UPDATE3: professor Rob Wilson leaves some scathing comments about the Mann paper. See below.
UPDATE2: There’s been some additional discussion on the dendro listserver, and it seems quite clear now that the scientists in the dendrochronology field don’t think much of Dr. Mann’s effort – and it appears there is a rift now between former co-authors. See the must read below. I’ll make this a sticky for about a day, and new posts will appear below this one. – Anthony
==============================================================
People send me stuff.
In case you don’t know, ITRDBFOR is an electronic forum (a listserver) subscribed to by most of the world’s dendrochronologists. What is most interesting is that Hughes and Briffa are co-authors of the response to Mann.
—– Original Message —–
From: Rob Wilson
To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Sent: Sunday, 25 November, 2012 20:43
Subject: [ITRDBFOR] Comment to Mann et al. (2012) at Nature Geoscience
Dear Forum,
In February of this year, Mike Mann and colleagues published a paper in Nature Geoscience entitled, “Underestimation of volcanic cooling in tree-ring based reconstructions of hemispheric temperatures”. Their main conclusion was that a tree-ring based Northern Hemisphere (NH) reconstruction of D’Arrigo et al. (2006) failed to corroborate volcanically forced cold years that were simulated in modelling results (e.g. 1258, 1816 etc). Their main hypothesis was that there was a temporary cessation of tree growth (i.e. missing rings for all trees) at some sites near the temperature limit for growth.
This implies Dendrochronology’s inability to detect missing rings results in an underestimation of reconstructed cold years when different regional chronologies are averaged to derive a large scale NH composite.
We scrutinized this study and wrote a response to Nature Geoscience. We are pleased to announce that our comment, along with a reply by Mann et al., was finally published on Nov. 25, 2012 (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/index.html) – 8 months after submission.
Our comment focuses on several factors that challenge the Mann et al. (2012) hypothesis of missing tree rings. We highlight problems in Mann et al.’s implementation of the tree ring model used, a lack of consideration for uncertainty in the amplitude and spatial pattern of volcanic forcing and associated climate responses, and a lack of any empirical evidence for misdating of tree-ring chronologies.
We look forward to a continued discussion on this subject.
Kevin J. Anchukaitis, Petra Breitenmoser, Keith R. Briffa, Agata Buchwal, Ulf Büntgen, Edward R. Cook, Rosanne D. D’Arrigo, Jan Esper, Michael N. Evans, David Frank, Håkan Grudd, Björn Gunnarson, Malcolm K. Hughes, Alexander V. Kirdyanov, Christian Körner, Paul J. Krusic, Brian Luckman, Thomas M. Melvin, Matthew W. Salzer, Alexander V. Shashkin, Claudia Timmreck, Eugene A. Vaganov, and Rob J.S. Wilson
—
———————————————————————–
Dr. Rob Wilson
Senior Lecturer in Physical Geography
School of Geography & Geosciences
University of St Andrews
St Andrews. FIFE
KY16 9AL
Scotland. U.K.
http://earthsci.st-andrews.ac.uk/profile_rjsw.aspx
“…..I have wondered about trees. They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure. Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a tree for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this faculty might prove useful. ”
“The Miracle Workers” by Jack Vance
———————————————————————–
UPDATE: RomanM locates the Mann paper in comments, writing:
The original Mann article seems to be available at his web site:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MFRNatureGeosciAdvance12.pdf
==============================================================
UPDATE2: More from the listserv
From: “Malcolm Hughes” <mhughes@LTRR.ARIZONA.EDU>
To: <ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Monday, 26 November, 2012 16:42
Subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] Comment to Mann et al. (2012) at Nature Geoscience
> Ron – no dendrochronologists were involved in the offending Mann et al
> 2012 paper. What Rob described was the response of a number of us to
> some of the multiple flaws in the original paper. Cheers, Malcolm
>
> Malcolm K Hughes
> Regents’ Professor of Dendrochronology
> Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721
—– Original Message —–
From: RONALD LANNER
To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Sent: Monday, 26 November, 2012 03:48
Subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] Comment to Mann et al. (2012) at Nature Geoscience
“a temporary cessation of tree growth” resulting in no rings for all trees? Now that is a hypothesis that I am willing to bet good money has no empirical support since studies of trees began 200 years or so ago. Speculation this bald could give dendrochronologists a bad name.
=============================================================
UPDATE 3: Rob Wilson leaves this comment at Bishop Hill today, bolded section is my emphasis:
Nov 26, 2012 at 9:00 PM | 
Rob Wilson
Hi Again,
Our comment and Mann’s response to it can be accessed from this link:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/all%20pdfs/Anchukaitisetal2012.pdf
his original paper is here:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MFRNatureGeosci12.pdf
Hmmm – what do I think of Mann’s response. Where does one start!
Well – he has provided NO evidence that there are stand (regional) wide missing rings for major volcanically forced cool years. Let’s focus on 1816 as an example – The “Year without a Summer” – where historical observations clearly show cool summer conditions (related to Tambora in 1815) throughout NE North America and Europe. Using either long instrumental records or historical indices, there is no evidence of a stand-wide missing ring in temperature sensitive tree-ring chronologies in Labrador, Scotland, Scandinavia or the Alps. Mann would probably turn around and say – well, actually, my model says that 50% of the sites would express missing rings – just not those in NE America and Europe. Sheesh!
To be less flippant, and putting aside criticisms of tree-ring series as proxies of past climate, the method of crossdating is robust and easily verifiable by different groups. I would be surprised if Mann has ever sampled a tree, looked at the resultant samples and even tried to crossdate them. He has utterly failed to understand the fundamental foundation of dendrochronology.
I undertook most of the analysis in D’Arrigo et al. (2006) and we clearly stated in the original paper that due to the paucity of sites (only 19) around the northern hemisphere, the reconstruction was most robust at time-scales greater than 20 years. Using the D’Arrigo reconstruction to look at inter-annual response to volcanically forced cool summers was a poor choice. Maximum density records, as shown in our response, would clearly be a far superior tree-ring parameter to use for such an exercise – as Briffa clearly showed in 1998. See also this paper:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/all%20pdfs/D’Arrigoetal2009a.pdf
There is a lot more I could say, but this can all wait until next week at the AGU Fall Meeting.
One final observation is I urge you to look at Figure 1 in Mann’s original article. The instrumental record (black line) in Figure 1a (upper panel) clearly does not show strong cool temperatures in 1884 related to Krakatoa as seen in the two models. Following Mann’s hypothesis, the instrumental data must be wrong.
Time for some red wine
Rob
Paywalled naturally. But given its output from the Mann, do I care enough to pay ? Nope. I’ll wait for Climate Audit or WUWT to run the errors, I have faith, its pretending tree rings sort of equal temperature, those pseudo-temperatures then smeared out across the world and then given great certainty by proclamation of the Mann. Or as described by another WUWT commenter, Garbage In Gospel Out. Maybe what I should be saying, is let the great one speak, give us more of your divine wisdom , Oh Great Doctor of the trees.Flattery is a better tool to encourage the true prat to spout on and the mann is too wonderful a tool to lose. Your call.
Cue the Mannian-grade righteous indignation in 3, 2, 1…..
I quote: “…We highlight problems in Mann et al.’s implementation of the tree ring model used, a lack of consideration for uncertainty in the amplitude and spatial pattern of volcanic forcing and associated climate responses…”
Interesting. I have proved that volcanic cooling of the troposphere is a myth and that so-called “volcanic” cooling incidents are nothing more than accidental coincidences in timing of a La Nina cooling period with an expected volcanic cooling that is said to follow an eruption. Read pages 17 to 21 in my book “What Warming?” available from Amazon.
Oh Dear!
And just a few days ahead of the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting ’12 Michael E. and Anthropocentric Mann Gala and Festival of Gay Warming Global non-Naturalis. The EGU at the General Assembly ’12 gave Mann a Gold Medal … for … well we are still trying to figure that one out but do not fret.
So ‘Naturally’ the AGU High Command Illumaniti MUST render a medal, some medal, any [snip] medal, to MEM and with Plaque and A life time membership … Oh they raised our membership fee from $20 to $50 just to pay for the ‘Supreme Executive and High Administrative Salaries’ … what [snip] THIS!.
Dirty Harry one proclaimed, “A Man’s Got’a Know His Limits!’.
Well, Mann did have the good sense to use BEST data in his response.
should make for an interesting discussion
REPLY: When is it ever good sense to use data that has failed to pass peer review? – Anthony
I am not a dendro but I have worked with and sampled trees in the very far north ±60. Some times you need a lens or a microscope to count the rings, they are very fine. I strongly suspect missing is simply not on. Maybe these people need to re-take Botany 101. More hypothetical baffle gab to cover your ass, Mike?
Ouch!!
This paper is spitting in the face of all his acolytes and pro-AGW robots who tried to proclaim his findings were viable and fact to all and sundry. How embarrassing! hehehe.
Was that previous tree ring, IPCC approved paper buddy reviewed too?
I have always had the feeling that Briffa wasn’t corrupted to the degree which some others seem to have been corrupted. Instead he seemed to be swept up by something he didn’t understand.
