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
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.
@ur momisugly 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.