Just so it’s easy for eveyone to find an open thread, where discussion of topics not covered in other threads is appropriate, here’s a new one.
Open Thread
April 2, 2008 · 238 Comments
Categories: Global Warming · climate change
Just so it’s easy for eveyone to find an open thread, where discussion of topics not covered in other threads is appropriate, here’s a new one.
Categories: Global Warming · climate change
238 responses so far ↓
Hank Roberts // April 2, 2008 at 6:05 pm
WP goes to a page saying “Discarded” when I click Submit in the “cycle 24″ thread, trying to post an excerpt from:
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/SVECSE2008/
Trying here …
John Mashey // April 2, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Many arguments occur again and again because people:
- Don’t intuit noisy time-series
- Tend to pick out highs and lows
- Think of drawing a straight line from some end point to some other endpoint.
- Are easily seduced by selecting date ranges that are too short or cherry-picked.
HB has done noble work in trying to analyze data in good ways and fix these, but you know, if I had one wish, it would be for another graph or two, in section “Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change” in http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
corresponding that chart.
http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/03/14/first-assume-a-spherical-enso/
has some ideas for a theoretical example. There was an RC post a while ago that showed N-year slopes. I like the kind of graph in Atmoz that graphs the slopes, although turned around so dates increase. [this shows that short-term trends are wild, longer-term ones aren't].
If I had my real druthers, I’d have a little tool that:
a) Started with the Gistemp data.
b) Let me specify a number of years for an interval, and then graphed the slopes.
c) let me specify an end-date, and then graphed the slopes starting from the beginning of the data to that end-date, i.e., with intervals going from X = (end - begin) down to 1, that as the interval shortens, the slopes oscillate around.
BUT, since that’s likely too much to ask for:
a) it would be nice to experiment with good presentation styles, with a goal of picking 1-2 good graph types one would have on the Gistemp page, along with a paragraph to explain them…
and then see if we can talk the NASA folks into putting that in, so that we could just once and for all, point at that for the simple cases.
This blog seems like mostly likely place to develop such a thing.
Lost and Confused // April 2, 2008 at 9:03 pm
From the last Open Thread. Dano, luminous beauty, both of you are being dishonest. Not a single thing in either of your posts refutes *anything* in the Wegman Report. All you have done is effectively said, “Other people got the same results,” which is largely immaterial. The issue at hand is whether the MBH paper was flawed. Rather than discuss this, you simply change the topic, then pretend to have answered the issue.
If you are going to be honest, please either retract your claims of the Wegman Report being “powerfully refuted” or provide a reference which actually addresses the issue. It is baffling to see you claim the Wegman Report was refuted by a paper written before it ever existed.
Hank Roberts // April 2, 2008 at 11:14 pm
> Lost
You’ll find the first post and video here fairly sums it up.
http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/north-on-hockey-stick.html
As Wegman said: “it is obviously time to move on.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/
Dano // April 3, 2008 at 12:10 am
Dano, luminous beauty, both of you are being dishonest…[t]he issue at hand is whether the MBH paper was flawed. Rather than discuss this, you simply change the topic, then pretend to have answered the issue.
Bull pucky. Dishonest my right second toe.
If you want to talk about perfect first papers, fine. Stop taking your meds because the paper in which your meds’ evaluations were first published likely had flaws. Yet here you are, still taking your same meds.
Now. Were the conclusions broadly correct? Yes. The Hockey Stick’s time in the sun as totem and rhetorical device is long gone. The tactic of using it as a device to bring down other conclusions of climate science didn’t work.
Next, does Wegman jump to conclusions regarding anything you wish to be true (climate science being flawed). No. He said it wasn’t his charge.
This issue has been asked and answered many times before, and it is old news. Just because you wish your ideology (and by extension your identity) to be validated despite mountains of evidence means nothing to me.
This issue has no play with decision-makers. Their staffs know what you want to be true is bullsh*t. Decision-makers have been briefed on the science, they haven’t been briefed on a blog entry from Tony Watts’ site or a comment on CA or a column on see-oh-too, as those don’t get play. Decision-makers don’t get briefed on letters from the same few hundred prolific residents of Wingnuttia that appear in newspapers or on comment boards (’GLOBUL WARMIN’S A SCAAAAAM’).
IOW: the denialist fringe does not have play where decisions are made.
The ship has sailed. Denialists and other denizens of Wingnuttia are, effectively, jumping up and down on the dock, wishing for the ship to return. Buh-bye denialists! Buhbyyyyyyye!
If you want to participate in directioning society, jump on board. Otherwise, you are just disturbing the guests and drooling in the punch.
Best,
D
Hank Roberts // April 3, 2008 at 1:48 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
Lost and Confused // April 3, 2008 at 3:48 am
First, to answer Hank Roberts. The video you linked to does not refute the Wegman Report. My point has been, that to my knowledge the Wegman Report is correct, and the MBH paper was flawed. While that video may be informative, it is irrelevant.
Second, to answer Dano. I honestly do not know how to respond. This post is immensely offensive, largely irrelevant and extremely uninformative. I posted to directly question one claim, which to my knowledge was false. The responses are dumbfounding. My point was simply ignored at first, but now it is misrepresented to insult my character.
I know better than to judge a site by a few posters, but this treatment is obscene and disgraceful. I hope the attitude shown here is not representative of the readers or owner of this site.
chriscolose // April 3, 2008 at 5:36 am
Chris has proof that global warming is a liberal, scare-mongering tactic to create a diabolic one world government
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/summary-of-a-century-worth-of-physics/
Will the hippies respond with their “fancy graphs” and “data?”
kim // April 3, 2008 at 6:08 am
Hank, you know the historical record of cloudiness is poor. Also, I think Richard Black is a little confused. Try to make sense of the 5th paragraph from the bottom, with Lockwood in it.
==============================
fred // April 3, 2008 at 7:48 am
L&C, you are right. It is inexplicable in rational terms that people at the same time defend MBH ferociously and to the last detail in defiance of the evidence on it AND also maintain that it is completely irrelevant to AGW.
Europeans who know history will recall in the Dreyfus case the argument that the documents were absolutely not forged, which was paired with the stance that whether they were or not was irrelevant to his guilt. A similar social dynamic is at work.
kim // April 3, 2008 at 11:59 am
Ah, Hank, you note that paragraph has now been changed. It says that solar activity has been declining, where it once said increasing.