Briffa may have been involved in “hide the decline,” however all he did was find some data, be enthusiastic about what it “might” show, and then get a huge amount of praise for it.
I myself have seldom been praised for my ideas. Helpful people are swift to show me my errors. However on very rare occasions I have blundered into situations where I get praised. I can tell you, praise is exhilarating and intoxicating. You feel on top of the world, but it doesn’t last. Just as the depression of having your mistakes pointed out doesn’t last forever, neither does the euphoria of being told you are right. Sooner or later you get back to business.
I wonder if Briffa, unlike Mann, is getting back to business, the business being science.
Steven Mosher says:
November 25, 2012 at 7:02 pm
So did SkS,……
With all the errors introduced by Mann into climate science since 1998, a vast amount of manpower, time and resources have just been consumed for trying to clean this mess up and perhaps even consumed more for derailing such an effort.
So Mann is saying that for certain temperature years using the BEST data, the rings he looked for appear to be missing. I think what he means to say is that at certain times, trees do not make good thermometers. Is he trying to lay the ground work for justifying his “trick”? A preemptive strike perhaps?
I assume that Briffa will soon be in the dock along side Mark Steyn now that he has dared to question He Who Shall Not Be Questioned.
It has even been suggested – don’t remember where and by whom – that Briffa might have leaked the climategate mails. In the same period he disappeared somewhat from the scene due to health problems. I have no confirmation nor proof of this but his attitude is intriguing.
Eight months! to get published a letter questioning a paper.
Biffra should have come here. It would have been posted in it entirety in less than eight hours — and probably done more good for both sides of the debate.
I disagree. Briffa’s Yamal chronology is just as egregious as Mann’s original Hockey Stick. As far as I know, he hasn’t admitted that allowing ONE tree to overwhelm all the others in the recon was wrong.
Speaking of the BEST dataset, can someone tell me why the thing diverges so much from all other datasets?
http://i45.tinypic.com/23tqi3m.jpg
Isn’t it amazing that the need for empirical research into the characteristics of the proxies is now taken for granted. The ClimateGaters did not give it a thought. Just a year ago or so there were serious arguments on this website about the necessity of empirical research into proxies. Things are looking up in a serious way.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
Mann has a bad day
So how does one demonstrate that a tree does not generate a ring under certain circumstances? Personally, I’m not a dendrocrat, but it would appear to be a convenient theory for some unknown purpose, for how would one know? Tree rings are not date stamped. What was the comment earlier about climate models… Garbage in Gospel out? The models can say whatever people are willing to believe. Who needs evidence, just propose a theory and say that you’ve modeled it.
“We look forward to a continued discussion on this subject.”
Not me. By the time they finish their discussions I will be cold or dead. I’m thinking cold first. But, maybe dead and cold in rapid succession. Anyway, trees can be used for all sorts of wonderful things but a thermometer isn’t one of them. One of the best uses is for charcoal and grilling steak, chicken, brauts . . . Set the carbon free! Cold is not good.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kristinnwf/3190016130/sizes/l/in/photostream/
Will Mann cite Loehle next ? The dendros didn;t calculate on anything but unimodal response!
Go Mikey Go!.
Like cannibalistictadpoles – go go go guys!
Steyn on tap for this.
With regard to Keith Briffa, II think he always had reservations about conclusions others have drawn from his work. At worst, Briffa was used by Mann to foster his self serving Funding scheme…..more a victim than anything else, for which Michael Mann owes him both a professional and personal apology.
There are some real slimeballs in this whole sordid affair….Briffa is not on that list.
Steven Mosher says:
November 25, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Well, Mann did have the good sense to use BEST data in his response.
should make for an interesting discussion
=============
Have you anything of interest to say ?
Dendro wise, or just about BEST.
I’ll assume the latter, unpublished ? study.
On second thought, this has to be a mistake or I plotted this the wrong way, you can skip publishing my previous comment if you want.
A quote from Jack Vance, balsam for my soul…
Centuries from now Jack Vance shall be known as a “classic,” one of the “true great ones,” etc.
But never forget, Jack worked his butt out as a carpenter to support his family, while writing all those wonderful books. That’s how our progressive society of unionized educators, editors, gamers, pot smokers, food stamp recipients and Peace Corps volunteers having fun on a public dime in South Seas rewards a real talent.
P.S. More evolved (and hair-raising) view of trees’ capability of awareness see in Jack Vance’s masterpiece, Maske: Thaery.
Caleb says:
November 25, 2012 at 7:53 pm
A very good point, Caleb. I concur with your suspicions regards Briffa. Here’s hoping we are right..
“Set the carbon free! Cold is not good.” – John F. Hultquist
Good teeshirt. I want one!
“and a lack of any empirical evidence for misdating of tree-ring chronologies.”
Wow – knock out punch right there. Will Mann sue? His grasp on the throats of tame editors seems to be loosening a tad. Will he show his empirical evidence? For example, if tree rings are missing in certain tree populations, they should be discernible in other populations thereby corroborating the theory. But somehow, I doubt that he will. Even with this clear slap in the face from his colleagues.
My interpretation is if the models predict it should have happened then Nature is at fault. End of story. /disgust
Charting the non-existant? Rather sums up the whole AGW agenda, doesn’t it.
Yeah, the BEST data and study which was touted in press conferences, rejected as crap and unpublished till today, a year and half after the tall pronouncements.
With luck, coverage of the forthcoming AGU meeting will be dominated by whatever news from Curiosity has the JPL scientists excited, rather than by the usual AGW doomsterism. Mars vs. Mann in the publicity battle? I’d bet on Mars.
Mann is brave in his obfuscation because he knows there are just too many powerful bankers, politicians, and academics who can’t afford to have the CAGW gravy train derailed. Note that Mann’s legal fund is being backed by George Soros, the green energy hedge fund backer and currency speculator–tells you everything you need to know.
On the same theme, JIm Bouldin (of RC) has started a blog that seems to have gone largely unnoticed except by J Jackson at CA. Jim has a series of posts (two currently) on the subject of
“Severe analytical problems in dendroclimatology”
in which he is very critical of tree ring reconstructions, saying
“Each of these issues by itself would be a serious problem, but collectively they render unreliable all long-term estimates of climate change from ring widths”
He also heaps praise on a 2009 paper by Craig Loehle. See
http://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/severe-analytical-problems-in-dendroclimatology-part-two/
Yes, from what I’ve read I think Briffa is more scientific, in the best sense, than others involved, It would be nice if he’d come off the fence! I know it’s hard, but real science is about honesty: not fooling yourself, and so not fooling others (Feynman).
Missing years may not be related to cold years, but to the oceanic currents circulations in the North Atlantic. There is a temporal misalignment between atmospheric pressure variability affecting the summer precipitations and the temperature changes. Both are factors in the tree growth.
This graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AP-AMO.htm
shows relationship between the Sub-Arctic summer atmospheric pressure and temperature anomalies. Yamal (Mann et al) peninsula is on the Arctic Circle.
Hence, dendrochronologists can’t accurately describe the temperature movement since they are not always synchronous with local precipitations.
Steven Mosher’s drive to his office is occasionally disrupted by road works, so he has some missing minutes or even hours in his work schedule.
Mann’s finally reached a new level in bad science – basing the conclusions of a paper on missing evidence.
Policy Guy asked
“So how does one demonstrate that a tree does not generate a ring under certain circumstances? Personally, I’m not a dendrocrat, but it would appear to be a convenient theory for some unknown purpose, for how would one know? Tree rings are not date stamped.”
But in a sense they are. Dendro-dating uses ring-width patterns to compare timber samples with sufficient rings with others with longer ring-series until a chain of matches is established to a sample of known date. I’d suggest this technique would provide the “missing empirical evidence” referred to by Anchukaitis et.al, and is in fact what they’re implying. “Missing ring” series would be matched with series from nearby, but generally warmer locations until matches are found for patterns pre and post the postulated “ring-gaps” but with the “missing rings” intact. The process would likely require a lot more work than was involved in the original ring-proxy analysis, and of course would require that suitable ring-series were available.
Given the apparent absence of evidence it doesn’t say much for the peer-review process involved in the Mann paper.
So while the rising heat content in the oceans due to CO2 keeps missing, the missing cold in tree rings isn’t missing at all?
Do I miss something here?
Dendros are jumping ship it seems to me LOL
Anyone who cites Jack Vance (Dr. Rob Wilson) has got to be on the right side.
/Mr Lynn
Rob Wilson posted to the dendro list in part:
Guess it’s time for the reminder that hard data trumps models. The action should be on proving the data wrong, not assuming the models are right.
Steven Mosher says:
November 25, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Well, Mann did have the good sense to use BEST data in his response.
Did BEST create any new raw data ??
This is classic. Once again Mann et al. question empirical data because it fails to match a model run. We saw this in MBH98 and more recently in the GSA presentation of Mann, Kozar, and Emanual:
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2012AM/webprogram/Paper206358.html
Scientists everywhere should be shaking their heads in disbelief. This is completely ass-backwards. Empirical data is used to verify and constrain models, not the other way around.
and deer crap over newly opened routes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/a-hands-on-view-of-tree-growth-and-tree-rings-one-explanation-for-briffas-yad061-lone-tree-core/#more-11409
The original Mann article seems to be available at his web site:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MFRNatureGeosciAdvance12.pdf
Louis Hooffstetter says:
I am always amused here when people who have probably never actually done science believe that they understand science better than those who have. In fact, the relationship between models and empirical data works both ways. Sometimes the data points out problems with the models and sometimes the models point out problems with the data, which is, after all, not ordained by God.
