CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[TimG]

Right. So I actually took several undergraduate courses in statistical regression, so ... I'm not sure that what you're paraphrasing makes sense, and I can't ask you to explain it because you're paraphrasing it.

So did I. And I don't have a clue why you are confused. The problems are immediately obvious to me when I first read it. I think part of the problem is you can't bring yourself to accept that Mann is simply incompetent so you are looking for any explanation other than the obvious.

But you admit that you don't understand the science itself, so what is it based on ?

I have no problems understanding it. I can follow the logic and it all makes sense to me. I just have not done the hard work of replicating these reconstructions and figuring out what is wrong. Edited September 13, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Have you personally done linear regression?

[Michael Hardner]

I think part of the problem is you can't bring yourself to accept that Mann is simply incompetent so you are looking for any explanation other than the obvious.

The idea that Mann is incompetent is indeed difficult for me to conceive, given his status in the scientific community. If he was as incompetent as is suggested, and his co-publishers were conceivably incompetent too, and nobody criticized their papers, or caught their errors in peer review then I would indeed think that you are correct.

The problem is that the proof is deep in the science here. McIntyre has roughly the same academic background as me, and ostensibly worked in multivariate analysis too so...

I have no problems understanding it. I can follow the logic and it all makes sense to me. I just have not done the hard work of replicating these reconstructions and figuring out what is wrong.

Your quote:

"I am paraphrasing material I get from various sources but mostly McIntrye when it comes to proxies."

You're not understanding "it", you seem to be understanding McIntyre's framing of the issues.

I want to go back again and read his criticism.

[TimG]

The idea that Mann is incompetent is indeed difficult for me to conceive, given his status in the scientific community. If he was as incompetent as is suggested, and his co-publishers were conceivably incompetent too, and nobody criticized their papers, or caught their errors in peer review then I would indeed think that you are correct.

Here is another paper by Kaufman that originally made the same error that Mann did. They issued a correction and thanked H. McCulloch who is one of the contributors to ClimateAudit:

http://www.arcus.org/synthesis2k/synthesis/Correction_and_Clarification.pdf

"Recent warming reverses long-term Arctic cooling" by D. S. Kaufman et al. (4 September 2009, p. 1236). Of the 23 previously published proxy temperature records included in the synthesis, 4 were corrected to conform to the interpretations of the original authors

...

We thank H. McCulloch and others who have pointed out errors and have offered suggestions. The original conclusions of the paper have been strengthened as a result.

Here is the original discussion at ClimateAudit.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/03/kaufmann-and-upside-down-mann/

Are you still going to insist that Mann could not have made any errors even after seeing evidence that other scientists corrected their paper to fix the same error AND thanked ClimateAudit contributors for pointing it out?

Edited September 13, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

That climate audit site is interesting, but it's not written in an academic tone... more editorial with some persuasive language thrown in.

With regards to the upside-down data question, they post this:

I’m sure we’ll soon hear that this error doesn’t “matter”. Team errors never seem to. And y’know, it’s probably correct that it doesn’t “matter” whether the truncated Tiljander (and probably a number of other series) are used upside-down or not. The fact that such errors don’t “matter” surely says something not only about the quality of workmanship but of the methodology itself.

It seems to be mostly personal with these guys.

Examples:

Testing MBH without the Graybill bristlecones provoked screams of outrage

They, like you, are more concerned with the scientists than the science. I don't know what to make of it in the end.

[waldo]

But Michael - WHAT current warming. There's been nothing for 15 years. Remember what Kevin Trenberth said in 2009?

"It's "travesty" that "we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment."

it's a travesty the simple recycle their own MLW crapola:

It was giddily funny that Kevin Trenberth's comment that

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

tied up the Alarmist community in Knots....and ultimately having them scampering to the theory of the Earth's heat budget and that pesky missing warming must be somewhere - we just can't find it.

the surest sign of the vanquished... poor Simple ton is having to resort to recycled Hackergate nonsense... poor, poor pathetic Simple ton!

of course, this trumped up denier attempt to distort Trenberth's hacked email statement has been soundly dispatched - few deniers have the stones to actually bring it forward again... of course, that won't hold back the desperate Simple ton - hey? Within MLW we covered this piece of bogus Hackergate fluff -

here

- a few select quotes from that previous MLW post:

Within the hacked email thread, Trenberth offers a reply where he mentions

his own paper

, offers local weather anecdotes, names his paper (

An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

) & provides a link to locate it... and then offers the much parroted quote:

From: Kevin Trenberth <[email protected]>

To: Michael Mann <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600

Cc: Stephen H Schneider <[email protected]>, Myles Allen <[email protected]>, peter stott <[email protected]>, "Philip D. Jones" <[email protected]>, Benjamin Santer <[email protected]>, Tom Wigley <[email protected]>, Thomas R Karl <[email protected]>, Gavin Schmidt <[email protected]>, James Hansen <[email protected]>, Michael Oppenheimer <[email protected]>

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.

