that you did not even realize that you just admitted that Mann changed the sign when you said 'there is some suggestion the proxy author may have made a mistake'. I say this because there is NO WAY anyone would be talking about possible sign errors in Tiljander if Mann's paper actually used the same sign. The ONLY reason anyone is suggesting such things is because they know that Mann DID change the sign and has been trying to hide that by spewing psuedo-scientific gibberish.

You can't take your words back now.

In any case, I am quite confident that anyone who looks at the Tiljander data will come to the same conclusion I have. Mann can't use that data the way he did and Mann has engaged in an extremely dishonest compaign to spread misinformation in order to hide his screw up.

Edited September 20, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

what a dullard you are. Clearly you haven't even the most basic of understandings... correlations do not change! There is no mystical "flip" happening. My reference to the a 'possible' changed correlation was in terms of the defined correlation that each of the respective proxies has... as I said, there is some suggestion that the proxy author may have actually made a mistake in defining one of the proxies temperature correlation. You keep making this same fundamental error... but why should anyone be surprised!

ROTFL. You are admiting that Mann changed the sign! Finally. Why did you argue so much?

wow! I thought you would have at least tempered your displayed ignorance by now, at least somewhat. Looks like we've come full circle, hey? Given you've had the following repeatedly thrust upon you, over and over. How about once more, hey?

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

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.

of course, McIntyre has long ago realized his mistake... he simply can't, after a brazillion false/misleading ClimateFraudit threads&comments, admit so to his adoring fanboyz/minions. Of course, that he never dared to challenge the PNAS reply with a return comment or full paper (in any journal!), speaks volumes. Again, the sign of the data does not affect the multivariate analysis... the end result is unchanged regardless of whatever correlation sign is used. Clearly this is a mind-numbing concept for McIntyre lappers to grasp! Again, the most salient point, regardless of what respective proxy data has 'whatever correlation sign', is whether or not the data has a climate signal within it. Ergo... the calibration, validation and sensitivity aspects of the Mann08/09 paper... you know, all the things you have steadfastly refused to recognize, acknowledge and discuss... choosing instead to throw up distractions, left and right.

I say this because there is NO WAY anyone would be talking about possible sign errors in Tiljander if Mann's paper actually used the same sign. The ONLY reason anyone is suggesting such things is because they know that Mann DID change the sign and has been trying to hide that by spewing psuedo-scientific gibberish.

You can't take your words back now.

In any case, I am quite confident that anyone who looks at the Tiljander data will come to the same conclusion I have. Mann is can't use that data the way he did and Mann has engaged in an extremely dishonest compaign to spread misinformation in order to hide his screw up.

nice continued distraction... mentioning the possible proxy author's own misinterpretation simply reflects upon your puffed up "argument by authority"... where you, on your own volition, chose to declare the proxy paper as the, "authoritative source". Of course, notwithstanding, at the time of release, the author was still working on her dissertation, with the paper itself forming a part of that... speaks to your never-ending reach for presumed authority, hey? In any case, there are certainly no words to take back no matter how bizarre your continued distractions reach. Your McIntyre inflamed idiocy simply can't accept that it doesn't make a diddly of difference as to what the correlation sign is for any of the proxies... no matter how much you huff and puff, wail, pound your fists, thump your chest and scream to the moon - does not matter!!! Is there a reason McIntyre won't take this further and formally challenge the actual reconstruction results... I mean, a reason other than drawing continued/further attention to his colossal screw-up? Here, chew on it again:

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

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.

[TimG]

mentioning the possible proxy author's own misinterpretation simply reflects upon your puffed up "argument by authority"...

WTF? Your entire argument can be summed up as 'Mann did nothing wrong because Mann says he did nothing wrong'. And you say I am making an argument by authority? What drugs are you on?

In any case, I am specifically NOT making an argument by authority. I am suggesting that people look at the actual DATA and see for themselves. There is no greater authority than the actual DATA and Tiljander is where you find the the actual DATA. That is why it is the most authoritive source in this debate.

