CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[waldo]

Actually it is the only source. Mann cannot re-interpret the physics of proxies simply because it suits his purposes. The paper is VERY clear: low organic matter means lower temps. No amount of obfuscation and handwaving can negate this fact.

the only obfuscation and hand-waving is yours. As I've done many times in the past, as I just did in the preceding post to this one, I quoted you directly from your personally declared "authoritative source"... the proxy authors paper, in her own words... these words: "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."

you have an aversion, purposely so, to actually addressing how the Mann et al paper's methodology and processing might have handled the proxy author's suggested option of the possibility to use the proxy by, "estimating short-term changes (averaged over a few years)". As I stated several times in the past, your preference is to follow the oh so technical prowess of Anthony Watts... you know, analysis of 2D graphic images! That's right, you can't be bothered to address the actual data, how it might be interpreted, how it might be utilized, what signal it might hold, etc.. No, your sole recourse is to simply look at a fuzzy 2D graphical image and declare your, uhhh... what was your phrase... oh ya, your 100% certainty!

carry on! Be the loyal McIntyre soldier!

[TimG]

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

Yet in the abstract we see:

The Medieval Climate Anomaly (often termed the Medieval Warm Period) of AD 980–1250, which is characterized by highly organic sediment and a minor minerogenic flux during mild winters, started and terminated abruptly, but also included a short (30-year) colder period lasting between AD 1115 and AD 1145. TheLittle Ice Age, however, was not clear in our record, although there were two minor cooling periods in AD 1580–1630 and AD 1650–1710.

The paper's authors CLEARLY claim that high organic content means high temps. No matter how much you attempt to obfuscate the issue the facts don't change. Mann tried to use the proxies in a way opposite to what it is dictated by its physics. This is wrong. This is incompentent but it is what is to be expected from arrogant alarmists who have not found an ethical boundaries they will not cross in the pursuit of their "cause". Edited March 10, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Yet in the abstract we see:

I'm sure you thought your quote has meaning/relevance. And, of course, you completely negate and ignore the proxy authors own words (from your declared authoritative source), advising on how best to utilize the proxy. How nice/convenient/self-serving for you, hey?

The paper's authors CLEARLY claim that high organic content means high temps. No matter how much you attempt to obfuscate the issue the facts don't change. Mann tried to use the proxies in a way opposite to what it is dictated by its physics. This is wrong. This is incompentent but it is what is to be expected from arrogant alarmists who have not found an ethical boundaries they will not cross in the pursuit of their "cause".

if you believe this to be the case, then... write it up! Make the formal challenge to the Mann et al paper. Is there a problem? Like I said, the Mann et al response has stood for 3 full years. Quite obviously, formally bringing that paper down would be a monumental feat/accomplishment for fake skeptics... not because the paper holds any real significance (in the 'big picture'), but because of the profile the paper/authors has taken on given the obsession the denialsphere has had with it. Like I also said, what's taking McIntyre so long to address this? How many hundreds of threads and thousands of words has he written around this paper? What's he waiting for?

[TimG]

I'm sure you thought your quote has meaning/relevance. And, of course, you completely negate and ignore the proxy authors own words

Because the words don't mean what you are claiming them to mean. They only thing your pet quote is referring to is the magnitude of relationship between temperature and the proxy. Nothing the authors have written gives any justification reversing the physical relationship which is what Mann did. Only an idiot would take such a vague statement to mean that the authors were completely repudiating everything else they said in the paper. Edited March 10, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Because the words don't mean what you are claiming them to mean. They only thing your pet quote is referring to is the magnitude of relationship between temperature and the proxy

nonsense - the proxy authors words, these words, "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.", mean what they mean! As I've stated previously, standard proxy calibration technique involves normalizing a series to an annual resolved variance level... I expect Mann et al might have extended upon your declared authority (the proxy author's own words), to estimate calibrations, "averaged over a few years".

