Just when you think it couldn’t get any more bizarre in Mann-world, out comes a new paper in Nature hawking hurricane frequency by proxy analysis. I guess Dr. Mann missed seeing the work of National Hurricane Center’s lead scientist, Chris Landsea which we highlighted a couple of days ago on WUWT: NOAA: More tropical storms counted due to better observational tools, wider reporting. Greenhouse warming not involved.
Mann is using “overwash” silt and sand as his new proxy. Chris Landsea disagrees in the Houston Chronicle interview saying: “The paper comes to very erroneous conclusions because of using improper data and illogical techniques,”
From the BBC and the Houston Chronicle, some excerpts are below.
…
From the BBC, full story here
Study leader Michael Mann from Penn State University believes that while not providing a definitive answer, this work does add a useful piece to the puzzle.
 |
 The levels we’re seeing at the moment are within the bounds of uncertainty.  Julian Heming, UK Met Office
|
“It’s been hotly debated, and various teams using different computer models have come up with different answers,” he told BBC News.
“I would argue that this study presents some useful palaeoclimatic data points.”
…
From the Houston Chronicle, full story here
One tack is based on the observation that the powerful storm surge of large hurricanes deposits distinct layers of sediment in coastal lakes and marshes. By taking cores of sediments at the bottom of these lakes, which span centuries, scientists believe they can tell when large hurricanes made landfall at a particular location.
The second method used a computer model to simulate storm counts based upon historical Atlantic sea surface temperatures, El Niños and other climate factors.
…
The two independent estimates of historical storm activity were consistent, said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann, the paper’s lead author. Both, for example, pinpointed a period of high activity between 900 and 1100.
“This tells us these reconstructions are very likely meaningful,” he [Mann] said.
UPDATE:
What is funny is that with that quote above, Mann is referring to the Medieval Warm Period, something he tried to smooth out in his tree ring study and previous hockey stick graph.
Now he uses the MWP to his advantage to bolster his current proxy.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit writes about “check kiting” related to this study:
The Supplementary Information sheds no light on the methodology or the proxies.
The Supplementary Information contained no data sets. The proxies used for the Mann et al submission are not even listed.
The edifice is built on the SST and Nino3 reconstructions, both of which are references to the enigmatic reference 17, which turns out to be an unpublished submission of Mann et al.
17. Mann, M. E. et al. Global signatures of the Little Ice Age and the medieval climate anomaly and plausible dynamical origins. Science (submitted).
At the time that Nature published this article, there was precisely NO information available on what proxies were used in the reconstruction of Atlantic SST or El Nino or how these reconstructions were done. Did any of the Nature reviewers ask to see the other Mann submission? I doubt it. I wonder if it uses Graybill bristlecone pines.
Hi Antony, just read the above story on the BBC and came straight here to see if you were on it, as usual you are on the ball. However I didn’t notice the BBC picking up on the NOAA piece about more tropical storms being counted due to observation rather than global warming. How strange.
Seeing mention of criticisms from Landsea, its ironic to see that the Mann et al article/letter, under Acknowledgements says: “We thank C. Landsea for comments on the manuscript.”
Ric Werme (10:29:05) :
Noting your comment re. the work of Chris Landsea. When I read this blog I was reminded of the following article in the London Times back in August 2008 that also talks of a surge of storms circa late 1600s coincident with the LIA.
——————————————————-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4449527.ece
A preliminary study of 6,000 logbooks has produced results that raise questions about climate change theories. One paper, published by Dr Dennis Wheeler, a Sunderland University geographer, in the journal The Holocene, details a surge in the frequency of summer storms over Britain in the 1680s and 1690s.
Many scientists believe storms are a consequence of global warming, but these were the coldest decades of the so-called Little Ice Age that hit Europe from about 1600 to 1850.
Wheeler and his colleagues have since won European Union funding to extend this research to 1750. This shows that during the 1730s, Europe underwent a period of rapid warming similar to that recorded recently – and which must have had natural origins.
Hints of such changes are already known from British records, but Wheeler has found they affected much of the north Atlantic too, and he has traced some of the underlying weather systems that caused it. His research will be published in the journal Climatic Change.
