For readers unfamiliar with this work, this illustrates one of the mathematics techniques (tree ring proxy data inversion) Dr. Michael Mann uses to divine the famous “Hockey Stick” cited by Gore and others. – Anthony
Previously, we discussed the upside-down Tiljander proxies in Mann et al 2008. Ross and I pointed this out in our PNAS comment, with Mann denying in his answer that they were upside down. This reply is untrue (as Jean S and UC also confirmed.)
Andy Baker’s SU967 proxy is used in Mann 2008 and is one of a rather small number of long proxies. With Andy’s assistance, we’ve got a better handle on this proxy; Andy reported that narrow widths are associated with warm, wet climate.
I checked the usage of this proxy in Mann 2008. Mann reported positive correlations in early and late calibration (early – 0.3058; late 0.3533). Thus, the Mannomatic (in both EIV and CPS) used this series in the opposite orientation to the orientation of the original studies (Proctor et al 2000,2002), joining the 4 Tiljander series in upside-down world.
The difference is shown below:
Another upside down series. I wonder if it “matters”.
Could it really be just that simple? – Anthony
Mannian Machinations.
Steig Smearings.
Trouet Tribulations.
Esper Evasions.
This data reconstruction lark is pretty easy when you can cherry pick proxies, choose obedient methods and introduce upside-downess as and when neccessary.
What would Thomas Huxley think of Michael [snip] Mann?
======================================
Does anyone really even believe in tree rings as an accurate proxy of temperature? Correlation with actual temperatures seems to show zero statistically significant skill. It’s tree astrology.
RegEM in the Antarctic does some of this same thing with temp station data too. It does it with pieces (PC’s) of the temp data so it’s not as easy to demonstrate.
Gotta love mannimatics. There are probably dozens of examples of this kind of thing. It happens consistently throughout his work. His reply to SteveM on a different proxy in a letter written to PNAS was this:
The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.
As though a flipped proxy (temp curve) is still temp!!!!
The false methods in Mann are the joke of climatology, yet somehow they pass peer review. In another instance the proxy was used twice — once in the recent reconstruction in a positive temp up orientation and the back half (older reconstruction) in a flipped orientation.
For those who feel peer review has such great meaning, remember this example.
Oh! Jolly Hockeysticks! Whatho!
From what I’ve seen of Mann’s work, this is typical, though this may be the most blatently absurd. If you’re going to lie, please have some sublety, this is insulting.
So, if he’d used it in the original orientation, the correlations would have been negative. Did Mann ever discuss, anywhere, a reason or rationale for reversing the signal? If not, this sounds a bit like scientific fraud, doesn’t it?
Idiot’s question: As the scale range is the same up and down is there difference in the interpretation of the two graphs?
Where’s Bobby Orr when you need him?
Malcolm 08:04:29
This is the sort of stuff that is increasingly bothering me. As time goes on the evidence accumulates that some of these scientists are not engaged in an honest search for the truth, but rather in looking for evidence with which they can convince the less sophisticated. If true, this is terribly damaging to science, and ought to objected to by the vast majority of honest scientists.
We can only make good policy with good science and it is vital that policy be informed by science. Crook’t hockey sticks, and science done without integrity breaks a powerful social contract between the edifice of science and the public which must both make policy and live with the consequences of that policy. Corrupted science is not just wasted money on scientific crooks, it disturbs fundamentally the warp and woof of society.
There is a terrible reckoning coming if this has all been a fraud, nevermind its honest origins in a desire to preserve our environment. Good intentions only get you part of the way to Heaven; you have to keep re-evaluating the road signs along the way, or be led astray.
=====================================
Data revisionism is now ‘normal science’, e.g., Spaceweather today says it’s 22 days since the last sunspot.
While we might say altering data and/or accepted methods of processing it makes science impracticable and leave it at that this would be understatement–it is insidious and an evil.
Speaking of twisting data to misrepresent the facts, did you see the new statement on http://www.spaceweather.com today “The sun has been blank for 22 days in a row. That seems like a long time, but it’s not even close to the 100-year record set in 1913 when the sun was spotless for 92 consecutive days. Can the deep solar minimum of 2009 produce a new record? Check back in 70 days for the answer.”
Given the huge improvements in sunspot measurement capabilities that have occurred over the last century, and the fact that the sunspot counted by SpaceWeather.com 22 days ago was so small and so brief, that it is doubtful that it would had been seen and counted in 1913, it seems that SpaceWeather.com may have begun to misrepresent the sunspot data in order to mask the depth of the current solar minimum.
Does anyone have a method to objectively measure the size and appearance of a sunspot that would have been visible using various historical measuring devices (telescopes) and the frequency (daily, hourly, etc.) that sunspots were counted, so that we can compare recent sunspot activity to our historical sunspot data on a reasonably apples to apples basis?
Neil,
Only if plus and minus don’t matter. Since one guy says that the proxy as originally oriented is indicative of temperature, and the other guys says it is, but in the exact opposite fashion……somebody’s got some ‘splainin to do. My guess is that it’s the cleaner, er, I mean, the Mann handler.
Interesting that when there seems to be a problem with observational data not fitting a theory, the team calls in Mike Mann with his mathematical sausage maker (De-centered PCA ground up with whatever custom version of RegEM is required to arrive at the required result) and voila! Data fits theory.
I imagine he’ll soon turn to radiosonde data, Tropical Trospospheric Hotspot dogs soon to be on his list of Mannomatic sausage flavours. Tide gauge tasties, Boiled Argo Bouy Franks, Hurricane Hotties….the possiblities seem as endless as the holes in the AGW theory.