And what about that ‘declining’. Might that explain recent cooling?
=========================
Dano // April 3, 2008 at 12:14 pm
This [comment] is immensely offensive, largely irrelevant and extremely uninformative…[t]he responses are dumbfounding..[m]y point was simply ignored… insult my character…this treatment is obscene and disgraceful…
Bah.
This well-worn tactic is generally called ‘concern trolling’, folks.
Let me be brief:
LC, your knowledge is faulty. It has been asked and answered a million times. Catch up to the rest of the planet.
Repeatedly bringing up long-ago refuted argumentation is a tactic called ‘recycling’, one of the top 5 tactics of denialists, FUD purveyors, envirohaters, and those advocating delay.
It is not up to us to waste our time correcting yet another willful denialist. Read some source science, not pre-chewed FUD from right-wing think tanks and their acolytes.
The larger issue is not to correct prolific, obtuse denialists every time they - whack-a-mole-like - pop up with their ignorance, but to correct public misperceptions.
Surely we have folks out there trying to shape public discourse, and we have folks discussing how to make scientists convey information in a way that reg’lur folk understand.
Our education efforts should be directed toward the mainstream, not fringe denialists who don’t want to get it. What are simple ways to conserve? How can we arrange our built environment to reduce energy consumption? What policies are appropriate? Which market signals allow agents to make rational (economic AND social AND environmental) choices?
Best,
D
Gavin's Pussycat // April 3, 2008 at 1:07 pm
fred,
when were you last accused of dishonesty, like Dano was?
(I’ll help you: it’s right here and now.)
Dano’s account both of the correctness and the current significance of MBH98 summarizes the judgment of his peers. Which is all that matters.
Grow up and smell the coffee.
dhogaza // April 3, 2008 at 1:07 pm
1. Mann’s been accused of scientific misconduct by many. This is not a trivial accusation. It is nothing less than an attempt to destroy the man’s reputation.
2. CA and others attack Mann and his work 24/7 and have been doing so for years now. They won’t let it drop. Why should people let them get away with this crap unopposed?
3. You are arguing from a false premise, i.e. that MBH is wrong, that the NAS has said MBH is wrong, etc. There’s no reason whatsoever to allow such falsehoods be propagated unopposed.
Barton Paul Levenson // April 3, 2008 at 1:30 pm
fred posts:
[[L&C, you are right. It is inexplicable in rational terms that people at the same time defend MBH ferociously and to the last detail in defiance of the evidence on it AND also maintain that it is completely irrelevant to AGW. ]]
Of course it’s explicable. Why can’t Mann et al. have written a good paper and at the same time one which is not necessary to prove AGW? You’re assuming that AGW depends on Mann et al. 1998. It doesn’t. Thus our contention that A) Mann’s paper didn’t make any serious mistakes, and B) whether it did or not has no bearing on the issue. Both are true statements.
luminous beauty // April 3, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Lost and Confused,
“I posted to directly question one claim, which to my knowledge was false.”
Your ‘knowledge’ is incorrect, and your complaint of incivility, hypocritical, when your first response to an answer you don’t like is to call people liars.
All that Wegman concluded was that MBH’s use of PCA mighta coulda been maybe a little skewed if it was based on highly randomized numbers. He did no analysis of his own, but relied entirely on the bungled foolishness in M&M03 & 05.
Rutherford, et al., and Wahl & Amman showed conclusively how bungled M&M’s critique was.
Gary North from the NSA said that it made no significant difference.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
If you don’t like it, get lost. (Oops. You already are lost… and confused.
fred,
I don’t defend every jot and tittle of MBH. Every scientific study is undoubtedly flawed in some way, particularly when it is the first of it’s kind. The perfect description of reality has yet to be written. I am concerned, though, with specious accusations besmirching the reputations of honest scientists, and dishonest ’scientists’ using the public commons and ignoring and avoiding refereed publication to spread nonsense.
Does that not concern you?
kim // April 3, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Why defend a mistaken blade and shaft, when they no longer exist?
==============================
fred // April 3, 2008 at 2:21 pm
It is a little hard to believe that something with no bearing on the issue should have featured so prominently in both ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and in the IPCC reports.
[Response: Are you talking about the MBH98 hockey stick, or hockey sticks in general? Didn't "An Inconvenient Truth" get its hockey stick from the ice core studies of Thompson et al.? Didn't the IPCC reports feature quite a few hockey sticks, most of them subsequent to MBH98 and using non-controversial analysis methods?]
As to whether Wegman endorsed MBH, no he did not. The quotes are from the Response to Stupak.
This is not endorsement folks.
kim // April 3, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Tamino, Thompson has admitted that the hockey stick in AIT is Mann’s not his, and that he knew it. His wife has maintained that they had no responsibility to correct it. This is bad stuff. Hu McCulloch has it all documented at climate audit. He was there at an Ohio State conference when it happened.
==================================
[Response: It may be from Mann but it's *not* MBH98. MBH98 only goes back to 1400, the hockey stick used by Gore goes back further than that.]
Hank Roberts // April 3, 2008 at 2:58 pm
And Francisco Franco is still dead, and so is the parrot.
This is a skit, being put on like those standard high school plays, over and over and over.
It’s how the “one true founder” notion of how the world works gets played out, when someone with that point of view approaches science for the first time.
Science isn’t like a great and massive tree with one huge taproot — that can be toppled if you cut off that first root.
Science grows like kudzu wherever there’s fresh material.
Early work is good to the extent it’s cited by subsequent work extending on and correcting it.
Attacks on ‘founders’ are religious attacks. They’re risible, in science.
It was obviously time to move on several years ago, when Wegman said “it is obviously time to move on.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/
matt // April 3, 2008 at 3:01 pm
BPL: Thus our contention that A) Mann’s paper didn’t make any serious mistakes, and B) whether it did or not has no bearing on the issue. Both are true statements.
Has their been a paper since MBH that has replaced MBH’s historical reconstruction that wasn’t nearly as contentious (eg. relied on bristlecone pines or foxtails)?