In fact, as a modeler, I can remember many times when I have used modeling to find problems with the data. For example, one time we had some OLED devices coated and I found that my optical model was quite insistent on the notion that the layer of Aluminum (Al) was about 300A thick, not 200A thick and this seemed to be a quite robust result not sensitive to other assumptions (like other layer thicknesses). We asked the coaters to check their coater for the Al and they came back and told us that their “tooling factor” turned out to be off by a factor of 3/2…I.e., the modeling was precisely correct in detecting a problem with the empirical data.
Whether the problems in the case of volcanic cooling end up to be with the data or the models or some combination of the two is still unsettled, but to just assume that it is a problem with the models and not with the data is no more scientific than to assume the opposite. One has to entertain both possibilities.
Rome wasn’t built nor did it fall in a day. The edges of the Empire are crumbling under the weight of overextended extrapolation, logical fallacies, and arrogance.
”There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” – Mark Twain
Stephen Rasey says:
November 25, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Eight months! to get published a letter questioning a paper.
Biffra should have come here. It would have been posted in it entirety in less than eight hours — and probably done more good for both sides of the debate.
====================================================
I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall for the internal debate about allowing the publication of the letter !!
Stephen Rasey says:
November 25, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Eight months! to get published a letter questioning a paper….
_____________________________________
AH, but the timing is perfect. Just before the next Eco-Fest to renew Kyoto. Makes one wonder….
Thanks for the link to Mann’s paper, RomanM. Because of this practice:
“Trees growing near the latitudinal or elevational treeline are typically selected for use
in reconstructing past temperature changes”
The detection of warm is much more likely than cold, since the trees are already at the threshold of growth/no growth. It seems to me to rectify this, trees must be chosen at an “elevational treeline”, where there are dead trees at higher altitude that grew when the climate was warm to be included in the dataset. The idea that trees are thermometers rather than general overviews of optimal/suboptimal climate for tree growth is silly. To extend this into sub-degree discernment of ‘climate change’ lacks sanity.
In order to photosynthesize, to produce energy for growth, all trees need air (gases), heat, light and water. Without any one of these elements there would be no growth. Using a specific combination of these essential elements I have developed a Photosynthesis Index (P-Index). The P-Index has a range from 0-60. Photosynthesis occurs about 6.9, less than this it does not occur.
When comparing (14 years daily data for a location in the UK), maximum Temperature (Tx) against the P-Index some interesting results were shown. Whilst overall correlation between the two sets was 0.63, which could be considered reasonably significant. When I plotted Tx individual degrees C low to high against the P-Index, it showed a large number of days when the photosynthesis trigger point (6.9) wasn’t reached and the Tx could have been anywhere in the range between 0-27DegC. In other words photosynthesis can occur with a Tx 8DegC and not occur with Tx 27degC. Depending on species with Tx >29DegC, but particularly with a P-Index of >40, may cause heat stress and hence also limited photosynthesis.
My conclusion to this would be, tree-ring growth is not an accurate proxy for temperature reconstruction. (data available on request)
Mike Jowsey says:
November 25, 2012 at 10:20 pm
“Set the carbon free! Cold is not good.” – John F. Hultquist
Good teeshirt. I want one!
___________________________________
Add Co2 = Plant Food on the back or maybe a Josh cartoon link
The best comments on the BEST data.
link 1
link 2
[Fixed links. -ModE ]
From Gail Combs on November 26, 2012 at 6:58 am:
The best comments on the BEST data.
Drop the parts of the URL’s from question mark to end to make the links work.
Link 1: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/BEST_PRscr.jpg
Link 2: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/Photo%200.jpg
Gail, neither of your links work. 🙁
Gail Combs says:
November 26, 2012 at 6:58 am
The best comments on the BEST data.
link 1
link 2
=====================
Broken linkys
Joel… Long time no see. Glad to have you back.
You do raise a good point. That said, your example does not fit as well in this case. In your example, the model points to a single miscalibrated machine. That is not the case here.
“We highlight problems in Mann et al.’s implementation of the tree ring model used, a lack of consideration for uncertainty in the amplitude and spatial pattern of volcanic forcing and associated climate responses, and a lack of any empirical evidence for misdating of tree-ring chronologies.”
If their critique holds up, this is flawed piece of work.
Mike Alexander aka Sonicfrog.
Kadaka, still no joy.
.
Sure, trees sometimes don’t produce rings when it is cold – that is when they die.
A tree that is living produces rings, end of story. Anyone from the Agro department have anything further to add to that statement?
joeldshore says:
Sometimes the data points out problems with the models and sometimes the models point out problems with the data… One has to entertain both possibilities.
Good point and I agree. When something doesn’t jibe, you check everything until you find the problem. This is scientific objectivity. My point was that in general, Mann et al. appear to lack objectivity, and have much more faith in their models than in actual data.
Jimbo says:
November 26, 2012 at 5:29 am
“and deer crap over newly opened routes.”
Make that reindeer. They are actively herded in the Yamal region and their numbers have doubled since WWII:
http://www.arcticbiodiversity.is/index.php/en/ecosystem-services/reindeer-herding
bob asked:
Speaking of the BEST dataset, can someone tell me why the thing diverges so much from all other datasets?
I believe the BEST records only include land surface temperatures. They tend to be warmer than the atmosphere over the oceans.
Mann can’t see the wood from the tree rings?
Jeff Alberts said on November 26, 2012 at 7:58 am:
Kadaka, still no joy.
I just right-clicked, opened in new tab, both links I provided. Both worked.
I right-clicked, copied link location, and pasted into my other browser, in case they were only working because the pics were in main browser’s cache. Both loaded fine.
Must be on your end, you’re blocked somehow.
Here are the embedded versions:
link 1
link 2
When accidently following that link to Mann’s paper, (I never willingly support anything of Mann’s and I clicked the link drooling over getting to read the paper. retch retch) and reading that bull about models feeding models and how that indicates missing tree rings, I was struck by a mental image of Johnny Carson doing his ‘Carnac the magnificent’ sketch.
All sham for the audience and weak minded. Only Johnny was only in it for the laughs and his magnificent salary.
It is curious that Mann has a response to Briffa et al ready in the same issue, as already mentioned eight months after. Isn’t modern science wonderful when buddies help buddies? To our detriment.
Joel Shore pops up again with misdirection. “I remember, I remember when the thickness of aluminum validated Mann’s method of the model shell game. Hmmm, was your model that indicated the likely tooling culprit fed by model data as Mann’s volcanic tree abortion scenario is; or anything like Mann’s carefully selected data along with his funny code that gets the same results no matter the data? I’ll bet you used definitive hard data that proved a coating issue before you ran the model… I doubt it. Your model was a short cut to help the business fix an error. Even though it seems to me that a coating thickness issue would have brought people right to the coating application tools for that specific layer.
In any case; it does seem that Briffa et al are going for the jugular, slow though that may be by their using facts versus false alarms and mystic passes of the AGW crowd.
It’s a tree-ring circus!
Bob, pay attention. The data is BEST. BEST data will obviously diverge from other data which is not BEST data, for example the dataset produced by Woodshole Oceanographic Reference Study Estimates.
Wouldn’t this undermine the rest of Mann’s work, if he is now saying tree rings aren’t accurate?
Jim Bouldin has been defensive of Mann, including at AMac’s site. I asked him about one ClimateGate post that dendros are not acting in concert with the principles of evolution, and are generally not thinking in terms of biology. He was very dismissive of this e-mail, but appears to be saying the same things now.
So science IS a self-correcting process?
And does anyone really want to encourage an environment where scientists (or anyone, including bloggers) can’t make a mistake?
OT
An important moment for the SC24, the solar magnetic field has finally changed polarity
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
a bit later than expected.
“REPLY: When is it ever good sense to use data that has failed to pass peer review? – Anthony”
watch out for rhetorical boomerangs. you probably want to explore the multiple number of ways such a comment can backfire. And reading what Mann wrote would help.
If the tree has leaves or healthy needles,then it is living and WILL produce a ring,no matter how small. No ring,tree dead. And people still fall this crap? What is wrong with NA’s edumacational systems?
Mann’s missing tree rings.
Trenberth’s missing heat.
We’re allI missing something here.
“Given the apparent absence of evidence it doesn’t say much for the peer-review process involved in the Mann paper.”
Hear, hear! Far too much crap science is being published. It is time to expose those who facilitate the publication of crap science. Science is far too important for our future to continue to allow this to continue.
Mark Steyn should highlight this event where Mann’s colleagues are now complaining that Mann made claims unsupported by the evidence.
The consensus of Mann’s colleagues in the dendro field is that it’s very likely that Mann mostly made things up .
When is it ever good sense to use data that has failed to pass peer review?
