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.