Niel Jones, [08.27.29]
Niel, depends where you live, Northern or Southern Hemisphere.
To those living in the North, the Southern peoples are upside down, Australians think of Northern Hemisphere peoples as head bangers, Uneducated Australians think anybody with a name like Mann is a male, but, obviously not, as in Australia hockey is a girls game..,,,,
Neil, yes it does matter from the historical perspective. By reversing the graph, it is not visually apparent that the centuries associated with the Medieval Warm Period were as warm if not warmer than now. As Jeff Id mentions, he used this particular set as a positive correlation in one time frame, and as a negative correlation in another. If you did not know that lower numbers indicate warm and wet, with the inverted graph, one would think a lower value meant cold, so the early values look cooler than later.
Steve wouldn’t let me have this over at climateaudit because it touches on politics….
Ha ha, I know we don’t do politics here, but they were all stupid enough to believe governments would roll over in the face of their pronouncements and instigate mitigation strategies which would allow them to trumpet their success. If they’d thought about it for 2 minutes they’d realise governments only look to the next 1 or 2 electoral cycles, and were never likely to use it for anything other than tax and social engineering. As times pass they’re pronouncements get more bellicose and absurd whilst the planet gives them the 1 finger salute. I feel really sorry for their offspring who’s names will be for ever tarred with their parents actions.
[self snip]
Could it really be just that simple? – Anthony
Looks that way, just cook and cook until done. (then loose the ingredient list, the recipe and any equipment used)
Hi kids, today on Blue Peter we’re going to show you how to cook up some global warming. To make warming all you need is a chopped proxy or two, a manomatic pressure cooker and somewhere to hide what you have done from mum and dad…
OT
Does anyone no why this link is dead?
http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/
This just in: Tree Ring Studies taken in Antarctica show that it’s very cold there and has been for hundreds of years!
gary gulrud (08:45:45) :
I’d be hesitant to lump Spaceweather’s belated declaration of a sunspot in with the BS data revisionism of Mann. Scientists make mistakes, corrections and revisions legitimately all the time. Anyone who never does that is the phoniest of phonies.
Spaceweather.com is the kind of straight-science website that the world needs more of. With respect to AGW, they don’t seem to have a dog in that pony-show. They just report the news.
Oh how I wish the “news” organizations would do as well.
Well, the EPA has listed CO2 and other gasses as pollutants.
Interesting times ahead.
Good intentions only get you part of the way to Heaven; you have to keep re-evaluating the road signs along the way, or be led astray.
Some of the worst evil in the world has been done by people with the best intentions and we know where that road paved with good intentions leads.
It doesn’t matter whether people like Mann, Hansen, Gore, et al, are motivated by altruism, careerism, left-wing fascism or megalomania. Let’s just assume these people have the best intentions (until proven otherwise) and focus on the science.
Anybody seen Jennifer Marohasy’s page today pointing at a new study showing C02 doesn’t stick around in the atmo that long? 5-16 years rather than 50-200?
Yes Jack, but do the three rings need to get smaller or larger to confirm that Antartica is warming? Dr Mann indicates it doesn’t matter.
Hinky stick.
Of course he would think he can confuse reality to produce good results: Thief, The Insider, The Kingdom, Collateral, Heat, Ali, The Last of the Mohicans, The Aviator, Miami Vice.
Meanwhile…
Report: EPA To Declare 6 Gases A Public Health Risk
by The Associated Press
NPR.org, April 17, 2009 · The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. It is the first step to regulating pollution linked to climate change.
Congressional sources told The Associated Press that EPA will announce its proposed finding Friday and begin a comment period before issuing a final ruling. The EPA also will say tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the finding hasn’t been announced.
The action was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling two years that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a human health danger.
Neil — The issue is that the scientists who gathered and analyzed the data associated low numbers with higher temperatures (numerically a negative correlation), and provided at least a plausible physical mechanism to explain the association.
The “Mannomatic” algorithm, looking at a small section of the data, and correlating it to some temperature record for that period, found a numerically positive correlation in that period. The algorithm implicitly assumes that this relationship holds for the entire period of the proxy record, therefore associating low numbers in the proxy with low temperatures.
The upside-down graph is simply a pictorial representation of this mathematical artifact.
But it gets even better! The algorithm will establish correlations to the temperature record over several periods. Depending on the period, it may find a numerically positive correlation in one period, and a negative correlation in another period. It then extends these over the entire time span of the proxy for separate components of the reconstruction. Comment 53 in the Climate Audit thread linked above shows that Mann used the Baker proxy this way. In different periods, Mann uses the proxy in the sense that low numbers mean high temperatures, and in the sense that high numbers mean high temperatures.
Mann’s protestations show either that he does not understand this very basic issue, or that he is deliberately obfuscating it. (I don’t know which is worse.)
I just clicked on the sea ice extent link on right.
Guess which year has the most ice now.
But there’s proof!!
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.”
Henry Waxman
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200904/20090413_waxman.html
Heaven help up if that tundra get out from under that icecap!!!!! so many stupid statement is so few words
Has anyone done studies of tree rings grown during the past century when we have daily records of weather to see if there is a correlation between cool and wet, cool and dry, warm and wet, warm and dry, or do they just review the prehistoric stuff? It seems a worthwhile Masters thesis for somebody.