When it was the implications of accepting the data, and not the correctness of the data, that prevented peer review by the orthodoxy.
Assuming some tree line trees are so temp/light limited that they fail to grow a ring after a major eruptions. Some trees which are less stressed, would still have rings even if they are a bit thinner than usual. Matching growing patterns before and after the event will rapidly show if there are missing years.
Sounds like they just need find the sampled trees and sample trees nearby, but at a different elevation. As this divergence puts in queston the reliability of the proxy thing, you would think they would be keen to settle the question with a field trip not models.
Maybe Josh could do a cartoon with Mike the Stump fighting back Pine Bark Beetles.
OK, so let me see if I’ve got it right here:
Dendro’s believe that: All else being equal, a tree ring’s width will be proportional to temperature during the growing season.
All else being equal, a tree ring’s width will be proportional to available water during the growing season.
All else being equal, a tree ring’s width will be proportional to available fertilizer during the growing season. (More nitrates will increase growth, more phosphates will increase growth, more sodium (salt) will decrease growth, etc.)
All else being equal, a tree ring’s width will be proportional to available soil and sunlight during the growing season. (A nearby fire will remove trees, increase light, and therefore increase growth of this particular tree.)
All else being equal, a tree ring’s width will be proportional to stress during the growing and passive seasons. (More stress on the tree (insects, fire damage, falling limbs, greater winds, roots pulled, nearby erosion, etc.) will reduce growth.
What then, is Mann’s “correction” for the increased CO2 yielding 20 to 27% MORE growth in trees and plants worldwide in last half of the 20th century – regardless of worldwide temperatures?
Even if you assume no other factor has ever affected “his” trees over the past 1200 years as he tries to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age, how has he corrected his tree ring widths for increased CO2?
Policy Guy asks above (November 25, 2012 at 9:37 pm) “So how does one demonstrate that a tree does not generate a ring under certain circumstances?”
That’s a good question and should be fairly easy to experimentally demonstrate. Plant a tree in a greenhouse. Control the conditions for whatever set of “certain circumstances” you wish to test. Hold the temperature arbitrarily low, for example. Plant a control tree in the next room. After a couple of years, take cores and look to see if the tree rings really stopped. Given enough time and a modest budget for greenhouse space, it should be fairly easy to find out what conditions (if any) will result in a complete shutdown of tree rings.
This, of course, begs the question of whether that research has already been done. If so, I would have expected it to be cited either in the original report or the rebuttal. If not, it seems to be a serious overstep to make the claim that the shutdown occurs without attempting to prove that the phenomenon occurs.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
November 26, 2012 at 7:48 am
From Gail Combs on November 26, 2012 at 6:58 am:
The best comments on the BEST data.
Drop the parts of the URL’s from question mark to end to make the links work.
_____________________
Thanks, problem did not show when I tested links on my machine.
Mann:
“Sorry, there are some tree ring missing.”
Nobel prize committee:
“This is dynamite !
You don’t have to be a dendro.. to observe that if you do indeed suspect that there are missing rings because of volcanic cooling on your marginal limit-to-growth lattitude, simply move down south a hundred kilometres and see if rings appear. I’m am always amazed how much apriori reasoning (the kind your teenage child is forced to use in an argument because of lack of experience) that is appealed to by CAGW scientists. Get out more! If there was a Starbucks in the vicinity, mathematician Steve McIntyre could probably settle this question.
Will Mann, Noble prize winner (not) (etc.), sue?
Mughal says: @ November 26, 2012 at 10:20 am
…And does anyone really want to encourage an environment where scientists (or anyone, including bloggers) can’t make a mistake?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem is not that Mann made a mistake it is his Attack Dog attitude, going so far as having Reporters in Canada try to dig up dirt on Steve McIntyre, getting journal editors fired for publishing the wrong paper, keeping other scientists papers from being published if they do not regurgitated the party line, keeping peer-reviewed papers out of the IPCC…. All these were revealed in the Climategate e-mails as actions of Mann or the ‘Team’.
None of those are the actions of a scientist. Mann is not a scientist but an activist sacrificing his soul for $$$$ since I am sure he and the rest of the Team do not believe the malarkey they spew. If they did they would be cheerful that warming has stopped instead of calling it a ‘travesty’
Rob Wilson has posted a reply to a commenter(s) at Bishop Hill:
Dear All,
Mann’s major flaw was to see something in his model which did not agree with “nature” and assumed that there must be something wrong with nature. Alas, if he had taken the trouble either (1) to speak to some of his dendrochronological colleagues or (2) look at some real tree-ring data to learn what “crossdating” is, he would have quickly realised that his hypothesis was wrong and would not have wasted a lot of time for many people.
In my opinion, not reading a paper just because Briffa is a co-author seems rather narrow minded. Feel free to froth at the mouth, but this just highlights how entrenched SOME of you are w.r.t. your ideas, opinions and biases.
Simon Hopkinson – such a comment is really not very helpful – but did, I guess, provide the impetus for me to write a quick comment.
Rob
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/11/26/lonely-old-mann.html
Nobel prize? huh…
On dendrochronology: Much as I dislike writing this, I strongly suspect that carefully selected trees/sites can be used ad a rather noisy proxy for temperature.
Now before jumping on me, read on…
If you have ever been up a mountain as far as the tree-line, it becomes obvious that the line is pretty well defined. Visit often enough and you will see that the tree-line is pretty much a constant distance (elevation) away from any “snow-line”. Its reasonable to conclude that the major factor in determining where the tree-line is, and why it exists at all, is temperature.
Stick to the West side of the mountain, and rainfall will be fairly abundant and plentiful.
There are very few beasties depositing manure around these trees, and dying at the base of them.
Few trees actually make it to maturity, so on the tree-line itself, crowding is not a big issue.
Under these circumstances, I can be convinced that average temperature is the biggest determinant of tree growth in any year, and that a core sample may well be able to be correlated to average temperature.
I would consider studies in this environment to be reasonable empirical science to validate other temperature proxy/anecdote measurements — for that locality, and during the period covered by other evidence.
It is the extreme extrapolation in time and space that I find difficult to accept. Although conditions in these locations are relatively stable, just take a look at a typical tree-line and you will often see that there are dead trees further up the slope. I have no real idea of the significance of that, but think it reasonable to suspect that it may be an indication that conditions were warmer when those trees grew. There are often dead trees extending well into the tree-line (downhill). What caused these to die? Old age, possibly, but maybe also an indication of a colder period?
To extrapolate in time, we have to assume that conditions didn’t change significantly. That is a huge assumption.
For me, dendrochronology has a place – as supporting evidence of other co-incident temperature measurements/indications. Beyond that, its wishful thinking.
Bob asked
“Speaking of the BEST dataset, can someone tell me why the thing diverges so much from all other datasets?
http://i45.tinypic.com/23tqi3m.jpg ”
—– ——
There is quite good correlation between BEST and the grandaddy instrumental record of them all, CET.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/
It does demonstrate that CET has a valuable role as a reasonable proxy for global temperatures (should such a thing exist) although it probably suffers-as does BEST-from an inadequate allowance for uhi.
tonyb
Duke C. says:
November 26, 2012 at 11:38 am
Perhaps not very helpful in getting Mann’s ox out of the mire, but that’s exactly where Mann’s ox belongs.
It simply amazes me that Mann still has a small cadre of comrades willing to put up with his lousy manners and defend his horrible “science”.
As for me, I find it immensely entertaining.
There’s a hole in my tree rings, dear Gavin, dear Gavin,
Then mend it, dear Mickey , dear Mickey, mend it.
With what shall I mend it, dear dear Gavin, dear Gavin?
With MWP data , dear Mickey , dear Mickey, with MWP data
The MVP data are too high, dear Gavin, dear Gavin
Then use LIA, dear Mickey , dear Mickey, use LIA
The LIA data are too low, dear Gavin, dear Gavin
Then squash it, dear Mickey , dear Mickey, squash it
What shall I squash it dear Gavin, dear Gavin
Hit it with a hokey stick dear Mickey , dear Mickey, a hokey stick
vukcevic said on November 26, 2012 at 10:28 am:
The original Wilcox Solar Observatory data, field strength given in 1/100 Gauss (18 is 0.18G) (10,000 Gauss = 1 Tesla):
http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
Your graph includes the note on the 30-day averaging. But you have obviously not used the filtered data, which is described (with incorrect grammar) by:
A 20nhz low pass filtered values eliminate yearly geometric projection effects.
The importance of using the filtered values is shown in the North Pole readings, which has apparently flipped polarity three times this year by the unfiltered values. Filtered shows the North has flipped once. The South is still declining by both and has yet to flip.
The filtered values show the average has not yet passed through zero. You are chasing transient noise.
Latest News re court case against Mann, and more
Click here.
“….no dendrochronologists were involved in the offending Mann et al 2012 paper.”
“””””””””””””
Did the editor send this paper to any dendrochronologists for review? If the paper is so clearly flawed that so many scientists raise issues, how could it have been passed for publication?
The clearest explanation of cross-dating I have read is by dendrochronologist Harold C. Fritts in The Wisdom of the Ancients:
“Instead of simply counting, dendrochronologists use a procedure called cross-dating to establish the exact year each ring grew from the beginning of the trees life to the time it was sampled.