. Nothing the authors have written gives any justification reversing the physical relationship which is what Mann did. Only an idiot would take such a vague statement to mean that the authors were completely repudiating everything else they said in the paper.

perhaps formally challenge the MBH calibration approach/technique... someone should have formally done that in 3+ years, right?

[TimG]

mean what they mean!

And it does not mean what you want it to mean. The authors state clearly that low organic matter equals higher temps and that lower organic matter means lower temps. Nothing Mann does with his statistical voodoo can change that that physical relationship. Nothing in that statement repudiates that physical relationship claimed by the authors.

In any case, it is clear you are way out your depth. You don't understand the material and nothing you say contributes anything useful to the discussion. I will wait for Michael's reply.

Edited March 10, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

And it does not mean what you want it to mean. The authors state clearly that low organic matter equals higher temps and that lower organic matter means lower temps. Nothing Mann does with his statistical voodoo can change that that physical relationship. Nothing in that statement repudiates that physical relationship claimed by the authors.

how convenient and self-serving of you to not recognize proxy calibration techniques. Ultimately, the salient point is how much of a true climate signal exists within the proxy in the described 200 year period where 'contamination' is suspected. Your approach is to look at 2D pics and make your 100% certainty pronouncements... you clearly have an aversion to data level analysis and addressing the actual supporting methodologies/processing.

In any case, it is clear you are way out your depth. You don't understand the material and nothing you say contributes anything useful to the discussion. I will wait for Michael's reply.

ya ya, your vaunted technical prowess (i.e. McIntyre parroting) is continually on display... and is only matched by your pomposity.

equally, this is simply recycling the last go-around... that had you bottomed-out at this very level/point... had you showcasing your know-nothingness as you hung your complete argument on a single 2D graphic image within the proxy authors paper! You're a freekin wizard! I can certainly be as equally dismissive as you - you clearly don't understand the material and nothing you parrot contributes anything useful to the discussion. Equally, go waste the time of someone else - I understand Michael wants to allow you another platform to carry the McIntyre mantle!

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, it sounds major. I'll look at your link next.

It may be awhile before I get back to you on this.

I spent about 1 or 2 hours reading on this today. Yes, I am a giant nerd. ( Not a giant who is also a nerd, but more of a nerd than your average nerd. )

[waldo]

I spent about 1 or 2 hours reading on this today. Yes, I am a giant nerd. ( Not a giant who is also a nerd, but more of a nerd than your average nerd. )

well... I guess that's an update.

how about some general thoughts on your part... thoughts that should dovetail back to this threads OP. Given TimG's historical pandering and obsession with this single papers reconstruction, numerous threads were hijacked. In this threads case, most certainly, the relative significance of the threads OP CERN initiatives versus the TimG obsession with the lowly single paper reconstruction... pales, to say the least. But - in each case, ultimately, there are benchmark reference points.

- in the case of the OP, all the "AGW killer", smoking gun hoopla generated by the denialsphere over the CERN initiatives, gradually, eventually, petered out to the nothingness that is the denialsphere... of course, the CERN scientists and their actual commentary/work/published paper brought the reality forward and snuffed out the denialsphere's so-called smoking gun "death to the AGW theory". The reference benchmark being - the CERN scientists and their commentary/published works - not the denialsphere and all it's manufactured hoopla/misinformation.

- in the case of the reconstruction, equally, the reference benchmark is the published work of the scientists involved. Michael, given your posting history, I suspect the following is in your natural radar: that if you truly head down this rat-hole, at the end of the day you will arrive at 2 camps, firmly entrenched. No single issue, no single paper (or series of 98/99/2008 papers) has garnered more attention from the denialsphere. And of course, you know why... the symbolism that the single scientist, Mann (and his work), carries for denialists. If you haven't recognized it yet, the paper's supplemental methodologies, processing and data is open source... that open source material has been plowed through to the nth-degree... by both camps. And yet, as I keep highlighting, there remains the reference benchmark - the scientists and their commentary/published works - not the denialsphere and all it's manufactured misinformation. Again, the paper in question sits... remains... has been the formal record of account for 3+ years. The formal record of account, in spite of TimG's "authoritative" 100% certainty pronouncement... you know, the one that rises to the level of his 2D image analysis!