Edited September 21, 2011 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

...In any case, I am specifically NOT making an argument by authority. I am suggesting that people look at the actual DATA and see for themselves. There is no greater authority than the actual DATA and Tiljander is where you find the the actual DATA. That is why it is the most authoritive source in this debate.

+2 In God we Trust....all others must bring data.

[Pliny]

+2 In God we Trust....all others must bring data.

[Pliny]

And more sad news...on another front...following in the footsteps of Hal Lewis...who said, "The majority of his letter details his criticism of the group's support for the "global warming scam", which is the yearly source of millions of dollars of funding for scientific organizations, and further expresses his belief that the loss of that funding would be devastating to those organizations.".... one more scientist resigns from the APS.

Gosh, I was reading that the loss of permanent ice in Greenland was 15% but today I see there is a correction....only 0.1% percent has melted...whew...and... I think half of that is floating past Nfld. right now!!!

But more importantly I hear there is a new Ipod coming out and Lindsay Lohan was caught buying drugs in Europe....

Edited September 21, 2011 by Pliny

[waldo]

WTF? Your entire argument can be summed up as 'Mann did nothing wrong because Mann says he did nothing wrong'. And you say I am making an argument by authority? What drugs are you on?

In any case, I am specifically NOT making an argument by authority. I am suggesting that people look at the actual DATA and see for themselves. There is no greater authority than the actual DATA and Tiljander is where you find the the actual DATA. That is why it is the most authoritive source in this debate.

well yes... you puffed up and declared the proxy author's paper as the authoritative source - ergo, your argument from authority. My repeated citing of the prevailing formal Mann et al, 08/09 text/reference from PNAS is not an argument from authority - it's simply an acknowledgment to the formalized accounts of record. That your hero McIntyre hasn't formally risen to the challenge certainly also speaks to your argument in absentia!

clearly, you also rely upon an argument from the school of TV weatherman Anthony Watts... who needs data/processing/analysis when you have pictures to rely upon!!! ("damnit... can't you just look at the picture!", shrieks TimG. )

I am heartened to recognize you now appear to have at least backed off your egregious error concerning "sign change ala McIntyre upsidedownyness" (re: Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors). ... which, of course, couples directly with you also recognizing your other most egregious error concerning a mystical "flipping of temperature correlation". I believe we have some progress to report, after all!

in any case, speaking of those prevailing formalized accounts of record:

you have provided no formalized counter to the Mann08/09 reconstructions... a formalized counter that presents an alternate reconstruction, one that uses all of the fully and transparently available Mann08/09 methodology/code/materials/etc. You have provided no formalized counter to the Mann 08/09 reconstructions... one that uses any other alternate methodology/code/materials/etc. You have provided neither of these possible avenues to have countered the Mann08/09 reconstruction results... you have provided nothing... but bluster!

you speak of a, "religious faith" - clearly, in the absence of you having provided anything... anything... that formally counters the Mann08/09 reconstructions, yours is quite assuredly a testimony to the church of McIntyre's never-ending blogfest audit. You clearly are a disciple of the never-ending auditor... the guy who, after a decade+, just can't seem to pull any of it together... just can't seem to get started!

these are the prevailing items of note: neither of which you have... or can... provide a formal counter against.

=> the prevailing journal comment:

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

=> the prevailing reconstruction results statement of account:

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.

=> alternatively, in the face of failing to provide formal countering position/statement, the prevailing TimG contribution: bluster bus! Notwithstanding,

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

[waldo]

Gosh, I was reading that the loss of permanent ice in Greenland was 15% but today I see there is a correction....only 0.1% percent has melted...whew...and... I think half of that is floating past Nfld. right now!!!

gosh, chuckleheads... where's the data you're speaking to... where's the data you're bringing!