You are also downplaying just how significant MBH claimed to be at the time in its ability to look back in time. You are right, if this was a first paper from a new PhD, it’d be lost in the stacks someplace. But this wasn’t.
To me, it’s astounding how hard Tamino is on junior scientist wannabees on their errors with pages and pages of text written about how stupid their mistakes are, but he’s never once taken an even partially critical eye about the verification failures of MBH reconstructions. I guess we see what we want to see.
[Response: I did a 5-part series on PCA in order to address the issue. But because I don't come to the conclusion you want, you say I've "never once taken an even partially critical eye..."
I guess YOU only see what you want to see.]
Hank Roberts // April 3, 2008 at 3:13 pm
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/11/big-picture.html
summarised as “if anyone were, hypothetically, to enquire why *others* should continue to care about it… Why is this fight important to the rest of us? The answer is: you shouldn’t. It isn’t.”
Posted by: William Connolley at November 14, 2005 03:38 PM
Here, where those of you who believe you have something new to say can look it up in a handy condensed form:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000631why_does_the_hockey_.html
Nobody’s said anything new about this topic in several years, except our host whose PCA discussion went over the whole question.
Those wishing to start over on the basis that they haven’t read any history and are condemned to repeat it deserve their own thread, if not their own website.
matt // April 3, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Tamino: Response: I did a 5-part series on PCA in order to address the issue. But because I don’t come to the conclusion you want, you say I’ve “never once taken an even partially critical eye…”
I thought I closely read that. You showed why it was useful. You didn’t address the root criticisms that if the bristlecones are removed that the hockeystick collapses. You didn’t address that Mann claims it was “robust” yet it fails r2 verification.
As it stands the believers like to have it both ways, in that they love to cite today was warmer than anytime in the last thousand years. But when called on that statement, they throw their arms up and scream “why do we have to keep going over the hockeystick! Let’s move on!”
If you can answer a single question here: Do you believe it’s true that if bristlecones are removed that the hockeystick shape goes away? If this is NOT true, then I’d like to know. But if it is true, then I’d like to hear a believer agree.
If you can answer a second question: Is it true that the reconstruction fails r2 verification? Is that significant in your mind?
[Response: Both Wahl & Amman (in the peer-reviewed literature), and Mann himself, tested removing the bristlecone pines you and so many others object to. I tried entirely removing the North-American tree ring data (but not in a rigorous way). We all got the same result: the hockey stick remains. As for r2 verification, I haven't run the numbers and I don't know.]
Lost and Confused // April 3, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I am completely baffled. I asked for a simple reference which “powerfully refuted” the Wegman Report, as luminous beauty said existed. The response has largely been to insult me, even with a claim that it “has been answered millions of times” yet, nobody has provided any refutation of the Wegman Report, and luminous beauty now tacitly accepted the MBH paper could be flawed.
Also, dhogaza, you said, “You are arguing from a false premise, i.e. that MBH is wrong, that the NAS has said MBH is wrong, etc. There’s no reason whatsoever to allow such falsehoods be propagated unopposed.” I never said the NAS panel stated such. The closest would be the two statements taken together. 1) The Wegman Report said MBH was flawed. 2) North, heading the NAS panel, said it agreed (or at least, did not disagree) with the Wegman Report. By all means, if this is incorrect, feel free to point out the flaw. However, you have not said how I am wrong. Indeed, nobody has.
There is no reason a simple request for a reference should have attracted so much criticism. I am completely baffled by the posters here. I do not know how anyone could view actions like Dano’s labeling me a “denier” to be anything but dishonest.
matt // April 3, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Tamino: Response: Both Wahl & Amman (in the peer-reviewed literature), and Mann himself, tested removing the bristlecone pines you and so many others object to. I tried entirely removing the North-American tree ring data (but not in a rigorous way). We all got the same result: the hockey stick remains. As for r2 verification, I haven’t run the numbers and I don’t know.]
You really think the hockey stick remains in Ammann? It’s panel C in this plot: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/recon/WEB_examples.jpg
Looks to me that the 1400’s and 1800’s are significantly warmed and the 1900’s are muted bya few 10’sth…you still think it’s a hockey stick?
Others have run the r2 and claim it failed. Do you believe them?
[Response: Then I stand corrected. I note that the reconstruction with equivalent temperature in the 15th century, when subjected to verification, returned the result "without merit."
I have no idea who claimed r2 failure or under what conditions, I have neither belief nor disbelief.
But I do believe not only in the correctness of the MBH98 result, but all those *other* paleo reconstructions which confirm it.]
Lost and Confused // April 3, 2008 at 4:10 pm
By the way Tamino, the graphic in An Inconvenient Truth is taken from MBH99.
pough // April 3, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Lost, I think people are using two different versions of the word “flawed”. On one side, there is the “utterly destroyed and shown to be the evil work of a Satanic penishole” and on the other there is the “not quite perfect but a great first try with a few little issues that, when corrected, make no big difference to the whole and have anyway since been superseded.”
Think of a diamond. Every single one is flawed. The presence of flaws isn’t as important as how flawed. How flawed, exactly, do you think MBH98 was? Enough to completely discard not only it but all subsequent reconstructions that come to a very similar conclusion?
dean_1230 // April 3, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Sometimes we need some levity -
Gavin's Pussycat // April 3, 2008 at 4:40 pm
fred just turned suspicion of intellectual dishonesty into certainty by selectively quoting:
There was more where this came from, fred…
Lost and Confused: “There is no reason a simple request for a reference
should have attracted so much criticism.”
Perhaps because finding such references is no problem if you really wanted to? Give up the Alzheimer act already, it doesn’t become you.
pough // April 3, 2008 at 4:45 pm
BTW, there’s getting to be more mention of Miskolczi lately and the most that’s been said about it by climate scientists is along the lines of “seems to be lame and someone else will probably tear it to shreds”. In the meantime, it’s quickly becoming the “a-ha! I knew it was all a sham!” du jour. It has all the earmarks for a great denialist story. A NASA scientist realizes that everyone else is wrong, then he gets CENSORED by NASA so he has to publish in his home nation of Hungary… but he has the Real Truth and the response from the warmers has been a deafening silence! Take that, Al Gore!