The ships’ logs have also shed light on extreme weather events such as hurricanes. It is commonly believed that hurricanes form in the eastern Atlantic and track westwards, so scientists were shocked in 2005 when Hurricane Vince instead moved northeast to hit southern Spain and Portugal.
Many interpreted this as a consequence of climate change; but Wheeler, along with colleagues at the University of Madrid, used old ships’ logs to show that this had also happened in 1842, when a hurricane followed the same trajectory into Andalusia.
Ok, regarding the hockey stick, I recall reading that Mann came out with hockey stick II (rated PG-13) :-).
If this is true, did he also get rid of the MWP in it as he did in the first hockey stick?
Just saw this article on antarctic glacier melt if you are interested.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8200680.stm
Don’t forget his Hockey Stick Number Two last year that used False Proxy Number Two, Finnish lake sediment if I remember right from Climate Audit…
Steve M uses a very appropriate phrase “check kiting” ie juggling uncashed cheques to swell one’s bank balance / academic credit – Mann references an unpublished paper, he quotes neither method, data, or proxies (but when he’s published, that will smoothe the way for him to register sub-standard material without being questioned), he (and others) still ride high on HS No.1 because the media said (falsely) that the North Report validated it. Nobody but CA buffs know of the discredited Hockey Stick No.2, and – finally – Mann uses sleight-of-hand whereby the Medieval Warm Period he once discredited now recreates itself as the Medieval Private Anomaly which explains the reason his windy toy can function.
Well, kings could once get away with worse…
OT – From the BBC’s “we’re all f*cked department”…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8200680.stm
Oh bugger, DavidS got there first :o)
Actually the funniest bit is by looking at the hurricane data Mann actually shows the frequency as high or higher 1000 years ago and therefore brought the MWP back to life. [snip- ad hom]
The biggest contribution this guy could make to science is a personal proof of Newton’s theories by throwing himself of a large building…..
Nogw (13:02:58) :
What if there are no hurricanes this season?… which seems possible.
Nogw,
If so, then it’s just weather 🙂
why is this guy so prominent? i dont get it at all. seems like everything he does is not reputable. is he one of the many getting our tax dollars to waste on global warnimg projects??
Nonsense such as that really blows any credibility he might have had.
I seriously wonder if Mann has funding from property insurance companies.
As stated in a recent thread, the insurance companies use this and other bogus bs to present a false case for increased premiums.
How’s about some good paleotempestology?
Besonen, M.R., et al., 2008. A 1,000-year, annually-resolved record of hurricane activity from Boston, Massachusetts, Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L14705, doi:10.1029/2008GL033950.
Elsner, J.B., T.H. Jagger, and K.-B. Liu. 2008. Comparison of hurricane return levels using historical and geological records. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 47, 368-374.
Scileppi, E. and J.P. Donnelly. 2007. Sedimentary evidence of hurricane strikes in western Long Island, New York. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 8(6), 1-25.
Nyberg, J., B.A. Malmgren, A.Winter, M.R. Jury, K.H. Kilbourne, and T.M. Quinn. 2007. Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the past 270 years. Nature, 447, 698-702.
Nott, J., J. Haig, H. Neil, and D. Gillieson. 2007. Greater frequency variability of landfalling tropical cyclones at centennial compared to seasonal and decadal scales. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 255, 367–372.
Donnelly, J.P., and J.D. Woodruff. 2007. Intense hurricane activity over the past 5,000 years controlled by El Niño and the West African monsoon. Nature, 447, 465-468.
Miller, D.L., C.I. Mora, H.D. Grissino-Mayer, C.J. Mock, M.E. Uhle, and Z. Sharp, 2006. Tree-ring isotope records of tropical cyclone activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 14,294-14,297.
None of these studies support the claim of unprecedented hurricane activity. At the very least this study is at variance with the past work in this young field.
It’s almost comical. However, this comment by Mann about the Landsea et al. paper may explain this nonsense:
“Mann disputed Landsea’s research, saying that his technology argument ignores the chance that a single storm could have been counted twice before satellite records could show the exact track. He expressed doubt that the study would pass muster to be published.”