Just a reminder not to confuse this particular paleo series with tree rings. It is a speleotherm. It is from a stalagmite (ground formation) in a cave, not a tree. Apparently Mann is not particular about the origin of the data he misuses.
I’d like to hear what Mann has to say about this.
OT: Revisiting this story, with apologies, Anthony / Charles, the following sea-change press item from the online ABC here in Australia really does seem to herald a rather important crack in the edifice of our recently-elected prime minister, ‘Carbon Kevin’ ‘s campaign platform:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/15/2543797.htm
The Aussies have a lot to lose from this government’s intended assault on our globally-material coal industry. And, whilst I am no apologist for the soot and stench of the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, I remain very cynical about a government that gets itself elected by climbing onto the latest bandwagon. So they had better be sure of the scientific foundation of their CO2 tax policy, before they inflict it on the economy of this country and on long suffering electorate that has put them into power.
Great post, caught it on CA a couple of days ago and it is perfect for this forum. Slightly OT- Want to direct any who hadn’t yet heard about the EPA finding announced this morning. It appears we’re actually going to make CO2 a pollutant in law (along with N2O SO2, and others) as Gore et al have desired for some time. Here’s a link to the “reasoning” and “justification” for this action (e.g. the way it’s being sold to the public): http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/ScienceFactSheet.pdf . Here’s a fun activity for those of us “playing the home version of the game”: See how many of these points are being refuted by actual data or are products of the kind of sloppy analysis that is the topic of this latest post…! -JG
“Mann reported positive correlations in early and late calibration (early – 0.3058; late 0.3533). ”
R of 0.3? R squared of less than 10%? That is the basis for turning the world’s economy upside down?
Shudder.
Don’t tree rings follow the precipitation cycle, not temperature? I have never understood how tree rings could be a proxy for temperature. They are afterall a sign of growth, and without water and CO2 their growth is going to be slow.
I don’t know, but if you strip off some of it you get told there is nothing there. However, there is some data over here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
DR (09:00:55) :
Does anyone no why this link is dead? http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/
Yes, I know. It was moved to:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
The really terrible thing about all this is that I now view ‘scientists’ in the same light as I view politicians.
Treerings are not just sensitive to temperature and moisture, they are also sensitive to CO2. They LOOOOVE CO2 (especially pines like bristlecone pines). Now if the MWP was warmer but not so rich in CO2, pine proxies would not show it as being as warm. Now if there were less CO2 then because there were more forests competing… just a thought.
It is quite reasonable to conjecture that Mann is doing what he is doing for what he “believes” are valid reasons. What he consistently fails to do however is explain what exactly those reasons are. The science is, after all, settled.
Both Wegman and the NAS panel have shown that the statistical tools he uses are unusual and are not very likely to be valid (Wegman is more emphatic about it).
With that verdict on the record regarding his methods, one would think he would make an effort to justify his work. Mann however just ignores it all and continues to produce the same crap as if his methods are fully validated.
It must be nice to live in such a bubble. All his friends and fellow dendro climate “scientists” reinforce his views. His political allies honor him.
I almost feel sorry for him. His bubble though, like all the ones before (i.e. housing, hi-tech, Piltdown man, etc.), will eventually burst. Unlike Al Gore and the many who are financially profiting from this AGW nonsense, he won’t have hundreds of millions of dollars to console him through those dark times.
Gary Pearse (09:39:14) I found this one:
http://geoscience-meeting.scnatweb.ch/sgm2006/SGM06_abstracts/02_Natural_hazards/Stoffel_Markus_Talk.pdf
Here the abstract:
Tree-ring based chronology of debris-flow events and
deposition processes at Ritigraben (Valais, Swiss Alps)
since AD 1570
Markus Stoffel 1, 2
1 Laboratory of Dendrogeomorphology, Department of Geosciences, University of Fribourg, 1700 Fribourg
2 Institute for Environmental Science and Sustainability, University of Geneva,
1227 Carouge Growth disturbances in century-old trees were used to assess debris-flow activity on the forested cone of the Ritigraben torrent (Valais Swiss Alps), providing an unusually complete record of past events and deposition of material. The study of 2246 tree-ring sequences sampled from 1102 European larch (Larix decidua Mill.), Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and Swiss stone pine (Pinus cembra ssp.sibirica) trees allowed reconstruction of 123 events since A.D. 1570 (Stoffel and Beniston, 2006; see Fig. 1). Tree-ring records suggest that comparably cool summers with frequent snowfalls at higher elevations regularly prevented the release of debris flows between the 1570s and 1860s and that the warming trend in conjunction with greater precipitation totals in summers and falls between 1864 and 1895 led to an increase of meteorological conditions favorable for the release of events from the starting zone. Enhanced debris-flow activity continued well into the 20th century and reconstructions show a clustering of events for the period 1916–1935, when warm-wet conditions prevailed during summers in the Swiss Alps. Very low activity can, in contrast, be observed for the last 10-yr segment (1996–2005) with only one debris-flow event recorded on August 27, 2002 (Stoffel et al., 2005) . The reconstructed frequency is also in agreement with chronicle data on flooding events in Alpine rivers of Switzerland (Pfister, 1999), where a scarcity of flooding events can be observed for most of the LIA and during the mid-20th century as well. However, it is worthy to note that floods in adjacent Alpine rivers started to become more frequent in the 1830s, which is three decades before activity increased in the investigated case-study area.
Didn’t the EPA rely on the Supreme Court’s decision, which relied on the IPCC, which in turn relied on Michael Mann’s papers, when it agreed to decide the question of CO2 as a pollutant?