[Michael Hardner]

well... I guess that's an update.

how about some general thoughts on your part...

Generally... it seems to be about absolute value of data versus signed difference. Given that it took me two hours to get to this point, I don't know if I'll ever be able to understand it fully. I am reading the original paper, plus comments - not unlike yours and TimG's - back and forth.

Don't wait for me to catch up, and don't expect me to necessarily come to any conclusion on this by the way. Just carry on... my opinions are my own and of no consequence to the overall debate. If you disagree with me, then rest assured that I may be just wrong.

- in the case of the reconstruction, equally, the reference benchmark is the published work of the scientists involved. Michael, given your posting history, I suspect the following is in your natural radar: that if you truly head down this rat-hole, at the end of the day you will arrive at 2 camps, firmly entrenched. No single issue, no single paper (or series of 98/99/2008 papers) has garnered more attention from the denialsphere.

Well, ok. Again, I'll form my own opinion.

[TimG]

Generally... it seems to be about absolute value of data versus signed difference.

My point is quite narrow and unaffected the distinction. The error Mann made was to use regression against data that is so contaminated that the direction of the correlation was reversed by the contamination. There is no statistical algorithm in existence that can correct for such contamination.

That said, I did not expect you to dive into the entire debate. My hope was you would look at the narrow point I am making and come to the conclusion that I am right and Mann did make an error here (and waldo is blowing smoke). Once we have agreement on that we could discuss the entire "what does it really mean" question. I don't see any point of getting into that unless you can come to a definitive conclusion on the narrow point I am making. I picked this particular issue because I feel all the information you need to make a definitive conclusion is in the paper. It is not like many other issues in this debate which come down to a question of opinion.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you tried to answer these questions:

1) What is the physical relationship between temperature and the proxy described in the paper?

2) What does the data suggest is happening to temps in the last 100 years given this relationship?

Edited March 10, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

My point is quite narrow and unaffected the distinction. The error Mann made was to use regression against data that is so contaminated that the direction of the correlation was reversed by the contamination. There is no statistical algorithm in existence that can correct for such contamination.

no, again - the respective (4) correlations did not/do not change - a proxy either has (is given) a positive or a negative correlation. Notwithstanding, suggestion is that Tiljander actually got one of the 4 proxy correlations incorrect... but I digress. This is nothing more than you, once again, trumpeting your mystical, blowing smoke, "correlation shifting". Write it up - submit a formal comment challenge to the paper... oh, is there a problem? Again: "the Mann2008 regression algorithm is blind to proxy orientation, whether EIV or CPS methodologies ("Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors")... proxy pre-screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds").

[jbg]

note to Michael Hardner: TimG is asking you to eyeball a graphic image from the proxy authors paper and draw definitive and absolute conclusion... rather than actually rely upon (challenge to) the actual methodology/processing within the Mann et al paper. TimG has taken to argument by authority claiming the proxy authors paper as the "authoritative source".[/indent]

You seem to have lots of problems with "eyeballs". At least I'm not alone.

[olpfan1]

This does not exactly help the global warmers here

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/how-did-this-past-winter-rank-1/62642

The winter of 2011-2012 (Dec, Jan, Feb) for the northern hemisphere was the 13th warmest since 1880, but 4th coldest since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

These are observed temperature/ocean surface measurements.

During this past winter in the Northern Hemisphere the average temperature was 0.58 C above normal.

Globally, the Dec, Jan, Feb period was the 14th warmest since 1880 and the 4th coolest since 2000. The temperature anomaly was 0.40 C above normal, according to the GISS data.