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090517/ARTICLE/905171028/-1/NEWSSITEMAP#
Well, it did, and the paper which shouldn’t have been published is Mann’s.
Come on give Mann a break.
He jumped into his way back machine and got caught in a continuum loop over the Atlantic Ocean.
Honest mistake.
The Supplementary Information sheds no light on the methodology or the proxies.
The Supplementary Information contained no data sets.
Anthony, as Jeff Id points out above, the data sets and code are online.
Surely the fact that his computer model matches his silt samples can be used to disprove his computer model?
I mean all you need do is come up some other mechanism for silt movement (tidal water movement off the top of my head) and you can prove his model is false becasue it matches his observation?
I’m an amatur at this, just a thought
Lucy Skywalker (15:03:22) :
Don’t forget his Hockey Stick Number Two last year that used False Proxy Number Two, Finnish lake sediment if I remember right from Climate Audit…
Steve M uses a very appropriate phrase “check kiting” ie juggling uncashed cheques to swell one’s bank balance / academic credit – Mann references an unpublished paper, he quotes neither method, data, or proxies (but when he’s published, that will smoothe the way for him to register sub-standard material without being questioned), he (and others) still ride high on HS No.1 because the media said (falsely) that the North Report validated it. Nobody but CA buffs know of the discredited Hockey Stick No.2, and – finally – Mann uses sleight-of-hand whereby the Medieval Warm Period he once discredited now recreates itself as the Medieval Private Anomaly which explains the reason his windy toy can function.
Well, kings could once get away with worse…
I do remember perfectly Mann’s second HS. I think they repeat the same erroneous things from time to time for making people think the arguments which debunked their fallacious works were falsified and finally their “hypothesis” were correct.
The force of the routine does not construct science, but the careful observation of nature made by honest scientists. Unfortunately for our clean and true science, those guys are supported by the power of the Media and politics, the craftiest experts on distorting truth.
Did he really cut all those bristle-cone slices with just one circular-saw blade?
What a Mann!
The Besonen paper is reviewed at http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/02/09/1000-years-of-boston-hurricanes/#more-359
where it is stated:
Besonen et al. conclude “Hurricane frequency, as recorded at LML, has not been constant over the last millennium; the 12th –16th centuries had a significantly higher level of hurricane activity (up to 8 extreme events occurring per century) compared to the 11th and 17 th–19 th centuries when only 2–3 per century was the norm.” Similarly, they conclude “The LML sedimentary record provides a well-controlled and annually-resolved record of category 2–3 hurricane activity in the Boston area over the last millennium. The hurricane signal shows centennial-scale variations in frequency with a period of increased activity between the 12 th–16 th centuries, and decreased activity during the 11th and 17 th–19 th centuries.”
Seems to be the opposite of what Mann is claiming.
Clam history can be a delightful subject of study, in the right hands:
http://westinstenv.org/histwl/2008/01/29/clam-gardens/
KLA (15:33:37) :
Nogw (13:02:58) :
What if there are no hurricanes this season?… which seems possible.
Nogw,
If so, then it’s just weather.
Or they would adjust the classification of hurricanes so any drizzle would fit into a category of hurricane.
Pineapple Upside-Down Climate.
Flip over and bake in GCM for 1/2 hour.
AndrewG @16:45:24
As a scuba diver, I take great interest in sedimentation processes, normally under waer, as I see them in operation “in aqua”. I can assure you that there are many variables to sedimentation; I struggle to understand them.
If the data and methods are not available, then this is NOT science.
Steve M saiys: “The Supplementary Information sheds no light on the methodology or the proxies.
The Supplementary Information contained no data sets. The proxies used for the Mann et al submission are not even listed”
PLEASE, stop talking about Mann’s work as science. Until he releases the data and methodology, his work is nothing more than chicken bone throwing.
Apparently Mann’s work is nothing more than amatuer attempts to manipulate media stories, data and graphs. His work gets published and no one notices the necessary retractions, years later.
The public only remembers the front page of their paper’s lead story.