Now it turns out that all these decisions were based on completely false information. Does anyone know if any of this can be revisited?
OT, From the EPA statement on CO2 as harmful greenhouse gas:
Note: GHG are at UNPRECEDENTED levels as a result of human emissions; (WRONG — CO2 was much higher in the past; methane was likely higher also)
AND the increase (in GHG) is VERY LIKELY the cause of increase in average (global) temperatures; (WRONG — no correlation exists between CO2 and atmospheric temperature)
SEA LEVEL RISE — (WRONG…its been dropping in many places since 1993)
“EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.
The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways. Findings from a recent EPA study titled “Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone,” for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:
increased drought;
more heavy downpours and flooding;
more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires;
greater sea level rise;
more intense storms; and
harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.
In proposing the finding, Administrator Jackson also took into account the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of certain segments of the population, such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.
In addition to threatening human health, the analysis finds that climate change also has serious national security implications. Consistent with this proposed finding, in 2007, 11 retired U.S. generals and admirals signed a report from the Center for a New American Security stating that climate change “presents significant national security challenges for the United States.” Escalating violence in destabilized regions can be incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources – including water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world.
The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings. Today’s proposed finding does not include any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy. “ (emphasis added – RE Sowell)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924
Jeff Id (09:18:17) :
I just clicked on the sea ice extent link on right.
Guess which year has the most ice now.
I’ve been watching that AMSR-E data and it seems to be updated more than once a day. Each day, around 11pm eastern time, the date advances to today’s date and the plot extends a couple of pixels to the right. But last night, the right hand end had curled down a bit. Today, it’s been very slightly revised upwards. This is best viewed on a very large monitor or a projector.
By the way, I am NOT saying that this is fishy. Up to the minute data (which may even use a smoothing algorithm) can behave like this. Updating more than once a day indicates a lot of effort and attention. Good for them.
This is called Climate Fraud.
@Smokey,
Re Supreme Court decision on CO2.
Overturning a SC decision is very difficult, but it is possible. The Court rarely reverses itself, and even more rarely does so in a short time frame.
Getting a case heard in the SC is also very difficult. Only a few causes may be heard in the SC without being appealed from a lower court, and CO2 is not one of them. Therefore, another lawsuit must be filed in a state or federal court, then appealed to state appellate court (or more likely, to federal court of appeals), then appealed to the SC on a writ of certiorari. The SC would likely deny the writ, having only recently heard a similar case. It is possible, though, especially if (as you suggest here) new evidence shows the previous decision was based on false information.
Timing is critical on something like this. It would be better to wait a couple of years, and when the crops have decreased or failed due to cold summers, the snow is growing deeper, sea levels are dropping, and the ice caps are expanding, then bring the case. Nothing like having the SC justices driving to the Court through snowdrifts, and blowing on their hands to keep warm when hearing a case like this!
Fat Man,
>>R of 0.3? R squared of less than 10%? That is the basis for turning the world’s economy upside down?<>Don’t tree rings follow the precipitation cycle, not temperature?<<
They would be influenced by Precipitation, CO2, Sunlight, Temperature, Droughts, Diseases, Crowding, Shading, Competition, Parasites, Fires, Soil Nutrients, Grazing, etc., making them hard to pin down as relevant for temperature/climate changes.
Jim
Fat Man,
My previous message got scrambled.
I guess 10% is what passes for peer reviewed science nowadays. When I was publishing biological data in the late 70’s there was no acceptance for publication if the correlation wasn’t better than 80%.
Jim
Tarpon,
My previous message got scrambled.
Yes, tree growth would be affected by Precipitation, CO2, Sunlight, Temperature, Droughts, Diseases, Crowding, Shading, Competition, Parasites, Fires, Soil Nutrients, Grazing, etc., making them hard to pin down as relevant for temperature/climate changes.
Jim
Cool it down guys. When passion replaces reasoning any thing can happend
Ironic factoid:
Modern hockey sticks are made of carbon fiber.
Carbon, see? Ban hockey sticks!
to start a discussion about AGW, there is no better material than this:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322
as these reports not only disprove mann’s mathematics,
they also
disqualify scientific institution boards at the university that still allows mr. mann to teach,
disqualify the peer review process,
prove, that individuals (likeal gore) or media (like the BBC) are either incompetent or acting to mislead,
prove, that high volume and high influential scientific journals are either incompetent or misleading their members and the public.
Smokey (10:58:44) :
Didn’t the EPA rely on the Supreme Court’s decision, which relied on the IPCC, which in turn relied on Michael Mann’s papers, when it agreed to decide the question of CO2 as a pollutant?
Now it turns out that all these decisions were based on completely false information. Does anyone know if any of this can be revisited?
——————————————————————
Smokey, it’s not over yet. The EPA will submit this for a 60-day public comment period AFTER it has been published in the Federal Register. I say: “LETS GIVE THEM SOME COMMENTS!
Here is a link to watch for it being published:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/
Click on “Todays Federal Register” about the middle of the page.
Here are the instructions for submitting comments:
Instructions for Submitting Written Comments on the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received
on or before 60 days from date of publication in the
Federal Register. If you submitted comments on the issues
raised by this proposal in dockets for other Agency efforts
(e.g., the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
Regulating Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act), you
must still submit your comments to the docket for this
action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171) by the deadline if you want
them to be considered.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, by one of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: GHG-Endangerment-Docket@epa.gov.