[Michael Hardner]

This does not exactly help the global warmers here

I don't know if I'm a "global warmer" but I just like to read the facts.

[TimG]

I don't know if I'm a "global warmer" but I just like to read the facts.

Can you try answering the questions I posed about facts in the Tiljander paper? Edited March 11, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

This does not exactly help the global warmers here

is your understanding and expectation that warming is... linear? Have a cookie!

Can you try answering the questions I posed about facts in the Tiljander paper?

oh my!

[jbg]

Can you try answering the questions I posed about facts in the Tiljander paper?

The warmistas are never persuaded by actual temperature data.

[waldo]

You seem to have lots of problems with "eyeballs". At least I'm not alone.

The warmistas are never persuaded by actual temperature data.

I ignored your first snipe... but not the second. About your favoured 'eyeballing' temperature data - good times!

[Michael Hardner]

My point is quite narrow and unaffected the distinction. The error Mann made was to use regression against data that is so contaminated that the direction of the correlation was reversed by the contamination. There is no statistical algorithm in existence that can correct for such contamination.

Ok... so the 'upside down' comment doesn't matter ?

[TimG]

Ok... so the 'upside down' comment doesn't matter ?

Actually the opposite. Mann used an algorithm that does not care about sign when he should have cared about the sign. When he used the algorithm it flipped the data 'upside down' because of contamination in the last 150 years fooled the algorithm into believing the data was negatively correlated when the data is actually positively correlated.

If he had applied the algorithm correctly he would have discarded this series because there was no correlation with temperatures in the calibration period.

Why won't you answer the questions I posed above?

Edited March 12, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Actually the opposite. Mann used an algorithm that does not care about sign when he should have cared about the sign. When he used the algorithm it flipped the data 'upside down' because of contamination in the last 150 years fooled the algorithm into believing the data was negatively correlated when the data is actually positively correlated.

If he had applied the algorithm correctly he would have discarded this series because there was no correlation with temperatures in the calibration period.

Why won't you answer the questions I posed above?

Because I don't understand the issues fully yet.

[waldo]

Actually the opposite.

well that's one interpretation... your a parroted McIntyre interpretation. I can, and have, posted others.

in your fluster to get Michael to answer your questions, how about you finally answer the one you keep avoiding - like the plague! Much to your chagrin, prevailing science/papers isn't determined through denier blogs. Denier blog science does not rule! Clearly, legitimate scientists respond to formal challenge through the recognized scientific peer-review/response cycle.

as I said just a few posts back, McIntyre has flogged this to the nth degree... he spawned a veritable cottage industry with his acolytes carrying his "decree" forward. As you're well aware, aside from McIntyre, there's also the cast of usual suspects who purport to have taken the Mann et al paper/supplementals open source apart. Yet... yet... over 3+ years not a single one them, including McIntyre, has seen fit to shift off the cozy confines of their sheltered and safe blogWorld to issue a formal challenge to the paper. Most remarkable in that, of course, Mann is the denier's symbolic attack figure head... so remarkable that, apparently, no one can bring themselves forward to attempt to formally/officially usurp the Mann et al paper. Go figure!

why is that TimG? Why can't McIntyre, why can't his posse, put forward a formal challenge? Is there a problem? 3+ years and counting... is there a problem? In all your personal puffery, in your recently stated 100% certainty, why don't you take up the charge... personally? Bring him down... bring the Mann down! Is there a problem?

[waldo]

TimG squawking about failed peer-review/response in 5...4...3...2...

[TimG]

well that's one interpretation

You are clueless fool who has nothing to contribute because you do not understand the material being discussed. All you can is post talking points that you do not understand and cannot explain.

Unlike you, I actually understand the material and I am posting my own arguments in my own words. I would be happy to discuss with you any problems you have with those arguments but that will require that to demonstrate that you actually understand them first. You have failed to do so in 30 pages of posts.

Edited March 13, 2012 by TimG