..... it could be just as simple as omitting a single word... oh, like the word, "

increased

" - “

the lack of

increased

warming

”… but a word really unnecessary given the context of the email thread topic/discussion. But hey now!

So what did Trenberth really say... contextually say... in the context of his noted paper reference? The paper where he unequivocally states that long-term global warming is occurring; that the long-term trend shows an upward trend with strong decadal oscillations and that within this trend pattern are many natural variances, each at different timescales… … where the 90s had a greater rate of warming, partially due to the strong El Nino of 1998, while the 2000s have been of slower warming… still warming, but relatively less than the 90s.

The essence of Trenberth’s paper, the one his quote reflects upon (the paper he names/links, after the altered quote being parroted by the denialsphere)… is one that speaks to an assessment of that natural variability in terms of being able to track the natural variability energy that gets rearranged or changed within the climate system. Trenberth’s paper, his explanation of his own hacked email quote… has nothing to do with Riverwind’s continued unfounded slams toward climate models. Trenberth suggests the ability to track natural variances, the energy rearrangements/changes associated with them, is not robust… that developing improved methods of tracking the energy changes associated with natural variance is required… you know – because it might help to account for the “

lack of

increased

warming

” seen in latter years, relative to the 90s.

But hey now! Trenberth’s assertion that improvement in measuring/tracking natural variance energy “flow changes”, surely, can’t be good for the deniers who want to hang their hat on natural variance, if they even admit that global warming is occurring. You know, the denier bunch who themselves can’t provide any support around their natural variance claims… the denier bunch who can’t actually provide any evidence that measures and tracks radiative (heat) flux changes associated with natural variances (the “stuff” Trenberth says needs improvement)... the denier bunch who can’t actually provide any evidence to soundly refute AGW global warming. Surely, the denier bunch can’t be… won’t be… in favour of Trenberth’s assertion that would actually help them make their case in support of natural variance. Noooooo… they would rather anally line-by-line parse emails and sling mud… cause they can!

And this... this... is the kind of bullshit being trumped up through the denialsphere and on into the mainstream... and into MLW by the denier parrots.

Remember - scientists haven't proven what amount of warming can be attributed to CO2 - they just know that it has the capacity to affect climate. They just don't know what else could cause excessive warming other than CO2 - that's the only thing they can feed into their models to make things "work". Well, now they have to start paying more serious attention to cosmic rays and clouds - instead of arbitrarily brushing them off as insignificant.

please don't hesitate to bring forward GCM models... any GCM models... that, without including a CO2 driver, can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming. Certainly, your denier camp must have models...

as always, whenever the woefully challenged presume to isolate and target models... see empirical evidence!

[waldo]

Yes they do. CAGW scientists go nuts whether someone suggests that something other than CO2 can explain the warming of the last 30 years. CO2 and only CO2 is only acceptable answer. Never mind that fact that every climate model uses different values for aerosol forcings - values which are conveniently pick to give them whatever cooling is required to make their models match reality. Nothing suspious there.

citation request. Additionally, advise what aerosols you're speaking to, what forcing levels you're objecting to and, more pointedly, what alternate forcing levels you interpret/understand should be, as you state, "conveniently picked"... additionally, offer substantiation to your alternates. Thanks in advance.

[waldo]

The one where the editor resigned. It appears that some CAGW scientists are retracting many of their statements about the paper:

no - I am reading that the AGW proponent scientist you explicitly reference, Dressler, will not be changing the content of his (pre-publication release) paper that expressly criticizes/refutes the woefully failed Spencer paper... however, after the one-on-one that Spencer-Dressler subsequently had, Dressler will be changing his paper's intro that describes Spencer's "opinion" regarding clouds/ENSO... that is to say, what is Spencer really presuming to say in his paper (in Spencer's own words) about clouds/ENSO. Nothing really unexpected since Spencer opted to do a run-around a proper peer-review.