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room,
EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Air Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public docket without
change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous
access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to
EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov youre-mail address will be automatically captured and includedas part of the comment that is placed in the public docketand made available on the Internet. If you submit anelectronic comment, EPA recommends that you include yourname and other contact information in the body of yourcomment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPAcannot read your comment due to technical difficulties andcannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be ableto consider your comment. Electronic files should avoidthe use of special characters, any form of encryption, andbe free of any defects or viruses.Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in theindex, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted bystatute. Certain other material, such as copyrightedmaterial, will be publicly available only in hard copy.Publicly available docket materials are available eitherelectronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This DocketFacility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephonenumber for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, andthe telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Martinich,Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs(MC-6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephonenumber: (202) 343-9927; fax number: (202) 343-2202; e-mailaddress: ghgendangerment@epa.gov. Please use this contact information for general questions only. Official comments must be submitted using the instructions above.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Instructions-comments.pdf
Lots of options for commenting there. Remember, wait for it to be published first, then send them intelligent, thoughtful comments. Ranting will not help anything. Besides, the comments are made public.
Read, instead the following (posted above), and it does not matter what anyone could believe or not, fact is that all symptoms point to a new LIA:
Very low activity can, in contrast, be observed for the last 10-yr segment (1996–2005) with only one debris-flow event recorded on August 27, 2002 (Stoffel et al., 2005) . The reconstructed frequency is also in agreement with chronicle data on flooding events in Alpine rivers of Switzerland (Pfister, 1999), where a scarcity of flooding events can be observed for most of the LIA
http://geoscience-meeting.scnatweb.ch/sgm2006/SGM06_abstracts/02_Natural_hazards/Stoffel_Markus_Talk.pdf
“NPR.org, April 17, 2009 · The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. It is the first step to regulating pollution linked to climate change.”
One of the five other gases must be dihydrogen monoxide which is the one that will cause the climate runaway predicted by Dr Hansen.
Ban dihydrogen monoxide!
More info on this evil substance: http://www.dhmo.org/
Those guys are a new breed of “anthropopitecus climaticus oligophrenicus”
They suffer of a very strange disease called “phreno-chripto-orchidiases”(only for those who can translate it)
We complained for years that the best minds in science were going to Wall Street to work on comlex models. Well, that didn’t go so well.
Now we get to take a look at the work of guys who weren’t smart enough to get jobs on Wall Street and we are supposed to make trillion dollar economic decisions based on the musings of these second-string scientists. Skepticism should abound.
John Silver,
No, conveniently avoided:
“six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride”
Andy reported that narrow widths are associated with warm, wet climate.
Maybe “favorable” conditions can result in more “longitudinal” growth of height, branch, and root energy and nutrient gathering systems than “radial” growth”?
AKD (12:48:00) :
Add all that those of the newly breed race call “chemicals”, of course ignoring their bodies ARE CHEMICAL too. So they should be banned too!
Dr. Mann’s mathematic principles must have leaked over to the world of accounting, banking, and finance – all those years of showing positive numbers until reality overtook the fantasy. The guy must be kicking himself about now – if he’d have applied his techniques to Wall St, he’d have made a killing, then gotten out before the house of cards crumbled.
@ Joseph,
Thanks for that comment on how to make public comments to EPA.
For those who want to view some previous comments on other issues, have a look at the link below.
It is a good idea to consider the following format for a comment:
Use letterhead.
Identify yourself and / or your organization, describe what you do or your experience. It is a good idea to thank the EPA for the opportunity to make comments. (They like reading this, even though they are required by law to accept comments).
Organize your comments into paragraphs.
Make your statement/point in the paragraph, refer to actual data where possible, and give the citation or link. Tell them why you hold your view. Try to maintain a positive, reasonable tone, and if criticizing the EPA, tread gently. Point out the inconsistencies of their view compared to other respected publications, or to accepted methodologies.
It is a good idea to describe how you are affected, or will be affected, by this proposed rule.
Close by thanking the EPA for considering your view.
Sign your name (comments get much more serious consideration when signed).
The link to public comments on U.S. government issues:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&N=8099&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&Ntt=comments&sid=120B596A7935
OT from the tree-ring conversation, I guess, but close to topic for the morphed-into EPA conversation. I have dealt with the National Environmental Planning Act (NEPA) and its spawn the EPA for all of my professional life and am often, as now, reminded that its very first foray into the environmental battles that would consume us for half a century+ was the DDT fiasco inititiated by Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring.
The book was a bombshell. President Kennedy, who read it, asked for testing of the chemicals she called to task in the book and the EPA, in 1970, undertook a 3 year review of DDT which in 1972 led to its ban after seven months of hearings. William Ruckelshaus, head of the EPA at this time, signed the ban but had never attended any of the hearings, did not read the transcripts and refused to release the materials he used to make his decision. He was later shown to have been a member of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) at this time and used the ban to personally appeal for donations to the group. EDF, by the way, was started and financed by the Audubon Society. Supporters of DDT, of course, appealed the ban but were unsuccessful because Ruckelshaus had appointed himself as appeal judge.
This has always ben an environmentalist organization and, I suspect, always will be.
tarpon (10:10:17) :
Don’t tree rings follow the precipitation cycle, not temperature? I have never understood how tree rings could be a proxy for temperature. They are afterall a sign of growth, and without water and CO2 their growth is going to be slow.
Most field studies I’ve read with various crops/locations have indicated that plant response (including trees) is most sensitive to precipitation extremes (up to 2x greater than temp.).