“The growth rate of bristlecone pine can be so slow in very dry or cold years, that some trees fail to grow so that the ring is missing at the base of the trunk where they would naturally be counted. If the rings had been counted rather than cross-dated, the tree age would be one year less for every year that the tree did not produce a complete ring.
“The procedure of cross-dating matches the patterns of wide and narrow rings in a large number of trees. A narrow ring can be found in faster growing trees during the same year that the ring is missing in slower growing ancients. When the pattern of wide and narrow rings is memorized or recorded in someway, it is easy to identify where in a stem a growth ring is missing or when mistakes or other types of problems occur. This allows dendrochronologists to identify the chronology (timing) of every ring to the exact year in which it grew.”
http://tree.ltrr.arizona.edu/~hal/tancient.pdf
“Well, Mann did have the good sense to use BEST data in his response.”
BEST isnt data, is a statistical model, same as all the global
“datasets”. It drive me crazy that people think you can take a bunch of raw data, adjust and manipulate it 7 ways to Sunday and then call the output “data”.
So the sum contribution of Mosher in this thread is bugger all, as per usual. Brilliant.
“Mann’s major flaw was to see something in his model which did not agree with “nature” and assumed that there must be something wrong with nature. ”
This is the major flaw with much of what is called “climate science”. Hopefully this episode opens the eyes of some of the dendro’s, especially guys like Briffa and Hughes who have been involved in other faulty Mann papers.
“I strongly suspect that carefully selected trees/sites can be used ad a rather noisy proxy for temperature.”
I agree, there may be useful proxies in sites that are carefully selected. To determine this the sites must be selected beforehand based on the known science (ie before taking any core samples, you decide on which sites should offer the best temperature proxies based on local conditions), not selected afterwards as Mann et al love doing. The proxy can only be validated through such specific selections, and not by wiggle matching after the fact which is always a biased exercise and introduces false matches that will only correlate for a period due to chance.
I’m sure a lot of the dendro’s know this and use such methodology. Its the “climate science” folk that need to understand correct scientific methods.
Perhaps trees also grow by reducing tree rings… LOL
joeldshore writes “For example, one time we had some OLED devices coated and I found that my optical model was quite insistent on the notion that the layer of Aluminum (Al) was about 300A thick, not 200A thick and this seemed to be a quite robust result not sensitive to other assumptions ”
But it was the very precise measured data coupled with the (presumably accurate) model in a very tightly constrained situation that allowed you to do that.
How would your model have faired if the only data you had to work with was “OLED is on” and “OLED is off”? Conversely would you have come to the same result if the model didn’t accurately model the effect of thickness?
This is the situation the GCMs are in. They dont do anything well enough to be useful when conditions differ from those under which they’ve been built and tuned.
Any gossip on the twitter vine? Don’t do it myself.
Briffa is on the short list of those who have fought tooth and claw to prevent scrutiny of their data,which data, when finally obtained through FOI, revealed his science as so faulty as to approach fabrication. If Briffa now embraces the scientific principle of reproducibility, it is a reversal of his previous behavior. He deserves no praise as a scientist.
One tree ring to rule them all,
One tree ring to find them
One tree ring to bring them all
And in the darkness bind them …
Somebody had to do it.
FYI R Wilson has just posted another interesting comment at BH last comment.
Hi Knoebel
1. You say:
Your graph includes the note on the 30-day averaging. But you have obviously not used the filtered data, which is described (with incorrect grammar)
Sorry mate, it’s pure Americana quoted from:
http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
“Each 10 days the usable daily polar field measurements in a centered 30-day window are averaged.”
line 7.
2. You say
. But you have obviously not used the filtered data…..
Polar field represents strength of the solar dipole, which is simple North-South. On this you should consult one who knows and understand these matters, and whose advice I have taken, and that is indeed our very own Svalgaard of Stanford
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
Graph two (he hasn’t updated yet, the new data are published only this afternoon); note Dr.S has inverted scale, I use the normal ordinate orientation.
Plotting and updating moving filtered data is associated with a problem which you may or may not be aware of (again refer to Dr.S).
In some mature coniferous forests, the lower tree branches die due to lack of light. Individual trees eventually consist of small crowns atop a tall branchless stem. Diameter growth is initiated in the crowns and indeed, in this area a ring is formed every year. Diameter growth then moves from the tree crown down the stem forming a ring as it goes. This is why some coniferous stems appear to have little taper. In some years and in some trees there may not be enough vigour for growth to reach the bottem of the tree and a ring will not be formed all the way to the base. This will not likely be detected when aging trees by boring but will be found with destructive analysis of the tree.
==================================================================
Mughal, I think you have quite missed the point. It is Michael Mann and his team who have made it exceedingly difficult to have candid discussions of (putative) mistakes or corrections without turning everything into a bloodbath of accusations and hostility. It is now FOURTEEN years since MBH98 and (so far as I am aware) there is still no full and adequate defense of MBH methodology and error analysis. Had Mann engaged in honest, candid, cooperative discussions at any time in the past 14 years much more could have been achieved, and enormous amounts of wasted time and energy (for many people) avoided.
This is a different era (obviously) from times when science could be “self-correcting” over many generations — to the extent feasible we want the sciences (especially when they have public policy or medical etc. implications) to be self-correcting just as rapidly as feasible.
It is Michael Mann and his teammates who have thrown up far too many obstacles and raised the time/cost for correction.
Fourteen years is now long enough (more than) — perhaps this little “revolt of the dendros” can spark a general re-assessment of Mann’s articles and everything that has gone wrong over 14+ years.
yes it is encouraging to see some of the names on this list of 23, daring to challege the Mann-iac’s egomania…… I find it a hopeful sign to see these particular names (below) under the comment, since all of them now have reason to recognize the obstacle to scientific progress represented by Mann’s “air of papal infallibility” (a phrase once applied to Bradley but perfectly suitable for Mann):
Keith R. Briffa, Edward R. Cook, Rosanne D. D’Arrigo, Jan Esper, Malcolm K. Hughes, Thomas M. Melvin, Rob J.S. Wilson
@ Truthseeker says:
November 26, 2012 at 2:16 pm
One tree ring to rule them all,
One tree ring to find them
One tree ring to bring them all
And in the darkness bind them …
Somebody had to do it.
Yes, somebody had to do it and just in time for the movie, too.
From vukcevic on November 26, 2012 at 2:31 pm:
Sorry mate, it’s pure Americana quoted from:
http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
“Each 10 days the usable daily polar field measurements in a centered 30-day window are averaged.”
Incorrect. I referred to that site and the mentioned low-pass filtering with its note, not the 30-day unfiltered values with that note which you copied on your graph. You have not used this data with the low-pass filtering, as I have stated.
Plotting and updating moving filtered data is associated with a problem which you may or may not be aware of (again refer to Dr.S).
Who advised using the smoothed sunspot number for solar research. Smoothing/filtering has a place, use enough to reduce spurious noise, not enough to suppress or alter details.
The “dendro” fight has been going on 4+ decades. Has anyone been in the field using luminance, humidity, moisture, precipitation, temperature, CO2, trace, etc. at reference sites to actually confirm “tree ring” observations?
skiphil says:
“yes it is encouraging to see some of the names on this list of 23, daring to challege the Mann-iac’s egomania”
Wait a minute. I thought there was some grand cabal who washed each other’s backs, and threatened editors to ensure one and only one message got out there?
Are you saying that model no longer holds?
Mughal says:
November 26, 2012 at 4:15 pm
In the grand tradition of Climate Science™, obviously the data are wrong and the model is correct. So the fact that we can’t account for the missing praise of Michael Mann is a travesty. One that no doubt can be corrected for, given enough time, and enough careful readings of the listserver. Perhaps the missing praise is present at the very deepest levels of the SQL memory architecutre and not evident at either the surface or the intermediate levels.
Sorry, Dr Lanner – too late!
I have all sorts of trees currently experiencing a ‘cessation in tree ring growth’ as a result of last years’ drought in Texas. But here’s to hoping that they magically spring back to life!
;-D
Oh dear Mikey and the team are having a bad month it seems..some headlines from The Hockeyschtick from November
1.New paper contradicts IPCC assumptions about precipitation
2.New paper shows no “hot spot” as predicted by climate models, invalidates AGW
3.New paper shows global warming leads to fewer floods
4.New paper finds urban heat islands can account for up to 2°C warming
2.New paper shows N. Atlantic Ocean cooled from 1953-2007
And now Mikey gets whipped with his tree ring Trick..is it me or are the rats leaving a sinking ship
and heading for dryer ground so to speak???
.
Mycroft, do you have links to those specific papers, particularly #4
Thanks.
John M says:
“In the grand tradition of Climate Science™, obviously the data are wrong and the model is correct.”
So scientists can’t win? The data is wrong, or the model is junk. That’s what you’re saying.
Skeptics spend a lot of time telling us how this is all a hoax and all scientists are in cahoots to promote an AGW-view. Yet now some scientists are disagreeing with one of their acolytes. So what are we supposed to believe — that the scientific community really IS concerned with the truth?