[waldo]

The point is there is nothing wrong with the paper. It is as legimate as any other paper on the topic. CAGW are going nuts because it presents an alternate theory of climate.

aside from your standard, commonplace hyperbole, just which AGW proponent scientists, as you say, are "going nuts"... name the names!

=> what alternate theory of climate change is Spencer presuming to present and how is he substantiating his premise? You earlier touted the CERN/CLOUD, Spencer and Lindzen "papers" as attribution studies, offering an alternate causal tie/linkage for the enhanced/accelerated warming. In keeping with this threads OP focus on CERN/CLOUD, I've repeatedly challenged you to support your attribution claim in regards to CERN/CLOUD. Equally, now, please present the substantiation behind Spencer2011 as an alternate attribution claim. Again, exactly what has Spencer claimed... it should be quite easy for you to summarize, including the points of substantiation.

[waldo]

TimG,

By the way - this is the paper that I was looking for when we were debating tree ring data, and is still central to our discussion:

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

This paper has been thoroughly debunked by skeptics. Steve McIntyre even had a comment published journal that cover some of the numerous flaws (journal comments are too short to allow for complete rebuttals).

Do you have a cite for the reviews of that paper? I didn't hear of that. I'd like to read it.

You need to read climate audit to see the details. Mann's response is basically 'he's wrong cause I say he's wrong'.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E10.full?ijkey=fd66eca213073d94ce932b2f65983effbf907d13&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

I found the response, actually. It gets kind of difficult to read if you don't know the acronyms but if MM don't agree with the response, it's certainly open for them to prove themselves right by refuting these clear points:

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E11.full

yes, Michael... we've beat this one up in several past MLW threads. At the end of the day, this is simply another example of one of the more fervent lapdogs of "blog scientist McIntyre", rising to the call. We could rehash the nonsense the never-ending auditor spews; however, as you most clearly point out... the MBH PNAS comment was issued: Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust. As is the way of the never-ending auditor, McIntyre prefers his own controlled blog sandbox on so many, many levels. He most certainly had/has the prerogative to formally comment on that 2009 MBH reply comment... he most certainly could have formally published his own paper... on anything related to past MBH reconstructions, or reconstructions proper... rather than foster a decades+ never-ending audit facade through the blogging denialsphere. What's he waiting for TimG?

[waldo]

There was no misrepresentation. The paper is perfectly acceptable. This entire story is about an editor deciding that would be bad for his career to defend this paper so he did a very public resignation for reasons that make no sense if you read them literally.

Oh thats funny! I was sure someone claimed more than a half dozen times he was "forced out", and even started a thread with that as the title.

bloody hell... dre, you beat me to it! I was partial to TimG's earlier implication that "the climate mafia (aka, the "TEAM"), had reached in and threatened to never publish in the journal... the journal "they've" never published in... the journal that, prior to Spencer's end-around, had never published a climate change related paper.

[Michael Hardner]

He most certainly had/has the prerogative to formally comment on that 2009 MBH reply comment... he most certainly could have formally published his own paper... on anything related to past MBH reconstructions, or reconstructions proper... rather than foster a decades+ never-ending audit facade through the blogging denialsphere. What's he waiting for TimG?

This seems pertinent - TimG?

[waldo]

Here is another paper by Kaufman that originally made the same error that Mann did. They issued a correction and thanked H. McCulloch who is one of the contributors to ClimateAudit:

http://www.arcus.org/synthesis2k/synthesis/Correction_and_Clarification.pdf

Are you still going to insist that Mann could not have made any errors even after seeing evidence that other scientists corrected their paper to fix the same error AND thanked ClimateAudit contributors for pointing it out?

interesting... "J.H. McCulloch" (Ohio State economist). Clearly, given your past acknowledgement that, "the science is secondary to you", I can appreciate you would prefer your brand of "contributor" to be ensconced in economics. (hey now... about your other guy, McKitrick!!!).

in any case, using your own linked reference, Kaufman states, "that it doesn’t matter whether Tiljander is used upside down"... which pointedly aligns with the formal reply comment from MBH that specifically addressed this McIntyre nonsense... this Kaufman statement hardly has the dressings of your puffery comments on, "error, correction and paper reissue".

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. 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. 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.