J. Peden (12:55:14) :
Andy reported that narrow widths are associated with warm, wet climate.
Maybe “favorable” conditions can result in more “longitudinal” growth of height, branch, and root energy and nutrient gathering systems than “radial” growth”?
Growth attributes are highly species dependent.
Just heard on the news. In their wisdom, the EPA has ruled that CO2 is a dangerous gas. Time file the lawsuits. Time to make the EPA to prove their position.
Mann-made global warming?
Since we’re back on tree rings, whatever response they show to temperature is dampened, see Making Holcene Spaghetti Sauce by Fank Lansner 4/11/09 on WUWT. Could be since forests try to control their own temperature, see:
http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08061131
Astrology, trees and divination have a lot in common as does tea leaf reading and other such pursuits of “invisible connections”.
Ok, so what’s the bottom line (or top line), so to speak?
Just because the graph is shown upside down their conclusions are different?
If that’s the case then all graphs of this order must be presented upside down and downside up (and even vertically both ways)?
Or have I missed it? If so please explain as I didn’t get it from the article… unless I did… but please clarify anyway!
OR are you saying that they got their vertical axis data wrong (as is shown in your graphs above?
So the vertical axis labeling is wrong (mirrored in the opposite quadrant)?
REPLY: He inverted the data on the vertical.
What?
What is the evidence for that caustic assertion? I’m unclear on that part of it.
Don’t use my label when replying please.
REPLY: OK. The data was inverted.
Latest new on tv (as seen from thousand of miles away from USA):
YOU will have to EPA permits to breath!! Ha!, Ha! 🙂
Sorry forgot “to pay” LOL
Old Construction Worker 15:20:59
Can suits be filed before the regulations are promulgated? We can certainly hope that the EPA will get an earful before the end of the 60 day comment period, but what are the chances that Carol Browner’s EPA, and the confused physicist Chu’s Energy Department, and the Chief Executive unscientifically advised by the Mad Idealogue John Holdren, won’t let it all go in one ear and out the other.
The only hope I have is the hint that Obama would prefer this be done legislatively rather than executively through regulation. And much of that hope hinges on the weak straw that he’s been getting legislative feedback from the industrial state Democrats who’ve halted Cap and Trade for this year.
===================================
“I guess 10% is what passes for peer reviewed science nowadays. When I was publishing biological data in the late 70’s there was no acceptance for publication if the correlation wasn’t better than 80%.
Jim”
The low r^2 is actually necessary for the method to work. If you only selected “proxies” (ie random time sequences that might or might not be correlated with T) with high r^2 it is highly likely that they are actually responding to T. That would be bad because they would show the MWP as warm as or warmer than now. The aim is to show recent T to be unprecedented. To get that result you select “proxies” that correlate weakly with recent T in the calibration period (which you can exactly match with appropriate weightings). Then, in the precalibration period, with a bit of luck (you might have to discard a few “outliers” here) they will average out to give a flat profile.
That is a hockey stick, flat until the beginning of the calibration period (ie when humans became sufficiently advanced to measure T).
The method would work with any data sets unless they actually do measure T.
The data looks inverted but the axis label values are NOT! That’s not just an simple inversion of the graph where the axis label values also invert, it’s a changing of the signs of all the data points. Big difference. Not just a difference of perspective, but potentially a deceitful act of misrepresentation of the data. Is this what is claimed that Mann has done? I’m unclear from the way the article is written that this is what is being asserted.
Please stop using my screen name when replying to me. Anthony please check the IP Address of the person replying to my comments and if they use my screen name please block them if you’d be so kind. Thanks very much.
Have the courage to pick your own unique name!
[Reply: All comments from pwl came from the same computer. ~dbstealey, mod.]
Everything gets scaled and weighted in the process of turning them into a “temperature” so the actual numbers don’t matter.
pwl, the response ‘Reply’ within your own comment is from the moderator.
============================================
[Reply: Yes, thank you, kim. The first two ‘replies’ were from another moderator who was just trying to be helpful by answering the question. I misunderstood what pwl was referring to. My apologies. ~dbstealey, mod.]
kim (17:12:13) :
‘The only hope I have is the hint that Obama would prefer this be done legislatively rather than executively through regulation.’
I wouldn’t. I would like to see them justify the theory in a court of law. Can you imagine Hansen giving up his climate model source code to public scrutiny?
PWL, what has happened is that Mann took something which is correlated to temperature negatively, then inverted it to a positive correlation for his purposes. Climate Skeptic sums it up well.
I have been tasked with proving that people are getting taller over time and estimating by how much. As it turns out, I don’t have access to good historic height data, but by a fluke I inherited a hundred years of sales records from about 10 different shoe companies. After talking to some medical experts, I gain some confidence that shoe size is positively correlated to height. I therefore start collating my 10 series of shoe sales data, pursuing the original theory that the average size of the shoe sold should correlate to the average height of the target population.
It turns out that for four of my data sets, I find a nice pattern of steadily rising shoe sizes over time, reflecting my intuition that people’s height and shoe size should be increasing over time. In three of the data sets I find the results to be equivical — there is no long-term trend in the sizes of shoes sold and the average size jumps around a lot. In the final three data sets, there is actually a fairly clear negative trend – shoe sizes are decreasing over time.
So what would you say if I did the following:
* Kept the four positive data sets and used them as-is
* Threw out the three equivocal data sets
* Kept the three negative data sets, but inverted them
* Built a model for historic human heights based on seven data sets – four with positive coefficients between shoe size and height and three with negative coefficients.