Mughal says:
November 26, 2012 at 4:15 pm
skiphil says:
“yes it is encouraging to see some of the names on this list of 23, daring to challege the Mann-iac’s egomania”
Wait a minute. I thought there was some grand cabal who washed each other’s backs, and threatened editors to ensure one and only one message got out there?
Are you saying that model no longer holds?
Actually, what ClimateGate taught us is that it was a relatively small “cabal” which was driving the message. This is precisely an example of that cabal (and, to continue your metaphor, their “model”) meeting the larger scientific community.
You think it must have been “grand” because you think that there really is/was some kind of “consensus”
Mughal:
At November 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm you ask:
No, your question demonstrates several misunderstandings.
The ‘Team’ is not part of “the scientific community” but is a group of pseudoscientists who – as their own words in the climategate emails demonstrate – have conspired to further their careers by destroying both the scientific method and the scientific publication system.
Their conspiracy attempted to continue the AGW-scare which encouraged politicians to fund their activities. But at Copenhagen in 2009 the politicians decided to abandon the scare so the Team’s funding is threatened.
The failure at Copenhagen was certain to eventually result in the failure of the Team’s conspiracy. And the Team is falling apart while searching for scapegoats. It seems that Mann is being selected to wear cloven hooves.
Richard
Rob Wilson said on: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Sent: Sunday, 25 November, 2012 20:43
“…problems in Mann et al.’s implementation of the tree ring model used, a lack of consideration for uncertainty in the amplitude and spatial pattern of volcanic forcing and associated climate responses, and a lack of any empirical evidence…”
—————————————————————–
Lack of any empirical evidence – that about sums up AGW theory.
Mughal:
At November 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm you ask
No, your question displays much misunderstanding.
The ‘Team’ is not part of “the scientific community”. Their own words in the climategate emails reveal the ‘Team’ to be a cabal of pseudoscientists who conspired to further their “cause” by usurping the scientific method and distorting scientific publication procedures.
And what they call “the cause” is promotion of the AGW-scare to further their careers.
But at Copenhagen in 2009, politicians decided to withdraw from the scare, and politicians (directly or indirectly) most of the Team’s funding. Thus, the Team fear the imminent failure of their conspiracy.
The Team is seeking a scapegoat and it seems that Mann has been selected to stand on cloven hooves: in a way he has selected himself by his arrogance and demeanour.
Richard
Skeptics spend a lot of time telling us how this is all a hoax and all scientists are in cahoots to promote an AGW-view.
“Sceptics” do no such thing. Some opposed to the AGW line do this, but far from all. Not even most by a long shot.
Go the sites where the science is discussed in detail (CA, Lucia, etc) and you find nothing remotely resembling the position you outline above.
If you walk around pretending that everyone sceptical of AGW is taking the same line “hoax” and “conspiracy”, then prepare to have people ignore you. Only someone deliberately being obtuse would do that.
Maybe Mann should look under the table skirt for his missing data.
Mughal says:
November 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Um, well, it has to be one of those, cause the data certainly are not agreeing with the model(s). Generally speaking, when observation does not agree with hypothesis, hypothesis needs adjustment.
No they don’t, not even close. That’s simply what you want them to be saying. I think the psychological terminology that would be appropriate is projection. If the tables were turned, that’s what you would be doing, therefore, that’s what skeptics are doing.
Yay, it’s about time.
Maybe we should believe that eventually the truth will out? I won’t even point out that there are still rather many people defending the nonsense that Mann spews forth. Just because those on this list finally got to the breaking point at which they could no longer keep quiet does not in anyway mean that the “scientific community” writ large is on board as well. Ideology is a difficult thing to break – it is not arrived at through logic and reason, and thus cannot be broken by the same.
Mark
Yeah, I always right-click and open link in new tab (Firefox), and they weren’t working, even just a minute ago. The error was a “Page Not Found”, so probably a custom 404 error page. So I did a “copy link location” and pasted into a new tab, and both worked. Strange.
Thanks!
Agree completely. He will have to admit, publicly, past mistakes which are blatantly obvious. Then, maybe, I can trust him as a scientist.
I think Mann understood perfectly. But, he was led down the garden path by his hubris, followed later by his hairline (hey, I’m bald, I can make bald jokes) and didn’t expect anyone with credentials to publicly rebuke him.
I suppose now he’ll be calling Wilson and the rest shills for big oil.
Mughal…this is news precisely because it is different than the norm for this particular sector of scientists. It’s not correct to make a trend out of a single instance, though. You can go back to “hoax” and “all scientists” strawmen with comfort.
Mughal,
Alas, you did not address any points from me (or others) above, and instead offered your own strawman caricature. All I can say is that what you attribute is not what I think, so you must be addressing someone else. If that’s your idea of a rational discussion then you are not offering anything to contribute to this thread.
I would personally appreciate Rob Wilson and others providing any info on the backstory from the previous 7 years or more concerning Mann’s and Jones’: 1) coercive axis of bias in climate science; 2) intimidation of journal peer review and; 3) active IPCC process manipulation.
It is time to open the backstory, I hope.
John
Policy Guy said (November 25, 2012 at 9:37 pm)
“…So how does one demonstrate that a tree does not generate a ring under certain circumstances?…”
Well, their normal practice was to go through all the data and pick out only those that showed the current warming.
So it’s either use some trees with “missing” rings to prove their point, or use data with “missing” TREES because the existing rings didn’t prove their point.
There have been at least 3 climate change headlines per day on my Yahoo homepage, ever since the election.
I found this headline and clicked, intending to comment that it was refreshing to see scientists studying poop instead of global warming.
http://news.yahoo.com/human-poop-helps-scientists-snoop-history-200636433.html
They are really scraping the bottom of the cesspool now.
The resistable rise of Michael Mann.
Pamela Gray said on November 26, 2012 at 6:32 pm:
Maybe Mann should look under the table skirt for his missing data.
Question: When is it a table skirt, and when is it a table kilt?
I’ve seen some rather masculine tables in my time, don’t want to cause any offense by calling it the wrong thing.
So Mikey is willing to sacrifice the field of dendrochronology on the altar of treemometers.
Gotta love the part of his response: “Although we welcome alternative hypotheses, we note that their comment does not provide a plausible alternative explanation for this vexing problem.”
Why should they offer an alternative hypothesis in a comment? They’ve pretty much demolished his which was only needed because there was a problem with his temperature model.
But if MIkey needs an alternate hypothesis, I would like to posit: Sometimes, treemometers ain’t.
The illuminiti: UN IPCC (least) and UN General Secretary (Greatest) and UN Council and UN Security Council (Lower, by rank).
The Illuminitus: ‘Ms. Figueres, the executive secretary of the convention’ from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/business/energy-environment/un-climate-talks-promise-little-drama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
From Wikipedia:
Abduction[1] is a form of logical inference that goes from data description of something to a hypothesis that accounts for the reliable data and seeks to explain relevant evidence. The term was first introduced by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) as “guessing”.[2] Peirce said that to abduce a hypothetical explanation from an observed surprising circumstance is to surmise that may be true because then would be a matter of course.[3] Thus, to abduce from involves determining that is sufficient (or nearly sufficient), but not necessary, for .
For example, the lawn is wet. But if it rained last night, then it would be unsurprising that the lawn is wet. Therefore, by abductive reasoning, the possibility that it rained last night is reasonable. (But note that Peirce did not remain convinced that a single logical form covers all abduction.)[4]
Peirce argues that good abductive reasoning from P to Q involves not simply a determination that, e.g., Q is sufficient for P, but also that Q is among the most economical explanations for P. Simplification and economy are what call for the ‘leap’ of abduction.[5]
In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. Abductive reasoning can be understood as “inference to the best explanation”.[6]
From Wikipedia:
Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain conclusion.[1] Deductive reasoning involves using given true premises to reach a conclusion that is also true. Deductive reasoning contrasts with inductive reasoning in that a specific conclusion is arrived at from a general principle. If the rules and logic of deduction are followed, this procedure ensures an accurate conclusion.
An example of a deductive argument:
All men are mortal.
John is a man.
Therefore, John is mortal.
The first premise states that all objects classified as “men” have the attribute “mortal”. The second premise states that “John” is classified as a “man” – a member of the set “men”. The conclusion then states that “John” must be “mortal” because he inherits this attribute from his classification as a “man”.
Deductive reasoning (also known as logical deduction) links premises with conclusions. If both premises are true, the terms are clear and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion of the argument follows by logical necessity.
Now Consider The Principal 2 of The IPCC.
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
Ah Ha! That Phrase:
“Human Induced Climate Change”.
Human Induced Climate Change MUST EXIST in Order For The IPCC … To EXIST.
So the Entire Reason For Being Of The IPCC (and all there in) … Is False. Simple.
Just a lot of money funding cocaine and heroin, prostitutes, slavery and debauchery, and a lot of Government Travel Reimbursement Requests (NSF, White House, NOAA, USGS, EPA, DoE … the list goes on and on and on) at such an expensive place as Doha, Qatar.
And Doha, Qatar! This is OIL TOWN! Electricity is FREE for residents … ah hem … Bedouin.
Advice: Don’t look like a Gaigin in Doha.