(the above presumes that your 'correction' reference had you barking about the Tiljander proxy... and not PCA (re: MBH98/99) - which, of course, highlights the never-ending aspect of McIntyre's selective audit... back to 1998. Aside from the real world having moved on... many years ago... McIntyre still is determined to, "break the hockey stick"! Notwithstanding, of course, MBH fully qualified and substantiated their use of PCA, that Wahl-Amman absolutely and unequivocally presented an independent assessment that showed the MBH use of PCA (in terms of the de-centered data) was...

irrelevant/insignificant

... to their results... that it introduced a 'bias' in the order of +/- 0.02 (mean 0.023) degrees C. Again, irrelevant/insignificant... but don't let that stop McIntyre and his minions from continuing a decades+ long crusade to (attempt to) "slay the hockey stick". Notwithstanding the many, many reconstructions in the ensuing decade, from other scientists, that have acted to validate the original reconstruction from MBH.)

of course, we should speak directly to the most salient point from your other supplied link... re: correction/clarification, where you presume to imply they had an impact on the results of the Kaufman paper... which they didn't. As Kaufman states in your own supplied link reference:

The primary trends of the Arctic temperature reconstruction, however, are not changed, including the millennial-scale summer cooling that was reversed by strong warming during the 20th century and (on the basis of the instrumental record) continued through the last decade

and... never let me pass on an opportunity to leverage your own supplied links... in this case, the Kaufman study that states, "The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000".

I expect the Scientific American take on the Kaufman study didn't/doesn't sit well with you, hey TimG? --- Global Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling - Humans and climate change can take credit for a much warmer Arctic, according to new research

[noahbody]

I expect the Scientific American take on the Kaufman study didn't/doesn't sit well with you, hey TimG? --- Global Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling - Humans and climate change can take credit for a much warmer Arctic, according to new research

According to that study, burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees has saved us from 4000 years of colder weather.

[Pliny]

Not sure about the numbers for warming on the past 15 years, but Greenland is still melting at an accelerated rate, even faster than predicted. Glaciers are rapidly disappearing worldwide.

Pics of Greenland glacier melt shocks expert

This particular glacier, the Petermann Glacier was a floating glacier in a fiord and broke off.

It is currently floating past Newfoundland and is quite huge.

I bet by a comparison of those two photos, one from July 24, 2009 and the other from July 24, 2011 makes you think that all that ice just plain melted. It didn't. it will melt when it floats down to Bermuda somewhere.

[waldo]

and... never let me pass on an opportunity to leverage your own supplied links... in this case, the Kaufman study that states, "The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000".

According to that study, burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees has saved us from 4000 years of colder weather.

in terms of the study, proper, and its proxy reconstruction data presenting a cooling pole (re: changing orbital eccentricity)... when you speak of an interruption to the Arctic's millennial-long natural cooling cycle, as in "saved us"... just what part of the Arctic are you living in, anyway?

[TimG]

This seems pertinent - TimG?

I really have no interest in waldo's attempts to change the topic. The issue here is quite simple. Mann 2008 made a dumb error with a few proxies. This error happened to undermine one of the critical conclusions of the paper (an non-tree ring reconstruction). McIntyre submitted a comment and Mann blew him off (why an editor allowed Mann to essentially ignore McIntyre's argument is an open question). Mann later indirectly concedes that McIntyre is right but buries the concession in the SI of another paper. Mann should have submitted a correction to Mann 2008. This is proper scientific procedure which Mann refused to follow AND the editors allowed him to get away with it. The fact that Kaufman submitted a correction for the same error that did not change his conclusions provides further evidence that Mann is being allowed to get away with shoddy work.

This failure of the scientific establishment to stand up for good science should be the most concern to you. Whether McIntrye submits other comments or writes other papers is completely irrelevant. Such arguments are nothing but noise generated by waldo attempting to avoid the issue.

Edited September 14, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

Here is a reference to M2009 SI where Mann clearly acknowledges everything I said above but buries it in the SI for another paper instead of issuing a correction to his papers that would ensure that everyone knew his claims don't stand up:

Figure S8: Sensitivity of NH mean reconstruction to exclusion of selected proxy record. Reconstructions are shown based on “all proxy” network (red, with two standard error region shown in yellow) proxy network with all tree-ring records removed (blue),

proxy network with a group of 7 long-term proxy with greater uncertainties and/or potential biases as discussed in ref. S1 (brown) and both tree-ring data and the group of 7 records removed (green; dashed before AD 1500 indicates reconstruction no longer passes validation).