My correlation coefficients are going to be really good, in part because I have flipped some of the data sets and in part I have thrown out the ones that don’t fit initial bias as to what the answer should be. Have I done good science? Would you trust my output? No?
The EPA announcement is part of the Obama Administration’s effort to get Congress to pass Cap’n Trade. Its the hammer they hang over the heads of the mid-western representatives and senators in the hope that it will force them to back his plan.
Right now the Cap’n Trade legislation is stalled by democrats from states that are dependent on hydrocarbon for fuel, power and resource jobs.
I would prefer to have the issue decided through EPA rulemaking. That way it will be litigated and the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” will be the standard that the promoters of AGW will be forced to adhere to. The rules will also take some time to get adopted if they are held up by litigation (this is how enviro groups work).
In the political arena, any “truth” will do as long as it gets the bill passed.
With the media only reporting the AGW “myth as fact”, which way sounds better to you?
If the AGW mission was to embarass science to the point of zero credibilbity, this would be the way to do it. Scientific institutions will be humilitated or have funding cut off entirely.
Seems like there is great effort underway to destroy Science, not just to use it for political ends.
Roger Sowell:
The reporting on this Supreme Court decision has been very very misleading. I would suggest that anyone intersted read at least the syllabus. The actual decsion including the syllabus is here .
If it were practical to get a case into Federal court, I would be tempted to use the logic of this decision to force the EPA to recognize water vapor as a cause of global warming and to regulate it as a polutant.
++PLS
Let’s try that link again. The Supreme Court decision with syllabus is here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf.
++PLS
Ian,
Your comment at the top referring to this as “tree astrology” caught me mid-slurp on my beverage and caused an unexpected Diet Coke spew event. Well done…
One more comment. Having reread the decision, I have the impression that the EPA wanted to lose it. The EPA was making arguments that were unlikely to be effective and failed to make ones that could. The SC based its decision impart on the “widely accepted” basis that man-made carbon dioxide causes global warming and that global warming was a very bad thing. No contrary evidence was introduced by the EPA or by anyone else.
I also suspect that if one were to look deeply enough, one would discover that the EPA funded the initial lawsuit, up until Massachusetts stepped in. There are other documentated cases of the EPA funding the plaintiff and failing to present a defense in a case ended up increasing their authority.
++PLS
Anybody seen Jennifer Marohasy’s page today pointing at a new study showing C02 doesn’t stick around in the atmo that long? 5-16 years rather than 50-200?
All the early studies seem to indicate this. If it’s true, then there is NO reason to cut CO2 until/unless CO2-AGW a.) turns out to be true, and b.) becomes very severe. No need whatever to worry about it until then.
Therefore, for those who urge immediate action, it is imperative to persist pushing persistence like a pit bull.
Thanks to everyone who helped make this clearer. I suspected it was just a visual thing, but now understand it’s a lot more than that.
To Alan Chappell (08:51:49)
Having played hockey against girls I’m not surprised the men in Australia are afraid to play it. Have you seen what they do with the balls?
“[Reply: All comments from pwl came from the same computer. ~dbstealey, mod.]”
Well then why the heck do the messages with “REPLY” text in them come from some one else who isn’t identifying themselves??? There must be two different IP addresses since I’ve NOT been posting the replies to myself!
Who are they? Why are they allowed to post without a tag?
Not only would I not trust your “work” if you did that to your (hypothetical?) shoe size data I’d assert that you are a utter and complete fraud UNLESS you could provide a VALID scientific reason that can that, for example, demonstrates that is an acceptable reason. Failing that you’d be a fraud.
IS this what Mann has been doing? If so, all I can say is WOW! If this is so does this mean that he’s been caught committing scientific fraud with his data? What is he response? Shudders if true.
For example I didn’t post the following text yet it’s identified as “pwl” who posted it! If it’s not someone else using my screen name then why is that happening? It’s very disconcerting dbstealey.
Assuming you are a site moderator [Reply: All comments from pwl came from the same computer. ~dbstealey it’s ironic that your own posting with the text “[Reply: All comments from pwl came from the same computer. ~dbstealey, mod.]” is also an offending posting since it’s identified as coming from me and not the person who posted it.
Edit Corrections: Assuming you are a site moderator ~dbstealey it’s ironic that your own posting with the text “pwl (17:32:44) : … [Reply: All comments from pwl came from the same computer. ~dbstealey, mod.]” is also an offending posting since it’s identified as coming from me and not the person who posted it, you! If it’s not someone else posting it (it’s not me) then you’ve got very weird site settings for comments as it’s very confusing. Why wasn’t your comment directed at me posted with YOUR screen name dbstealey? I suspect it’s possible you’re just the same person playing around.
Reply: dbstealey is a mod. I will look into this incident to see if inappropriate behavior occurred. I haven’t researched it yet. Update to come. ~ charles the moderator.
Reply 2 update: Apparently you are complaining about inline comments (like this one). These are common on this moderated site and many others. Usually, but not always, if there is no identifier they come from Anthony. It’s his site and he doesn’t have to identify himself. Other moderators should identify themselves, but sometimes when trying to be helpful in a hurry, this may be overlooked. It appears dbstealey misunderstood your complaint that you were being spoofed and didn’t realize you were only referring to the inline comments such as this one. While he was being helpful, it just confused you more. The original posts did all come from the same IP address (yours) and were subsequently modified by moderators, who were clearly calling out their modifications. I conclude this is nothing more than a user pibkac error and dbstealey did nothing inappropriate, malicious, or against policy. In fact he was attempting to clarify or squelch a false complaint. ~ charles the uber moderator.
