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.
Mann HS must be right, remember, Al Gore indicated that he won the court decision in England regarding his so called Documentary…..
Hey come to think of it, my hockey stick that broke this past winter was made from bristle-cones. Maybe if Mann can do his math, I might have scored way more goals with it….nahh, i’m not that good.
“his new proxy”
Wow, how brilliant! Who could have thought of this but him!
Who can know what his proxy will be next?
A few links above to the BBC article on the melting ocurring on the Pine Island glacier in Antartica.
Here is 2003 versus 2009. (open in a new tab or a new window and click back and forth.)
2003.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/ICESHELVES/modis_iceshelf_archive/pinei/images/pinei_2003071_1615_modis_ch02.png
2009.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/ICESHELVES/modis_iceshelf_archive/pinei/images/pinei_2009074_1645_modis_ch02.png
Can you say B…
Roger Pielke writes:
“The Mann et al. historical predictions range from a minimum of 9 to a maximum of 14 storms in any given year (rounding to nearest integer), with an average of 11.6 storms and a standard deviation of 1.0 storms (!). The Landsea observational record has a minimum of 4 storms and a maximum of 28 with and average of 11.7 and a standard deviation of 3.75.”
Thus the two data sets have the same average (11.6 versus 11.7) and it is only the variability that has changed. Perhaps the standard deviation of 1 in the ‘historical prediction’ data is an artifact of some smoothing technique.
“Bill Illis (19:27:18) :
A few links above to the BBC article on the melting ocurring on the Pine Island glacier in Antartica.
Here is 2003 versus 2009. (open in a new tab or a new window and click back and forth.)
2003.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/ICESHELVES/modis_iceshelf_archive/pinei/images/pinei_2003071_1615_modis_ch02.png
2009.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/ICESHELVES/modis_iceshelf_archive/pinei/images/pinei_2009074_1645_modis_ch02.png
Can you say B…”
Way cool images…and does that look like, dare I say it, significantly MORE ice in 2009?? WOW!
Oh dear, this guy really is a scientific train wreck.
OT but evidence of yet more media scare mongering…
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/millions-of-salmon-fail-to-turn-up-in-canada-20090814-ekq4.html
“Officials and ecologists speculated the salmon could have been affected by warmer ocean temperatures, fewer food sources, or juvenile salmon may have contracted sea lice or other infections from some 30 fish farms in the Strait of Georgia as they migrated out to sea.”
This graph NH was dated 13/08/09 this morning. Its been put back to 07/08/09 just now. These things nearly always happen here when things don’t go the way there supposed to…
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
This may be becoming a major headache perhaps…
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_ice_area.png
This is astonishingly convenient. First, tree rings expunge the record of the little ice age and medieval warm period (Nature article). Then Antarctica is discovered to be warming after all (Nature article). And now, sediments show that hurricane frequency has ramped up during the last century (Nature article). Too slick. This latest golden egg will eventually lead to embarrassment.
I mentioned above I would try to find more about Chris Landsea’s concerns with Michael Mann’s paper and methodology. I did this with the expedient of Emailing Dr. Landsea, and he just replied to me and included an open letter and permission to include it here:
—–
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:08:06 -0400
From: Chris.Landsea
Subject: Re: Can you expound a bit on your comments about Mann’s foray into
hurricane proxies?
Here’s an open letter to Michael that i just sent on a tropical storm email group. Feel free to post this. I’ll let you know if he replies.
Dear Michael and tropical storm folks,
I have some additional concerns about this new paper. As you know, I was one of the reviewers for your Nature paper and, as usual, I “signed” my review. Unfortunately, some very large concerns of mine about the paper were not addressed. The two gravest issues are the paper’s use of the Atlantic basin tropical storm frequency data without consideration of new studies and the merger of the paleo-tempestology record to the historical storm data. Perhaps these could be addressed here.
The first point is that the paper disregarded (and not even discussed) crucial new work by Vecchi and Knutson (Journal of Climate, 2008) and Landsea, Vecchi, Bengtsson and Knutson (Journal of Climate, 2009). The first paper showed that about 3-4 tropical storms per year were likely “missed” in the late 19th Century down to less than 1 per year by the 1960s. The second paper (provided to you all in the review process as an accepted paper) shows that two-thirds of the massive doubling trend is simply due to very short-lived (< 2 days duration) tropical storms. Taking out these "shorties" (very likely due just to our vastly improved observational capabilities) from the record and adding in the estimated number of "missed" medium to long-lived tropical storms causes the long-term trend to completely disappear.
