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
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