Yes, if “inline comments” are the settings of this blog then YES indeed it’s likely that the incident may have more to do with a site setting rather than an intentional act. I’ve never seen this style of comment reply system where the poster is unidentified OR incorrectly identified. Respectfully, it would be nice if everyone obeyed the site policy of identifying themselves. It’s only polite!!!
“pibkac”?
I am not asserting that anyone has done anything “wrong” or “malicious”. I was simply asking why the posts are labeled as coming from me when they clearly were not written by me (well it’s clear to me). This is very misleading to others who come to the site and read the comments thinking that I’m posting and then replying to myself. Respectfully, that is why it’s important for even the site owner and moderators to IDENTIFY themselves rather than posting with someone else’s screen name. Is that too much to ask to avoid confusion?
It’s hard enough following the conversations with all the technical on point information, to have to sort through who might be posting it just adds to the burden of sorting out who is saying what.
If the IP Addresses say that the “inline” comments were from moderators posts that would prove that there was no “spoofing” of identity and that the issue is a, respectfully, poor site comment setting choice. Maybe it’s beyond your control due to the ways of wordpress. It’s just very confusing and unusual. Never seen it before anywhere and I’m in a professional the internet computer business.
Thanks for your responses.
Reply: pwl, this is the site format we’ve been using at WUWT for years. Don’t take it personally. When Anthony or a moderator has a response, the format is to use “Reply:“, then post a response. Readers understand that it’s simply an in-line reply to the posted comment. Lots of other sites do it the same way. ~dbstealey, mod.
As for the upside down world of Dr. Mann et. al. it might be difficult to accuse him of “fraud” when the slights of hand may seem “trivial” to most people.
I remember in science classes in high school grades 9-12 they kept impressing upon us the accurate and verified collection and recording of data. Measure many times, verify many times, then record the actual data points not what we thought it was and then measure again to verify again and again.
Anyone in those science classes fudging data by “inverting” the sign would have to have a “brilliant” and scientifically valid explaination and scientifically justifiable reasoning to avoid the failing grade.
I once drove up into the Cascades near Mt. Jefferson. We were on a logging road. On one side was private forest land, obviously logged with 10 to 15 feet of space, scattered with stumps, in between large trees. There were also clear cuts on that side. On the other side of the narrow road was a national forest. Unlogged. Trees were less than a foot from each other. These trees were thinner than runway models. Turns out, based on the sign on the private forest as to when it was logged, compared to the national forest management data recorded for the forest on the other side of the road, the trees were the same age. Huge difference in tree size.
pwl, please reread kim at 18:20:56. This is not a difficult concept to understand. Why are you having so much difficulty with it?
============================================
Kim, moderators, anthony,
Fine, no problemo, now I know that’s the way it’s done here. Still I’ve never seen it done this way elsewhere and I’ve been posting on many hundreds of sites for over a decade. I’ve even written commenting systems and blog software and would never consider having a system that misidentifies users comments.
I find it very confusing to have my initials on a posting that I didn’t make as if I did make it. It is very poor human interface design to do it the way it’s being done.
It also makes it easier for someone to spoof without the non-moderators knowing about it.
Besides on posting “pwl (16:34:56) :” and others that follow it the “moderator” or whom ever posted didn’t identify themselves. I still don’t know who was replying in those instances. That drives my point home even more as there was NO WAY for me to know who was responding to me which is why I concluded that it might have been someone toying with me. I am a relatively new poster here so I don’t know the ins and outs of your community.
Now that I know how you folks have it set up your commenting options and now that I’ve communicated the confusion flaw to you about it I’ll let it go and leave any change in settings up to you.
Respectfully, if it’s possible please change it for the better to reduce confusion. Consider it professional advice from a Human Interface designer. Thanks.
Now I go back to trying to comprehend the climate hysteria so that I can dispense a few choice words of my own about it once I’m better informed and less ignorant of the actual science – if any! ;–)
pwl,
I know you feel you have to have the last word on this, but every time you try to defend your confusion, from which none of the other tens of thousands of visitors suffer, you weaken your case of being capable of advising one on their site functions and procedures.
I certainly don’t see how it can be interpreted that way jeez. The advice about human interface design stands on its own. Nor do I need that last word, and in fact if you read my comment “pwl (13:01:39) :” supports that. I’ve moved on.
I fully support this excellent site which has excellent articles.
pwl (09:53:47) :
Relax dude–take a breath!
I agree Mann is a fraud, except Anthony’s graph isn’t really a valid comparison to Mann’s graph. Mann also reversed the X axis units so that the data actually made some sense, he goes from 0 to 120, as opposed to the original graph which goes from 120 to 0.
Anthony’s reverse graph on the other hand has the same X-axis units as the original graph.
Dear all,
I think, I first heard the term “fraud” used with Mann’s work not because of the use of this particular algorithm, but because of his data handling, mainly the “censored”-directiry on his homepage and the “suppressed” thesis of Abanneh.
To have an algorithm with wrong output is a completly different thing as to have two clearly opposite results and suppressing one of them.
To my knowledge the terms fraud goes back to the early days of the hockeystick, when Mann had contradictory data and choose not to use it.
The current method might be wrong, but a cherry-picking algorithm is not fraudent per se. Please be precise in your critism.
All the best,
LoN