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxySpatial09/SuppInfo.pdf

The issue here is quite simple. Mann 2008 made a dumb error with a few proxies. This error happened to undermine one of the critical conclusions of the paper (an non-tree ring reconstruction). McIntyre submitted a comment and Mann blew him off (why an editored allowed Mann to essentially ignore McIntyre's argument is an open question). Mann later concedes that McIntyre is right but buries the concession in the SI of another paper. Mann should have submitted a correction to Mann 2008. This is proper scientific procedure which Mann refused to follow AND the editors allowed him to get away with it. The fact that Kaufman submitted a correction for the same error provides further evidence that Mann is being allowed to get away with shoddy work.

ya, ya... that's right TimG, your McIntyre fueled target, Mann, is your source to acknowledge "everything"... you... say. To be clear, you're addressing usage of a papers supplemental information (SI); the typically common vehicle for explicit supporting detail, graphs, data, etc. In this case, per your linked reference and specific quotation of the Mann2009-SI - Figure S8, you're claiming it was used as a means to, as you stated, "correct Mann2008, and bury the correction in the Mann2009-SI". Of course, the Mann2008 reply certainly does not address any required or acknowledged corrective measures... more pointedly, Mann2008 and its SI clearly addresses what you presume to state was, "corrected and buried within the SI of another paper - Mann2009-SI". Specifically, Mann2008 and its SI - Figure S7 & S8:

=> Mann2008-SI - Figure S7: Comparison of long-term CPS NH land (S7a) and EIV NH land plus ocean (full global proxy network) (S7b)

with and without using tree-ring data

[note, e.g., from Fig. S5B that the ‘‘full proxy network’’ (‘‘no dendro’’ network) reconstructions are not skillful before A.D. 500 (before A.D. 700). The point of this comparison is simply that the anomalousness of recent warming in the long-term context of the reconstructions does not depend on whether or not tree-ring data have been used.]

=> Mann2008-SI - Figure S8: Comparison of long-term CPS NH land (S8a) and EIV NH land plus ocean (S8b) reconstructions (full global proxy network)

both with and without the seven potentially problematic series discussed

.

This failure of the scientific establishment should be the most concern to you. Whether McIntrye submits other comments or writes other papers is completely irrelevant. Such arguments are nothing but noise generated by waldo attempting to avoid the issue.

more grandstanding hyperbole... although it is heartening to see you use your toned down reference to the "scientific establishment" as compared to your recent references to the evil-doers, (aka your use of highly pejorative "Climate Mafia"). In any case, of the few comments and (single?) paper that McIntyre has co-authored, he's been totally carried by others... provided a token co-author acknowledgment. That's certainly what transpired with the couple of McKitrick comments and the recent O’Donnell(2011) paper... McIntyre directly stated as much when he openly admitted to a very small role in the O'Donnell (2011) paper. Of course, after seeing their boy McIntyre suffer through a decades long onslaught of snarc challenges to finally write a paper... any paper... to shut up or put up... he was thrown a bone by O'Donnell

of course, there is a most significant relevance to McIntyre avoiding formal channels, avoiding formal peer-review... allowing real scientists an opportunity to expose his long running blogfest charade for what it truly is. As it stands, surrounded by his adoring minions, McIntyre (the "blogging scientist... who isn't a scientist, who does no research and writes no papers), sits back in his throne, touting himself as a simple, "auditor of the people". Of course, that audit is totally and completely a one-way selective pursuit that never gets turned inward to presume to "audit" so-called skeptical papers... notwithstanding, of course, most of the past decade has seen McIntyre, like a junkyard dog, fixated with the hockey-stick and Michael Mann. Unfortunately for McIntyre, the self-styled "slayer of the hockey-stick" hasn't ever been able to "break the hockey-stick". That most of climate science has progressed beyond the significance of the hockey-stick, that "most everyone" has moved on, hasn't dampened McIntyre's enthusiasm and relentless pursuit; i.e., "the never-ending auditor/audit"!. McIntyre certainly has a lot of hot air to release... he just never can quite channel that into any actual papers to presume to, if nothing else, offer challenge... notwithstanding, presumably, an opportunity to actually contribute to scientific knowledge.

[waldo]

Here's the article. Click on it to enlarge.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png

The hysteria and momentum of AGW is largely due to the word "unprecidented." That's not the case.