Dano // April 3, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I am completely baffled. I asked for a simple reference which “powerfully refuted” the Wegman Report, as luminous beauty said existed. The response has largely been to insult me, even with a claim that it “has been answered millions of times” yet, nobody has provided any refutation of the Wegman Report, and luminous beauty now tacitly accepted the MBH paper could be flawed.
Ah. New tactic: Victim bully.
I think LC is a sock puppet for some right wing PR guy. Morano-Luntz comes to mind.
Your totem has been put to bed. Find a new totem. Algore is fat! Hansen is alarmist! Mann is soooo 2003.
Best,
D
P. Lewis // April 3, 2008 at 5:13 pm
matt says
Have another look. The original Wahl and Ammann “hockey stick” repro is in all panels. It’s the one in red. It doesn’t change from (a) to (d) and is similar to the MBH98 “hockey stick”.
The missing caption goes something like (since I’m not taking this from the actual paper that this referenced graphic — or very similar with slight labelling changes — was published):
P. Lewis // April 3, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I’ve since found what looks like the real caption for matt’s referenced (Wahl and) Ammann figure:
fred // April 3, 2008 at 5:33 pm
L&C - there is a signal here, but it is hidden in quite a lot of noise. Dano and dhogaza are part of the noise. You have to learn to filter it out. Don’t read, don’t respond. It just encourages them. Above all, don’t mind any of it.
And keep asking!
Hank Roberts // April 3, 2008 at 5:38 pm
reference:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/recon/
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/recon/WEB_figure5.jpg
fred // April 3, 2008 at 5:39 pm
“There was more where this came from, fred…”
Yes, these are two paras, one taken from p 9 and the other from 10. They are not continuous prose. I should have put in some …. to indicate, or said, what I meant to, that these paras were found on pages 9 and 10. As quoted it does seem as if they were continuous and they were not.
I still do not think they are endorsement. And it was not dishonest, though it was a little careless.
Dano // April 3, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I do not know how anyone could view actions like Dano’s labeling me a “denier” to be anything but dishonest.
I don’t prefer “willfully stupid” over “denialist”. See, willfully stupid people may or may not use the tactics you do - mischaracterization, hasty generalization, fetishization over constructed totems, recycling of refuted argumentation, concern troll, victim bully - but denialists sure do. These tactics are the oft-sharpened knives pulled out of the drawer first, along with cherry-picking, misdirection/handwaving, marginalization rhetoric and quote mining.
LC, lad, you crank out the boilerplate in an admirably workmanlike manner. I’ll give you that. Something comes up, it gets categorized and then the reply comes per the response matrix. Lambert called it GW Sceptic Bingo. Dano calls it boilerplate. The Dano character arose out of me running down where the origins of the response matrix came from. I’m proud to say that Tech Central Station very likely changed - multiple times - their comment procedures because I found PR firms out of Detroit area running internet campaigns on the procedures to recall Davis the day after he introduced a bill on CO2/emissions restrictions to CA, right-wing think-tank sock puppets, CEI lawyer using sock puppets to spread lies (sadly I never moved to have his board look into it), Monsanto contract employees spreading FUD about Tyrone Hayes, GMO acolytes spreading FUD about Chapela.
So I might have seen your kind before. It works at FReeperville and RedState and with Malkin and Rush, and it ain’t workin’ here.
Best,
D
steven mosher // April 3, 2008 at 6:09 pm
The denialist trope is the kind of rhetoric that led me to create the Piltdown Mann trope. My trope trumpts your trope.
As a former student of Lakoff I can reframe this all day long.
[Response: Please don't.]
Lost and Confused // April 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Gavin’s Pussycat, that is both an odd as well as false stance. It goes against the nature of scientific discussion to refuse to provide sources. Even if those sources were “easy to find,” and they are not (to my knowledge, they do not even exist), why would anyone believe they existed if nobody was willing to provide them?
Next, on the usage of “flawed.” I am a bit confused by the question here, namely, “How flawed, exactly, do you think MBH98 was? Enough to completely discard not only it but all subsequent reconstructions that come to a very similar conclusion?” I have never mentioned any reconstruction other than MBH, so this question is somewhat surprising.
I believe MBH was horribly flawed. It was poorly written, as well as poorly documented, making it impossible to *know* what processes were used. It used faulty methodology. It was not robust, despite Mann’s claims to the contrary, as seen by the reliance upon so few proxies (which are of questionable merit) to get the signal. It is flawed, by which I mean, “It does not do what it sets out to do.”
As to other reconstructions? Why would the flaws of MBH matter to them? In theory, that it is a bad paper could easily have no impact on other reconstructions. The only way in which another reconstruction should be tarnished by the MBH is if it uses flawed parts of the MBH. Unfortunately, this has happened, which is why the MBH is still important.
Bad science is bad science. Refusing to admit the problems with MBH detracts from the legitimate science. It weakens the understanding of the science of global warming. It creates conflict and confusion, for no purpose. It is silly and unscientific.
The nature of science is communication. When there is disagreement, the involved parties should be able to openly discuss without hostility the dispute. I fully support that. I would gladly hear people point out my mistakes, as I care far more about knowing the truth than being right. I think more people should feel that way.
Incidentally, posters like Dano offend me. I will, however, attempt to ignore them.
Gavin's Pussycat // April 3, 2008 at 6:42 pm
fred:
OK, fair enough. The thing I tried to refer to was actually something else: the quoted passage speaks of a “millennium”, meaning a much longer timespan than the period after 1400 or 1450 that the MBH98 analysis is mostly about. As I remember, MBH readily pointed out that the reconstruction for the time before that was indeed very weak.
Note that time spans of 10 years, or even one year (1998) are much more noisy than the 30 years or so period on which the statement that the late 20th century “was warmer than any comparable period” in the preceding time, was based on. E.g., you could imagine a freak super-1998-type year happening in the middle ages that would never show up in the proxy record in a way that could be robustly extracted (never mind the improbability of the physics involved).
Don’t have MBH98 handy, but my feeling is that if they did make these claims (about the 1990’s and 1998, and comparing with “the millennium”) then they were indeed on thin ice. But still, “a flaw” is not the same as “flawed”.
Hank Roberts // April 3, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Lost & C. –
It’s impossible to know for sure when a new person posting here is really completely new and naive about the questions, and coming up with them from pure personal innocence.