🙂
Maybe it simply requires some “adjustment”.
Jeff Alberts says:
November 26, 2012 at 7:06 pm
“Trust?” No. “Trust but verify,” Yes.
Stacyglen has it right, I think. Stacy asks why we don’t settle this with some experiments? With well-designed experiments, we ought to know in a few years under what conditions trees fail to produce rings. (And no, I won’t be satisfied with the “photosynthesis index” proposed above without some solid work to back it up.) So what if it takes time and trees — that is how we did biology before all the yahoos with math degrees showed up. It would also be an excellent idea to go ask tree experts instead of “climate experts”. Just sayin.
Anyone else sense the dendrochronologists have seen the writing on the wall regarding Mann and are distancing themselves from Mann’s downfall?
Policy Guy says: “Who needs evidence, just propose a theory and say that you’ve modeled it.”
If I may…
Who needs science, just propose research, collect the funding, and claim a Nobel.
“Trust but verify” is part and parcel for science. I took it as understood. 😉
The lack of verification (except by buddies) is why we’re in this mess in the first place.
people need to take a deeper view of Briffa.
Some background. Jones was a co author of both Briffa and Mann.
Early on in the climategate files you will find Mann applying pressure to Jones, Briffa and osborn
with regards to some things that Briffa had written.
Also, Briffa and osborn appear to be preparing a criticism of mann that would have raised some of the points Mc raised. the paper doesnt get written.
Recall that Briffa doesnt get the lead in Ar3, that goes to the freshly minted Phd, mann.
come 2005, Mann is complaining to Jones that he cant face the skeptics all by himself.
Up until 2005 Jones had been sharing data with others, even mcintyre.
Briffa sends Jones a pile of press clippings attacking Jones and comments that the skeptics are getting traction with the data sharing argument.
You would think, Jones would take the hint. To me it looks like Briffa trying to win his boss back over. Jones however sides with Mann and that very day sends warwick hughes the famous reply
“why should I share my data”
In writing Ar4 briffa is under big pressure to out do mann’s HS. he argues against this. he complains that people should not cave to mann’s pressure.
Unlike the HS, briffa’s chart never makes it into the policy maker summary.
Briffa wasnt perfect. But a deeper look at things and you find somebody who was never a fan of mann.
Instead of lumping all scientists into the same box, the way mann lumps all skeptics as oil shills, folks might focus a bit more attention on the details.
Privately a critic of Mann’s, Briffa seems to have bitten his tongue when it came to public criticism.
He fought, perhaps not hard enough, against manns influence in Ar4.
people all understand staying silent. Everytime you see a dragon slayer comment and remain silent, you’re basically doing what Briffa did.
joeldshore says:
November 26, 2012 at 5:43 am
“Louis I am always amused here when people who have probably never actually done science believe that they understand science better than those who have. In fact, the relationship between models and empirical data works both ways. Sometimes the data points out problems with the models and sometimes the models point out problems with the data, which is, after all, not ordained by God.
In fact, as a modeler, I can remember many times when I have used modeling to find problems with the data.”
The relative role of model vs data depends upon the signal to noise ratio of the measured data.
On one extreme, it is a one way street. If we model the weather, we know if the prediction was correct. We have no doubt if it rained or not. My experience in modelling is similar—we model where there might be oil, then drill a well. The model is tested. (Gasp! a big oil shill)
On the other extreme, a theoretical physicist might have some very good calculations and the applied physicist some hint of a signal. Model and measurements play a more equal role in guessing what is the truth.
Measurements in climate are not as hard as we make them out to be. When models fail, it is the models which should be tortured, not the data.
This is how science works. People write papers. Other people disagree. A consensus eventually emerges that usually includes aspects of the original views.
I realise that the vilification of Mann is part of the mantra here, but this is a very normal scientific exchange.
Jones is missing data,
Mann is missing rings,
Piltdown is the missing link.
Hi – Hi! We’re your Dendro Boys – Ah-huh –
And have we got news for you – You better listen!
Get ready, all you lonely IPCC tree-ring huggers!
And leave that faux Nobel prize certificate at home. – Alright! –
CO2 is rising – but sea level’s still just as low
According to all sources, Penn State’s the place to go
Cause tonight for the first time
Just about half-past ten
For the first time in history
It’s gonna start raining Mann…
It’s Raining Mann! Hallelujah! – It’s Raining Mann! Amen!
I’m gonna let FOIA and Climategate
Hockey-stick-whack Mann on his head
It’s Raining Mann! Hallelujah!
It’s Raining Mann! Every Yamal Specimen!
Short, bald, fat and green
Malicious, devious, wrong, and just plain mean…
God bless Mother Nature, she’s a climate scientist too
She took off to UEA and she did what she had to do
She got poor old Harry to upload some email files
So that each and every skeptic could find the perfect rile…
It’s Raining Mann! Hallelujah! – It’s Raining Mann! Amen!
It’s Raining Mann! Hallelujah!
It’s Raining Mann! Ameeeeeeeennnn!
wrecktafire says:
November 26, 2012 at 8:58 pm
[…]It would also be an excellent idea to go ask tree experts instead of “climate experts”. Just sayin.
Why would we do that?
Surely you realise by now that Climate Biology is different to Biological Biology and can’t be done by mere tree experts, any more that Climate Statistics can be done by mere statisticians, Climate Physics by mere physicists or Climate Economics by mere economists. You need a Climate Expert for such complex matters or you’ll end up with all the wrong answers!
Mann needs to show a cooler past to make a steeper modern warming trend and it looks like he has tried too hard and has pissed off the neighbors. This is more team tennis. The Antarctic doesn’t heat like it’s been projected to, the skeptics point this out and we get Steig 09’s weak back hand. Spencer writes a paper showing lower climate sensitivity due to clouds, here comes Trenberth and Dessler charging the net! The temperature is flat for 16 years and Mann hits a short lob shot.
This isn’t science as I perceive it…it’s about winning an argument, environmental advocacy, and politics.
Dennis Nikols, P. Geo. says:
I am not a dendro but I have worked with and sampled trees in the very far north ±60. Some times you need a lens or a microscope to count the rings, they are very fine. I strongly suspect missing is simply not on. Maybe these people need to re-take Botany 101.
Or possibly even Dendrology 101 🙂
It’s interesting how whilst climate scientists very often are downright rude to anyone outside their group having anything to say about “climate science” they themselves often have plenty to say about things from history to mathematics…
The data disagrees with the model, therefore the data must be in error and must be discarded.
Here we go again.
Seth says:
November 26, 2012 at 10:56 pm (Edit)
“I realise that the vilification of Mann is part of the mantra here, but this is a very normal scientific exchange.”
I’d say the Mann vilifies himself rather nicely all by himself.
This is how science works. People write papers. Other people disagree. A consensus eventually emerges that usually includes aspects of the original views.
Bingo! It’s too bad that for the last dozen years the funding of science has been used to stifle this normal scientific process.
By the way, which aspects of Mann’s original views do you expect to withstand the cross examination and scrutiny of evidence?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
November 26, 2012 at 3:43 pm
…………….
It is very simple: filtering is not suitable for active data which are updated one step at the time, as I do. Perhaps you should construct graphs to your own requirement but I prefer to show and look at data in the unprocessed form, if available.
Seth says:
November 26, 2012 at 10:56 pm
This is how science works. People write papers. Other people disagree. A consensus eventually emerges that usually includes aspects of the original views
Consensus is not part of the scientific process.
Mosher writes “people need to take a deeper view of Briffa.”
+1 for this. IMHO Climategate showed Briffa to be a well intentioned scientist in with the wrong crowd.
Seth says:
November 26, 2012 at 10:56 pm
“This is how science works. People write papers. Other people disagree. A consensus eventually emerges that usually includes aspects of the original views.”
Except for when the consensus is defined by the IPCC, a body that has as its MISSION STATEMENT to find evidence in favor of man made global warming, and discard all evidence against it.
Lousy C rated scientists like Mann thrive in this atmosphere.
It has always been obvious to me that Briffa was strong-armed by Mann in 1999 in Tanzania and that it was political, to create fake science. Then one has to look deeper. The problem is that following the publication in 1997 of data showing CO2 followed T in the Antarctica ice cores, ‘The team’ had to destroy the MWP.
My approach, having worked all my life on energy and carbon issues has been to create the real science thereby to go back in time to when the real mistakes were made. This was Houghton in 1977. Most physicists have a shallow understanding of radiation physics because Planck gave up when he had to introduce the ‘photon’. It doesn’t exist except at the unique moment when Poynting Vectors interact.
Every professional process engineer who has like me worked in the metallurgical industries where we measure and predict reality instead of political messages immediately sees what went wrong with the Trenberth Hansen climate modelling, also intended to deceive. There can be no CO2-AGW because its surface IR is turned off by atmospheric thermal emission and they create a perpetual motion machine.
The only reason the two-stream approximation works is because the errors cancel out. Sorry Mosher – the boundary conditions which assume pyrgeometers measure an energy flux are completely wrong. The proof is simple: put two back to back in zero temperature gradient and the net signal is zero. Take one away and the net signal jumps to a temperature measurement. The explanation comes from Maxwell’s Equations, the only true arbiter!