Interesting reading. There isn't much difference in today's news. What was missing was any alarmism surrounding the findings.

guys, guys... yours is quite a favourite for WTFIUWT TV-weatherman devotees!

alternatively, for your consideration and edification:

=>

per Met Office HadISST data - Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

=>

per Met Office HadISST & Satellite data - Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

=>

per Piomas - Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly & Trend - updated Aug31,2011

=>

per NSIDC - Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies - updated Aug,2011

So the melting of iceburgs, disappearance of landmarks, change in fauna can all be chalked up as weather? If you didn't click on the article, it's a detailed account from a sea captain who sailed the arctic for 54 years. If anything it indicates the GISST data from that era is far from accurate.

your account has it's anecdotal place... as for whether or not your anecdotal account should be, as you state, "chalked up as weather", I will certainly defer to your reference's title => "November, 1922 Monthly Weather Review". I expect you wouldn't appreciate the highly sophisticated data analysis techniques involved in the respective anomaly/trend graphics I linked to... but at least get the high-level dataset attachments right, hey? (GISS is NASA's dataset naming convention, notwithstanding there is no such thing as GISST)

[waldo]

PNAS does not print comments on comments. If you want to know MM's response you will have read ClimateAudit.

uhhh... well you, yourself, provided the link for the original MM comment to the Mann08 paper; Michael provided the link for the return MBH comment on the MM comment (a "comment on a comment"). In any case, even if one were to accept your claim, there was/is nothing stopping McIntyre/McKitrick from submitting their own paper (in 'whatever' journal), to extend upon/challenge the Mann08 paper (notwithstanding its datedness at this point)... that is, nothing stopping them other than McIntyre's desire to perpetuate the gatekeeper meme, to keep his never-ending audit alive and, most importantly, to allow him an ever present outlet to throw raw-meat to his loyal lappers, those who fawn adoringly over his postured self-importance.

[Michael Hardner]

I really have no interest in waldo's attempts to change the topic. The issue here is quite simple. Mann 2008 made a dumb error with a few proxies. This error happened to undermine one of the critical conclusions of the paper (an non-tree ring reconstruction). McIntyre submitted a comment and Mann blew him off (why an editor allowed Mann to essentially ignore McIntyre's argument is an open question). Mann later indirectly concedes that McIntyre is right but buries the concession in the SI of another paper. Mann should have submitted a correction to Mann 2008. This is proper scientific procedure which Mann refused to follow AND the editors allowed him to get away with it. The fact that Kaufman submitted a correction for the same error that did not change his conclusions provides further evidence that Mann is being allowed to get away with shoddy work.

So I get from this two points:

1. The error didn't really matter, so Mann's paper stands.

2. Mann refused to admit his error, however small. This speaks to ego, and personality clashes between the individuals involved. That's fine, but does Mann have a blog too? Does he slam McIntyre on it?

This failure of the scientific establishment to stand up for good science should be the most concern to you. Whether McIntrye submits other comments or writes other papers is completely irrelevant. Such arguments are nothing but noise generated by waldo attempting to avoid the issue.

Ok, but according to McIntyre the 'upaide-downness' didn't make a difference, right?

[Sir Bandelot]

I really have no interest in waldo's attempts to change the topic. The issue here is quite simple. Mann 2008 made a dumb error with a few proxies. This error happened to undermine one of the critical conclusions of the paper (an non-tree ring reconstruction).

Well none of this directly addresses the CERN data anyway.

[TimG]

1. The error didn't really matter, so Mann's paper stands.

I linked a graph from the SI of Mann 2009 where Mann admits the error DOES matter. The error DOES matter because the reconstruction is not significant prior to 1500 if tree rings and the lake sediments were excluded. This lack of significance DOES affect one of the claims made in the paper (a reconstruction with no tree rings).

2. Mann refused to admit his error, however small. This speaks to ego, and personality clashes between the individuals involved.

Editors of journals are expected to be above such things. If an editor receives a comment on a paper that materially affects one of the paper's conclusions he should be requiring that the author submit a correction. Allowing an author to blow off a legimate comment because of ego demonstrates that the scientific process IS failing.

That's fine, but does Mann have a blog too? Does he slam McIntyre on it?

Yes. It is called Real Climate and it was set up in 2003 with the specific purpose of trashing McIntyre.

Ok, but according to McIntyre the 'upaide-downness' didn't make a difference, right?