Regrettably, for your reception here, it happens that your questions don’t sound naive, and don’t sound like you are a youngster first asking questions or an adult who’s never read much before on these issues.
Here’s how to check (and I recommend this for all of us):
Paste your question or comment into Google’s search box.
If Google finds dozens or hundreds of hits, you can be sure that your question, or comment, is phrased so much like what’s been said before that it probably was.
When you want to ask a new question — find your own words, don’t copy words you find on other websites and think look like good questions to paste in.
This will definitely help.
There are a lot of people here, from all spokes of the political wheel and all distances from the center of it. Many do want to help.
All of us get tired of the repeated copy-paste stuff from others, and we even get bored with our own “recreational typing” from time to time.
Help us all. Ask your own questions, and say where you get your assumptions.
Hank Roberts // April 3, 2008 at 7:04 pm
L&C — this should help:
Click here:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimChange2006.html
Brief excerpt:
“… Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (~ +0.05°), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years. Our results are also used to evaluate the separate criticism of reduced amplitude in the Mann et al. reconstructions over significant portions of 1400-1900, in relation to some other climate reconstructions and model-based examinations. We find that, from the perspective of the proxy data themselves, such losses probably exist, but they may be smaller than those reported in other recent work.”
Click above link to:
Download the Full Manuscript including Figures in PDF format
Use R-Code of Wahl-Ammann emulation of MBH Northern Hemisphere Climate Reconstruction
Phil. // April 3, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Matt, W & A concluded as follows:
“The conclusion of strongly anomalous late 20th century temperatures is retained even if the
bristlecone/foxtail pine records were (inappropriately) eliminated for the 15th century”
So it appears that your interpretation of their graphs was incorrect, the graph which you focussed on was actually an MM reconstruction which was shown to have no merit!
Aaron Lewis // April 3, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Silly, some people just are not good with numbers. For them, you need a graphic, a picture.
Send them to Google Earth, and let them see the melt ponds that were not there 40 years ago.
Send them to http://nsidc.org/data/virtual_globes/timelines.html and they can see a time line of GIS melt in the Google Earth format. The graph of melt looks like it has a lot of noise in it, but when it is overlayed on the map of Greenland, there is no doubt that the place is melting.
pough // April 3, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I’m prescient. I know you’re going to. You can’t not.
See?
L Miller // April 3, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I don’t see anything significantly different from MBH98 other then the line labeled *without merit*.
Hank Roberts // April 3, 2008 at 9:01 pm
“… which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years….”
luminous beauty // April 3, 2008 at 9:19 pm
You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.
A&W devastates M&M, but L&C will never get it, because it is contrary to his fixed belief system. All he can do is parrot talking points from CA.
Hank Roberts // April 3, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Well, we have to start where people are. They won’t start anywhere else!
First question is to look up the beliefs, find out whether they originate with someone else’s beliefs elsewhere, and if they’re copypaste, encourage checking the sources and considering why they’re trusted.
First step is to get beyond the notion that people can come here for an argument (or for abuse, for that matter!)
We’re all trying to understand the science (well, those who stick around a while).
Patience.
Dano // April 3, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Incidentally, posters like Dano offend me. I will, however, attempt to ignore them.
No attempt to correct said posters either. Merely victimization, concern and control.
Best,
D
cce // April 3, 2008 at 10:29 pm
The “Hockey Stick” in AIT is a heavily smoothed version of MBH99. The Thompson paper included it alongside of his “thermometer.” Gore mistakenly used it instead of the “thermometer.”
Hockey Stick on top, Thompson “thermometer” on bottom.
http://cce.890m.com/thompson-mann-rotated.jpg
This error does not undermine Gore’s point or the Hockey Stick.
steven mosher // April 3, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Dont worry tamino I won’t.
We know with near certainty that the holocaust happened. . We know with near certainty that we landed on the moon.
We don’t have the same level of certainty WRT to AWG. It’s the BEST explanation we have, but it doesnt rise to the level of the certainity we have about the other things . It just doesn’t. It’s most likely true. But whenever I read people who compare sceptics to denialists, and moon landing nuts… as a jew, as kid who watched our local hero burn up on jan 27 1967 . I get a little pissed.
Lost and Confused // April 3, 2008 at 11:19 pm
First, pough of course I mentioned other reconstructions. You asked about a question about them, I answered the question. The only way I could have not mentioned them is if I ignored your question.
Second, luminous beauty, you still ignore the point. You claimed the Wegman Report has been “powerfully refuted,” but you have not provided a source to support that statement. Wahl and Ammann never refuted the Wegman Report. Indeed, they did not even refute MM05. They issued a press release claiming the MM claims were “unfounded,” but that is it. Indeed, much of their work effectively replicated MM05. They did make at least one false claim (they claimed to achieve slightly different results due to different PCs and weighting, but in fact the different results remain when applying WA methodology to MBH datasets), though whether it was a simple mistake or something else is impossible to tell. WA also managed to misrepresent MM, as MM did not propose any alternative reconstructions. There is also the issue of WA’s reluctant inclusion of r2 statistic information, which was included only because they were forced, also supporting MM claims.
But ignoring all of this, there is still a simple point which makes it obvious WA is not a refutation. In Section 5 (page 32 for original text), WA admits the MBH lacks significance with the bristlecone/foxtail proxies removed. This is the exact point made by MM, echoed by the Wegman Report. AW does nothing to “devastate” MM or the Wegman report. If you disagree, feel free to show me wrong.
And Hank Roberts, while I appreciate your more pleasant tone, I believe you are quite mistaken. My question was a direct question, designed to highlight a (false) statement from luminous beauty. I am not new to the subject, and simply saying something is true will not convince me. Show me where I am wrong, and I will change my position. Insult me, and you will just weaken your own position.
Lost and Confused // April 3, 2008 at 11:30 pm
That is an absurd statement cce. Gore’s entire point was MBH99 was supported by other evidence, “[W]ith Thompson’s ice core record as one of the most definitive.”
He then shows MBH99. So he is telling the crowd, “MBH99 is supported by this independent evidence I am showing you. Please ignore the fact that it is just MBH99.” This completely undermines his point and questions his legitimacy.