I expect your, as you say, 'brought data', would include mass balance loss trending... oh, say from the 70's to current day (you know, that Gt/year thingee). I expect your, as you say, 'brought data', would also include trending relative to ice mass anomaly (you know, that deviation from the average ice mass thingee). I expect your, as you say, 'brought data', would include standardized melting index anomaly... oh, say from the 70's to current day (you know, that deviation from the average ice melt thingee). I expect your, as you say, 'brought data' would also include distinction between... oh, say mass loss from coastal versus interior regions (you know, that below versus above 2000 metres thingee)... and in that same regard, that your, as you say, 'brought data' would also speak to inland region buildup in terms of increased snowfall (you know, that global warming thingee that causes interior snow increases). I also trust that, in keeping with your anecdotal spirit reference to Nfld, you might similarly have your, as you say, 'brought data', translate so-called melting equivalencies into melt-area region sizes (you know, something like a land-size extent equivalency... say... something like 'x country' melting per year/decade... something catchy, for the kids and short-attention spanners).

so, ya... bring it - bring your data! (just make sure to check your one-sided skepticism at the door, hey?)

[Pliny]

so, ya... bring it - bring your data! (just make sure to check your one-sided skepticism at the door, hey?)

Generally, there is a rule that what you accuse others of you yourself are guilty of - like leaving one-sided skepticism at the door.

I note that, Ivar Giaever stated that "a rise of temperature from 288 degrees Kelvin to 288.8 degrees Kelvin over a period of 150 years would mean that temperature is fairly stable and a little warmth in Scandinavia might be a good thing". I thought that was funny because, as you know, that is my view too.

I know that abandoning the term "global warming" and replacing it with "climate change" means that we can now talk about the weather. Like hurricanes and record heatwaves in Texas - it's an "It wasn't this hot yesterday...oh my god...the clmate changed" - type of scenario.

Oh yeah...a fridge is crashing to Earth from outer space...or was it..something the size of a fridge.

We'll have to get someone who is at least 90% positive to advise with proper data!

[waldo]

I know that abandoning the term "global warming" and replacing it with "climate change" means that we can now talk about the weather. Like hurricanes and record heatwaves in Texas - it's an "It wasn't this hot yesterday...oh my god...the clmate changed" - type of scenario.

Pliny, Pliny, Pliny... I thought you'd be bringing it... bringing the/your data to put perspective on the Greenland ice-sheet melt - is there a problem?

as for climate change versus global warming... abandonment? Each term is spoken of as appropriate, in context. When this reeediculous canard is dragged out by denier types, like you, I'm always keen to highlight a few choice tidbits, say like:

- what does the 'CC' in IPCC stand for, hey Pliny? You know, your oft target of derision, the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change

...

formed in 1988

!

- or like a more recent point of departure in relation to another time on MLW where this climate change versus global warming distinction was brought forward:

How about another reminder on

the confidential 2003 GOP strategy memo (re: Frank Luntz) to use 'climate change' over 'global warming'.

Really, c'mon... you mean Republicans would purposely, on a strategic basis, intend to downplay the actual impacts in favour of a massaged 'more controlled, less emotional' language - I'm shocked, I tells ya... shocked!

1) "

Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming

". As one focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

2) We should be "conservationists", not "preservationists" or "environmentalists". The term "conservationist" has far more positive connotations than either of the other two terms. It conveys a moderate, reasoned, common sense position between replenishing the earth's natural resources and the human need to make use of those resources.

"Environmentalist" can have the connotation of extremism to many Americans, particularly those outside the Northeast. "Preservationists", suggests someone who believes nature should remain untouched - preserving exactly what we have. By comparison, Americans see a "conservationist" as someone who believes we should use our natural resources efficiently and replenish what we can when we can.

Republicans can redefine the environmental debate and make inroads on what conventional wisdom calls a traditionally Democratic constituency, because we offer better policy choices to the Washington-run bureaucracy. But we have to get the talk right to capture that segment of the public that is willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the environment -- and they are out there waiting.