There are two different papers. In Mann 2008 it made a huge difference because Mann used the 200 years of bad data because his algorithm needed it. In Kaufman it made no difference because Kaufman excluded those 200 years because his different algorithm did not need it. But even though it did not make a difference Kaufman still submitted a correction. That makes it really clear that the scientific process is failing when it comes to Mann and his papers. Edited September 14, 2011 by TimG

[noahbody]

[/size]

your account has it's anecdotal place... as for whether or not your anecdotal account should be, as you state, "chalked up as weather", I will certainly defer to your reference's title => "November, 1922 Monthly Weather Review".

So you're saying at least four years of warming is weather because it was under an article with "weather"in the title? Give me a break.

I expect you wouldn't appreciate the highly sophisticated data analysis techniques involved in the respective anomaly/trend graphics I linked to...

Their analysis is only as good as their data. There was nothing sophisticated about gathering data at that time. By 1918, the captain said there had been great change throughout the seasons. According to the graph, this didn't happen.

GISS is NASA's dataset naming convention, notwithstanding there is no such thing as GISST)

GISST is what was used prior to HadISST. Before satellites came into the picture, data collection was a bit primitive.

[waldo]

1. The error didn't really matter, so Mann's paper stands.

I linked a graph from the SI of Mann 2009 where Mann admits the error DOES matter. The error DOES matter because the reconstruction is not significant prior to 1500 if tree rings and the lake sediments were excluded. This lack of significance DOES affect one of the claims made in the paper (a reconstruction with no tree rings).

Michael, your inference presumes upon an actual error... again, per the (now many times linked) MannBradleyHughes comment reply:

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. 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.

the Mann2008 paper's methodology relied upon a, "localized calibration-to-instrumental temperature weighting"... hence, the "suspect" proxies one-way usage. That possible suspect nature of the proxies was well known/understood (re: non-climatic influenced contamination) - Mann et al, 2008 authors fully recognized this, chose to still use the proxies and applied appropriate caveats and processing within the paper... as I fully qualified earlier, the issue was most certainly addressed in the paper (showing processing results, with or without, the "suspect" proxies)... again, the final reconstruction was not significantly affected with their inclusion, or not.

let me add to my earlier post reference... now including the Mann2008 papers most explicit wording on, "Potential data quality problems":

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.

In addition there are three other records in our database with potential data quality problems, as noted in the database notes: Benson et al. (13) (Mono Lake): ‘‘Data after 1940 no good— water exported to CA;’’ Isdale (14) (fluorescence): ‘‘anthropogenic influence after 1870;’’ and McCulloch (15) (Ba/Ca): ‘‘anthropogenic influence after 1870’’.

We therefore performed additional analyses as in Fig. S7, but instead compaired the reconstructions both with and without the above seven potentially problematic series, as shown in Fig. S8.

again, as previously posted:

ya, ya... that's right TimG, your McIntyre fueled target, Mann, is your source to acknowledge "everything"...

you

... say. To be clear, you're addressing usage of a papers supplemental information (SI); the typically common vehicle for explicit supporting detail, graphs, data, etc. In this case, per your linked reference and specific quotation of the Mann2009-SI - Figure S8, you're claiming it was used as a means to, as you stated, "correct Mann2008, and bury the correction in the Mann2009-SI". Of course, the

Mann2008 reply

certainly does not address any required or acknowledged corrective measures... more pointedly, Mann2008 and its SI clearly addresses what you presume to state was, "corrected and buried within the SI of another paper - Mann2009-SI". Specifically,

Mann2008 and its SI - Figure S7 & S8

:

=> Mann2008-SI - Figure S7: Comparison of long-term CPS NH land (S7a) and EIV NH land plus ocean (full global proxy network) (S7b)

with and without using tree-ring data

[note, e.g., from Fig. S5B that the ‘‘full proxy network’’ (‘‘no dendro’’ network) reconstructions are not skillful before A.D. 500 (before A.D. 700). The point of this comparison is simply that the anomalousness of recent warming in the long-term context of the reconstructions does not depend on whether or not tree-ring data have been used.]

=> Mann2008-SI - Figure S8: Comparison of long-term CPS NH land (S8a) and EIV NH land plus ocean (S8b) reconstructions (full global proxy network)

both with and without the seven potentially problematic series discussed

.

per normal McIntyre inspired tactics, lapper TimG is simply offering a distraction... nothing more, nothing less! Now, Michael... who brought forward the distracting reference/link to this McIntyre fueled distraction... oh... that was you!