Until he corrects the mistake, his point is undermined.
Hans Erren // April 3, 2008 at 11:31 pm
[Response: Then I stand corrected. I note that the reconstruction with equivalent temperature in the 15th century, when subjected to verification, returned the result “without merit.”
So, if you remove the BCP, the result is "without merit", and yet the reconstruction with BCP is "robust" ???
Please explain....
dhogaza // April 3, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I think you meant to say this two days ago …
Jason_L // April 3, 2008 at 11:40 pm
North didn’t disagree with the Wegman report.
North, replied under oath:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:31362.wais
———————–
David B. Benson // April 3, 2008 at 11:44 pm
steven mosher // April 3, 2008 at 10:59 pm wrote “We don’t have the same level of certainty WRT to AWG.”
Well, we certainly have enough to begin acting to counteract it, do we not?
Phil. // April 4, 2008 at 12:37 am
“So, if you remove the BCP, the result is “without merit”, and yet the reconstruction with BCP is “robust” ???
Please explain….”
Hans, read the paper two different 15th century series are described. Remember that MM ‘corrected’ the data in MM3 and when they did their reconstruction they got a completely unreasonable warming in the 15th century!
luminous beauty // April 4, 2008 at 1:05 am
W&A, p.36:
Referencing only that part which agrees with one’s preconceived conclusions is known as selective quotation and is intellectually dishonest.
Hank Roberts // April 4, 2008 at 1:08 am
In other news, “Oh, shit …”
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/superbacteria_eat_antibiotics_for_breakfast.php
[Response: Ummm ... not exactly on topic, even for an open thread?]
Hank Roberts // April 4, 2008 at 1:36 am
Might be, these were found in the process of looking for bacteria useful for making fuel (some bacteria will eat almost anything). Before we start creating huge vats of these beasties to break down, say, cellulose waste — it’d be good to know what else they are capable of breaking down.
Timothy Chase // April 4, 2008 at 1:44 am
Tamino wrote:
Bacteria off-topic in climatology… !?
I know!
Bacteria that appear to seed cloud-formation so that precipitation can act as a means of dispersal:
[Response: Live and learn.]
TCO // April 4, 2008 at 1:54 am
Tamino: I thought we were going to go a lot further with the HS PCA examination. There were several unsettled points that I thought were interesting to you. Also it should be of interest to pursue things whether they help your “side” or not.
Hank Roberts // April 4, 2008 at 1:56 am
Chuckle. You knew climate response re clouds is uncertain. But watching the ocean bacteria and viruses and plankton, and the airborne ones, get modeled, is going to take a lot of computation.
Lost and Confused // April 4, 2008 at 3:22 am
I do not see your point luminous beauty. Assuming WA is correct on this point, it does nothing to prove your “point.” That section is discussing the value of bristlecone series to the 1400-1499 stage. It suggests bristlecones improve the data quality of that stage, a point which is immaterial.
The main point of MM and the Wegman Report is the MBH paper is not robust to the removal of the bristlecone series (as well as foxtails). WA admits this, saying the reconstruction lacks validity without those series.
The section you cite here, merely says those series provide meaningful information about one portion (the 15th century) of the reconstruction. This in no way addresses MM or the Wegman report. What exactly was the point of posting that section?
Bill Bodell // April 4, 2008 at 4:12 am
That was the primary conclusion of Mann et al.? Who thought that was controversial?
The most recent period that I’ve heard suggested as possibly as warm as the late 20th century was the Medieval Warm Period and that ended 600 to 800 years ago. I’ve never heard anyone suggest that it was warmer in the Little Ice Age.
Who’s responsible for making people think that primary conclusion of Mann et al was that it was warmer in the late 20th century than it had been in 1,000 years (including the MWP)?
cce // April 4, 2008 at 4:52 am
L&C, I will explain this one more time. The image that Gore used was from a paper by Thompson. It was presented right next to Thompson’s thermometer. The wrong image was used. Gore’s point was that the Hockey Stick was supported by other evidence, which it is, and Thompson’s thermometer is proof. The idea that Gore purposedly used the Hockey Stick to confirm the Hockey Stick when the Thompson thermometer is functionally identical is beyond absurd. It is dishonest. Anyone who compares the two graphs is immediately made aware of this fact, assuming they have working eyeballs and a working brain.
http://cce.890m.com/thompson-mann-rotated.jpg
Petro // April 4, 2008 at 5:16 am
steven mosher tries:
“We know with near certainty that the holocaust happened. . We know with near certainty that we landed on the moon.
We don’t have the same level of certainty WRT to AWG”
So you doubt holocaust and moonlanding as well?
Gavin's Pussycat // April 4, 2008 at 5:54 am
Steven Mosher:
I beg to differ. The reality of AGW is on the same level as, e.g., the assertion that the force that keeps the Moon in its orbit is the same as what makes apples fall in Cambridge. I.e., humanly certain, like the Holocaust or the Apollo moonflights (heck, I saw the liquid oxygen cloud from one of those fluoresce in the sunlight… Hollywood doesn’t have those resources.)
What is uncertain is not the reality or even the mechanism of AGW. It is how much net warming it produces in the end, when everything is said and done. And note that “net global warming” is only one of many effects we should be concerned about.
Let me tell you a story. In a previous life I have been involved in predicting the impact point of decaying satellites. What brings down low flying satellites is atmospheric drag, which cannot be predicted precisely as the density of the atmosphere is very sensitive to small variations in solar activity. The satellite circles the Earth every 1.5 hours, the Earth rotates underneath every 24 hours.
This is a cosmic simile of a roulette wheel: a week before impact it isn’t even possible to tell at all where on Earth the thing is going to come down. Up to a few hours before impact, you cannot even tell which continent or ocean it’s going to hit.
Exercise for the reader: does this prove that celestial mechanics is an unproven science, and that Newton’s gravitational hypothesis is doubtful?
RWD // April 4, 2008 at 7:31 am
David B. Benson,
You say in response to Steve Mosher, “Well, we certainly have enough [certainty] to begin acting to counteract it, do we not?”
Sorry Dave, but the answer is no, we certaintly do not?
Barton Paul Levenson // April 4, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Lost and Confused writes:
[[I believe MBH was horribly flawed.]]