The second snow storm on NYC and snow in the UK by the weekend show the World is cooling fast as we head towards the new Little Ice Age. Let’s hope that there will be retraining courses available for all the climate scientists taught incorrect physics so they are unemployable in proper science.
@Seth:
“This is how science works. People write papers. Other people disagree. A consensus eventually emerges that usually includes aspects of the original views.”
Consensus is only useful in choosing the most likely of a given set of scientific theories. However, consensus still leaves the science at the theory stage, and cannot preclude the possibility that the consensus (and hence the theory it prefers to support) is completely wrong. Scientific truth is reached when the theory demonstrates it can be used to make accurate predictions of previously unsuspected facts. Newtonian mechanics demonstrated its scientific truth by its usefulness in predicting the motions of objects in numerous situations. Climatology will demonstrate it has scientific truth when it can make accurate predictions of future climate. So far climatologists have predicted that rising CO2 levels will cause a rise in temperature. Over the last 15 years significant rises in CO2 have caused no increase in global temperature. The theory has therefore already been disproved. This state of affairs should be admitted, the consensus discarded and new theories considered with an open mind. Sadly the situation has become too politicised for this to happen.
Ryan
If you replace “theory” with “hypothesis” then you would be completely correct
The suspicion continues to grow that Briffa’s conscience is getting to him. As we stand, his place in history is likely to be as an embodiment of the Mark Twain quotation above; as a journeyman scientist whose work has been taken and repackaged by powerful vested interests in the green industry. There is speculation that Briffa is the mythical FOIA, the whistelblower behind the Climategate revelations.
If this is so, Briffa needs to go one step further. He needs to come out in a blaze of glory and dissociate himself from the Lysenkoist claptrap of global warmery; he needs to say loud and clear that his work cannot be used by those vested interests in the service of the AGW doomsday cult; that the eco-political-scientific-business complex is scaring the pants off the citizenry for no good reason; that he will no longer be a part of it.
Thanks for sharing your insights, which should be viewed as insights and not as an attempt to apologize for Keith Briffa. Whether or not Briffa was partly compelled by circumstances, as you seem to be saying, he needs to rehabilitate his image in science. I am not a dendro person myself but were I, I would not co-author a paper with the likes of him. Briffa needs to publically repudiate the practice of ignoring data requests and offer a mea culpa for his past behavior. That would be a start toward his rehabilitation. Next he should repudiate such contrivances as are offered by the world of dendroclimatology. Jim Bouldin has shown the way. Briffa swallowed upside-down Tiljander. He needs to spit that out. There are other things he might do. Then he needs to be ever conscious of his shady past and walk straight and in the light. My thoughts are that people like Briffa are starting to realize that they are not going to get away with it, after all.
Come Wilson or come Climategate 3!
mpainter says:
November 27, 2012 at 4:10 am
I’m in broad agreement, but I also think that the practical side of this needs to be taken into account. If you are a tenured academic with a decent pension on the horizon but still a few years off, and the choice is between biding your time till retirement, or getting a short-term blaze of publicity for ‘coming out’ against what’s been going on, followed by being frozen out of your professional field for the rest of your working life as a consequence (which tends to happen to whistleblowers however laudable their actions), the choice might not look so clear-cut. Just a thought.
I’m not sure if joeldshore’s comment is really relevant here. He writes:
However, I don’t see any actual data here. From joel’s account, it doesn’t sound as though the coaters actually measured the thickness of the coating and reported it as 200A. They assumed their settings were correct for a 200A coating, and they weren’t.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the story, but as I read it there was no actual measurement in the first place, merely an assumption that all was as it should be.
Talking about Mann, how’s the law suit going, anybody knows?
“Speculation this bald could give dendrochronologists a bad name.” Oh snap! Already happened.
AndyG55 says:
November 26, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Mycroft, do you have links to those specific papers, particularly #4
Thanks.
AndyG55
all over on the HOCKEYSCHTICK site.Anthony has a list on the home page right hand side
just scoll down the home page when you look at th H/S site.
It was posted above but seems to have sunk, like Mann
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/71-the-courts-hans-jelbring-and-the-kiwis-bring-joy-for-greenhouse-gas-deniers.html
Needs validating
Another example of putting models ahead of empirical facts – sigh
AlecM says:
“There can be no CO2-AGW because its surface IR is turned off by atmospheric thermal emission and they create a perpetual motion machine.”
All bodies above absolute zero radiate power, I don’t think anyone has suggested otherwise.
Where’s the perpetual motion machine?
Sun emits UV — UV hits Earth surface during day– Earth warms to T=X during day, cools to T=Y at night — Earth emits IR, transfers heat to Atmosphere — Atmosphere absorbs energy from surface (conduction, convection, & IR) — Atmosphere warms — Atmosphere emits IR to space & Earth — Earth/Atmosphere temperature gradient reduced thereby reducing heat loss at night — Earth cools to T=Y` at night. The only energy input is from the Sun, nowhere else is energy “created” even in this simplified scenario, only the transfer rates through the system and most importantly from Earth to Space is changed. If not for the atmosphere the Earth would be like 100 degrees C during the day and -173 at night, like the moon.
Mosher,
You can look at this and tell me Briffa is an honest scientist? Briffa defends this to this day, to my knowledge. I think he’s just jealous of the fame Mann had achieved.
He can’t have a change of heart now, and still defend past bad acts.
DaveS
You have touched on one of the ugly aspects of climate science. My nose tells me that it gets even uglier as one peers deeper.
Here’s something from March 2008 regarding Bristlecone Pines.
Stephen Richards said:
Seth says:
November 26, 2012 at 10:56 pm
“This is how science works. People write papers. Other people disagree. A consensus eventually emerges that usually includes aspects of the original views”
Consensus is not part of the scientific process.
Consensus IS part of the scientific process. But that has to be an organic one. The AGW consensus was doomed to be a forced one the moment the IPCC was created, as that organization was created to to produce that very consensus. It by design became a perpetual information merchant unlike any other for any other branch of science. Any work that suggested that things were not as bad as the committee expected was rejected as incorrect because it didn’t match the expected worst scenario outcome. Then when other peer reviewed papers, say from Dr. Roger Peilke Sr, are presented as a buffer, they are rejected by the community at large.
Why.
Because they are not in the IPCC. It has become it’s own canonized bible and prophecy machine
From JamesS on November 27, 2012 at 5:01 am:
One of the first things to notice is no tolerance was given, for example 200 Angstroms +/- 20A. All such specs need a tolerance, you can’t get a perfect uniform precisely 200A coating on all of a part.
Specs for coatings and platings are often interpreted as minimum thicknesses. If you’re specifying 0.0003″ of nickel for corrosion resistance, if the platers give you less then you don’t have enough resistance, if they give you a little more and the part sizes are all still within tolerance then there’s no problem. There is also geometry to consider. On points and edges (points in cross-section), especially if acute angles, you can have the minimum thickness built up on the sides and be under on the points. I suspect they gave him a good 200A minimum coating, no spot was under that.
Other possibility, considering it’s generally not good for a business to argue with a customer, they did give him an ~200A coating, then when he complained they made up a “tooling factor” that confirmed what the customer believed. Same if the coating was done in-house, management doesn’t like interdepartmental squabbling. But since Joel didn’t measure it himself, and is going by what his model said, good possibility the “tooling factor” became a notation, “Use 133A (two-thirds) on this part, not 200.”
From vukcevic on November 27, 2012 at 12:56 am:
It is very simple: filtering is not suitable for active data which are updated one step at the time, as I do.
Then you do not understand the purpose of the low-pass filtering, which is to correct an inherent error in the observational process.
Perhaps you should construct graphs to your own requirement but I prefer to show and look at data in the unprocessed form, if available.
You are already using data with 30-day centered averaging. There are valid reasons to process raw data, by valid methods, that improves quality.
You speak of preferring unprocessed data, yet use numbers from major temperature datasets like HadCRUT with questionable adjustments, not the raw station data. You use the values of assorted satellite datasets without processing the raw readings. You are quite willing to use highly processed data when it suits you. Your ‘preference for unprocessed data’ rings hollow.
Knoebel
In the event, you would be well advised to ignore whatever I do, and pursue your own interests, rather than waste your valuable time on something you consider erroneous or even worthless.
I wish you success in all you endeavors.
From Figure 1a in Mann et al’s original paper it is clear that the modeled temperature anomalies do not track the presumably factual instrumental record with any degree of precision. Enlarging the righthand part of Figure 1b of Mann et al and overlaying on Figure 1a shows that their tree ring proxy values do a reasonably good job of mimicing the instrumental data. Since their own EBM and GCM simulations failed to fit factual data that is fit by their own tree-ring data, surely that should have prompted Mann et al to terminate the project at a very early stage.
This is a good time to review the context of the past 10-14 years as displayed in these revealing “Climategate 2” emails:
https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/climategate-2
Also, some of the email gems collected by Jeff Id related to paleo reconstructions, tree rings, etc. are valuable context:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/their-words/
A lot of these things look worse, not better, the more the context is filled in…..
That’s what the apologists for reckless Alarmism fail to grasp…..