Those who know something about the subject believe otherwise.
Barton Paul Levenson // April 4, 2008 at 12:17 pm
steven mosher writes:
You want us to just take your word for that? “It just doesn’t?” I’m sorry, but as far as I’m concerned, AGW is quite as well established as the Holocaust, the moon landing, or evolution, for that matter.
kim // April 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Is either Mann’s work or Thompson’s reproducible?
===============================
luminous beauty // April 4, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Lost & Confused,
You don’t get the point? I highlighted it.
M&M were wrong about BCPs. There are compelling statistical and physical reasons for their inclusion. There is no reason, whatsoever, for their exclusion.
P. Lewis // April 4, 2008 at 1:53 pm
kim said
Have you never heard of Xerox or Canon copiers where you come from, kim? You could also try scanning it and printing it out.
Either way, don’t forget the copyright conditions.
Timothy Chase // April 4, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Hank Roberts wrote:
Actually there are a lot of ways in which bacteria and climatology (and the phenomena of global warming) intersect. I wanted to point out one of the cheerier examples at that point. Another would be that through genetic engineering, we could possibly improve the existing ability of algae (of the bacterial kind) to synthesize hydrogen as a means of alternative energy production, or we could improve methanogens for methane uptake and thereby reduce levels of an important greenhouse gas, or improve bacteria that exist in a symbiotic relationship with the fungus (mostly various species of mycorrhizae) that exists in a symbiotic relationship with trees and other plants. (Christopher House and James Ferry have suggested as much regarding the latter while studying archaea methanosarcina acetivorans, a methanogen with a metabolic cycle which may have been the original metabolism at the start of life.) The majority of plant species rely upon mycorrhizae (with water and nutrient uptake being increased by as much as a factor of a thousand in some cases), and improving upon this may help in a world where agricultural production is more susceptible to drought and flooding.
On the negative side, however, one might want to consider the migration of species in response to global warming and how this will expose different species and populations to diseases they have never been exposed to before. Hemorrhagic dengue is becoming endemic to Taiwan due to global warming — and spreading in other areas to the extent that winters no longer involve below freezing temperatures — permitting the mosquitos that carry it to live year-round. However, while dengue (for which there is no cure) might make splashy headlines, I suspect that a far greater problem will be waterborne diseases. Flooding will make them more likely — as will drought — when people drink whatever water is available because it is the only water that is available.
Then there are the changes in ocean circulation — such as what we are seeing along the coasts of Oregon and Washington. Land temperatures rise more rapidly than ocean temperature which changes atmospheric and oceanic circulation. This is what results in the giant algae blooms along the coasts that result in deadzones. Algae is no longer being carried away from the coasts. But likewise, this should amplify the problem of waterborne illnesses being carried from one port city to the next. As such, global warming should be expected to amplify the problems we are having with waterborne and foodborne illnesses — and will make the problem of increased antibiotic resistance that much worse. In terms of the number of fatalities, this likely to be a far greater problem than the more exotic hemorrhagic diseases, I suspect.
kim // April 4, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Did you know, P. Lewis, that widespread use of copying machines produced the information explosion that fed glasnost and brought down the Soviet Union? Would you guess that widespread knowledge of how poorly reproducible the Bristlecone data is, and how difficult it is to either re-gather or re-process Thompson’s data is, might generate an analogous revolution in dogma?
============================
matt // April 4, 2008 at 3:31 pm
P Lewis: I’ve since found what looks like the real caption for matt’s referenced (Wahl and) Ammann figure
Please check again. The figure 5 in the report does not match the figure I referenced from the author’s site.
Did the reference paper ever get published?
Note that MBH claimed their results were “robust in the presense of all dendroclimatic indicators”. At a minimum, even from WA we see that isn’t true. Take out the 1400 network and it goes haywire. Leave in the 1450 network and it stays the same. The former indicates the bristlecones to contribute signficantly to the stick–which means they are important. BUT, the latter indicates they don’t since the shape is the same whether or they they are there. How can this be? Starting in 1450 bristlecones suddenly didn’t matter anymore but let’s leave them in anyway, but the 1400 network had a marked impact on temperature reconstructions for 1995? See how strange this is?
Wegman on Wahl/Ammann:
“Even granting the unbiasedness of the Wahl and Ammann study in favor of his advisor’s methodology and the fact that it is not a published refereed paper, the reconstructions mentioned by Dr. Gulledge, and illustrated in his testimony, fail to account for the effects of the bristlecone/foxtail pines. Wahl and Ammann reject this criticism of MM based on the fact that if one adds enough principal components back into the proxy, one obtains the hockey stick shape again. This is precisely the point of contention. It is a point we made in our testimony and that Wahl and Ammann make as well. A cardinal rule of statistical inference is that the method of analysis must be decided before looking at the data. The rules and strategy of analysis cannot be changed in order to obtain the desired result. Such a strategy carries no statistical integrity and cannot be used as a basis for drawing sound inferential conclusions.
[Response: The Wahl and Ammann paper is accepted by Climatic Change and in press.]
Ian Forrester // April 4, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Tim, just a quick note, methanotrophs oxidize methane, methanogens make it. Both are involved in climate change.
I often wonder if the leveling off in methane concentrations over the past few years could be due to an increase in methanotroph activity. Twenty years ago I did quite a bit of work on methanotrophs.
P. Lewis // April 4, 2008 at 4:27 pm
matt
As any inspection of the various similar Wahl and Ammann figures available on the net shows (e.g. your link and that available in the in press paper from which I eventually got the caption), they are identical save some colour choices and labelling. The data are identical. The captions change but are essentially identical (elaborated more in the in press article).
And nothing changes that in your statement “You really think the hockey stick remains in Ammann? It’s panel C in this plot:” you seem to have been looking at the wrong data plot, i.e. not the W&A “hockey stick” (which you can see matched to MBH98 in (a)) and that is present in all the figure parts (a) to (d) in red (to signify that they’re the most important obviously).
Barton Paul Levenson // April 4, 2008 at 5:07 pm
kim posts:
[[Is either Mann’s work or Thompson’s reproducible?]]
The NAS report cited fourteen different studies which came up with essentially the same findings as Mann et al.
Chris O'Neill // April 4, 2008 at 5:56 pm
L&C:
That should be 1400-1449, not 1400-1499. Also, if W&A had thought it was worth doing, they could have calculated the skillful reconstruction without bristlecones back to 1428, because the “treeline11″ series goes back to then. I find it slightly amazing that people are arguing about 28 years of reconstruction.
luminous beauty // April 4, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Lost & Confused,
“That section is discussing the value of bristlecone series to the 1400-1499 stage. It suggests bristlecones improve the data quality of that stage, a point which is immaterial.”
Amazing how facile you are at missing the point.
Over 1450-1499, the bristlecone/foxtail pine proxies neither enhance nor degrade
reconstruction performance when PC summaries are used.
This goes in spades post 1499.
cce // April 4, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Wahl and Amman was published in the November 2007 issue of Climatic Change
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h483676101066104/?p=67ab4c617b3e4fc8886e73d5f25336a0&pi=3
David B. Benson // April 4, 2008 at 6:41 pm
RWD // April 4, 2008 at 7:31 am — You are simply wrong. Use rational decision theory.
P. Lewis // April 4, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Seems my attempt at a waggish witticism missed the target. To be expected I suppose.
kim said
Why, yes I did know. More especially as I’d been in East Germany around that time.
And kim goes on to repeat the CA mantra (which says it all really).
matt // April 4, 2008 at 7:06 pm
P. Lewis, OK I’m in agreement with you the figure are the same data.
Now here’s the critical part I’d like your comment on: WA affirmed MM and showed that removing the 1400 network of bristlecones and foxtails killed the hockeystick, which really indicates it was overly dependent on this data series. If it was indeed robust as MBH claimed, then it would have still been hockey-stick shaped, but perhaps slightly lesser so. And so on, as you removed other series.
Now, Wegman’s comment was that you can’t simply dump a series because it doesn’t agree with your conclusion. You have to go into this stating you will be looking at all series (or at least show why a series was a flawed source to begin with). So the fact that WA show nothing changes when you consider the 1450 network and thus the overall conclusion is still valid is odd considering removing another network caused it to completely blow up. And to me, Wegman makes sense. Especially in light of MBH’s assertion that this was robust.
Your thoughts? Perhaps I’m misunderstand the significance.
Timothy Chase // April 4, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Ian Forrester wrote:
You are right: methanosarcina acetivorans produces methane and it and related species are a significant as part of the postiive carbon cycle feedback.
Please see:
Ian Forrester wrote:
Once again, you are right:
Methane production generally occurs as an anaerobic process. Thus for example, drier organic decay will tend to produce carbon dioxide whereas wet organic decay tends to produce methane.
Hank Roberts // April 4, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Do you think precautions are needed?
Do you care what happens to the world after your own lifespan?
Lost and Confused // April 4, 2008 at 8:38 pm
luminous beauty, whether or not there is a statistical reason to include those series is irrelevant. The issue is robustness. If you remove the series in question, the MBH lacks significance. MM state this, Wegman states this, WA states this.
MM never made the claims you are attributing to them. They did not say the series needed to be removed. You have misrepresented both MM and the Wegman Report. Clearly this does not support your claims, that the Wegman Report has been “powerfully refuted” in literature.
Also Chris O’neill, it is actually over both the periods 1400-1449 and 1450-1499. I simply grouped the two together to say 1400-1499.
David B. Benson // April 4, 2008 at 8:46 pm
More bacteria messing with the climate:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080401200451.htm
entitled “Kalahari Desert Sands An Important, Forgotten Storehouse of Carbon Dioxide”.
Bill Bodell // April 4, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I’ve been reading the IPCC Review Editor Comments post on CA.
What’s the opposition have to say about this?
L Miller // April 4, 2008 at 9:03 pm
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/wafig2.jpg
As far as I can tell the only time you get anything significantly different from the hockey stick is when you use PCA but discard Principle Components that are above the level of noise outlined in MBH98. Reconstructions that drop these PC’s end up failing validation.
If you can’t get the data to show any valid result that doesn’t look like a hockey stick, and you can eliminate both the use of PCA and the disputed proxies and still get a hockey stick how can you conclude the data suggests anything but a hockey stick?
Dave Andrews // April 4, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Bill,
It’s obvious that the Review Editors, with some exceptions, don’t take their responsiblities that seriously- ie, they have already made up their minds that the science is settled and they want to go along with the “consensus” for whatever reason.
Lazar // April 4, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Lost and Confused;
I think it is difficult to isolate ‘robustness’ to individual series included in PCA. If removing certain series results in a pattern being downgraded, and that pattern is excluded as a result of dropping down PC rankings, then other series are effectively censored along with those deliberately targeted. That is what M&M have done in various steps. Apply centered PCA and the hockeystick drops to PC2, also don’t do any standardization and it drops to PC4, also remove bristlecone and foxtail pine series and it drops to PC6. Download M&M and WA code and try it. Include PC6 and the reconstruction passes verification; RE 0.31 which is pretty good. No decentred PCA, no standardization, no bristlecones/foxtails.
kim // April 4, 2008 at 11:43 pm
P. Lewis, your 4/4 7:05 pm response is kind of pitiful. You know that Mann’s Bristlecone work has been repeated and not confirmed. You know Thompson’s ice core data is difficult to recore and his data is not adequately archived to re-analyze. The mantra asking for reproducibility is repeated, because the mantra that their work has been confirmed or superceded by further and better work keeps being repeated, without scientific foundation. There is no flat hockey shaft for the last millenia, and the blade those two demonstrated no longer exists anymore, if it ever did.
Be a scientist. Re-examine your assumptions. Test your hypotheses.
=======================
P. Lewis // April 4, 2008 at 11:59 pm
matt said
WA (2007), the “in press” version (which will almost certainly only change with regard to copy-editing changes in the Climatic Change journal version), states the following with regard to Fig 5c:
And see L Miller’s response above.
P. Lewis // April 5, 2008 at 12:07 am
And kim repeats the tired CA mantra ad nauseum.
Those questions (well, slurs on professional integreties in reality) have been answered over and over here and elsewhere. There is nothing useful to add. You are just trolling.
Hank Roberts // April 5, 2008 at 12:22 am
> you know … you know …
Only nonbelievers need cites to facts?