Your paper starts with a premise that "Atlantic TC activity, as measured by annual storm counts, reached anomalous levels over the past decade", which is simply not correct based upon the new research. Instead of finding that the medieval peak in TC activity "rivals" current levels of TC numbers, wouldn't your conclusions have been substantially different? This isn't a small quibble: it's the difference between a massive trend with doubling in the last 100 years, versus no trend with only multidecadal variability remaining. This new peer-reviewed research should not have been ignored completely.
Secondly, I have no expertise on paleo-tempestology data and thus cannot provide commentary about that portion of the analysis in the paper. However, the merging of the paleo record with the historical all basin tropical storm counts is very problematic. Instead of trying to upscale the paleo-tempestology data (Category 2 and stronger) to all basin tropical cyclone activity (including all tropical storms and hurricanes), an apples-to-apples comparison directly of paleo landfall data to historical (1851 to today) hurricane-only landfall data should have been performed. Not surprisingly, the historical landfall record for those five sites shows no trend. How could this be considered a homogenous comparison: landfall of (primarily) major hurricanes at five locations versus all basin tropical storm and hurricane numbers whose trend is mainly due to very short-lived, weak tropical storms that we simply couldn't observe decades ago?
What is curious, too, is the press release (link below) issued at Penn State that concluded: "It seems that the paleodata support the contention that greenhouse warming may increase the frequency of Atlantic tropical storms," said Mann. "It may not be just that the storms are stronger, but that there are there may be more of them as well." Why would such a strong statement be included in a press release that isn't even discussed in the paper? Would the paper's co-authors agree with this very public pronouncement about the implications of the work?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-08/ps-hoi081009.php
The bottom line is that the paper comes to very erroneous conclusions because of using improper data and illogical techniques. In my opinion, this work is, unfortunately, a step backwards in helping climate researchers understand how hurricanes have changed over the last several centuries.
Sincerely,
Chris Landsea
P.S.: The opinions expressed above are mine alone and do not represent any official view of the National Hurricane Center, the National Weather Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the Department of Commerce.
**********************************************************************
Chris Landsea
Science and Operations Officer
NOAA/NWS/National Hurricane Center
11691 S.W. 17th Street
Miami, Florida 33165-2149
**********************************************************************
"The sea was full of foam,
and the sea, air and clouds had seemingly merged into one."
– From the logbook of the "Johann Ludwing" – October 1894 hurricane
Ok, inquiring minds want to know: if Chris Landsea, as a reviewer, objected to the paper on such obviously fundamental grounds, grounds which CLEARLY state the paper’s conclusions not only inconsistent with the data, but outright incorrect, why was the paper published anyway? Is Nature to the point that peer review is really just window dressing and dissenting reviews are simply ignored? What shred of credibility is left when scientists claim “peer reviewed” work?
Mark
David Ball (08:56:39) “and a giant leap for Mann-kind”
Brilliant! David.
Robert Wood (19:00:10) :
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.
I’m not a scuba diver; I was a long time ago. I share the same sideline to sediments. I have lacustrine, riverine and marine sediments. Something very interesting is the high percentage of iron stained grains in riverine sediments. Some days ago I was astonished by this phenomenon. However, I think I have found the answer. The riverine sediments are susceptible to intensive mixing due to human activities.
It is common the exploitation of sands from riverbeds. As they extract tons of sand for the construction industry, bulldozers mix the centennial and millennial sedimentary layers with modern layers; water currents take charge of dragging old sediments along the river course. Those companies could be integrating even sedimentary layers from the early part of the Holocene with modern sedimentary layers.
This human activity must be taken into account when we are analyzing riverine sediments. If we know that any industry is making excavations or mining upstream, it is better for us to discard those sediments from using them like indicators of climate.
One more thing on sediments: If we are analyzing marine sediments, it is very important to take the samples (boreholes) far away from deltas and river mouths. If we take the samples near river mouths, we could be experiencing the same problem than with riverine sediments.
We just heard from NOAA about technology and greater coverage of tropical storms
NOAA: More tropical storms counted due to better observational tools, wider reporting. Greenhouse warming not involved.
Mann is backpeddaling and attempting to rally support for his fading arguments.
The serious scientists are not going to let him slide.
The BBC tell a very different story on their actual radio broadcasts. No uncertainty there. They even added some stuff about a “a new report the bbc have seen”. It is beneath contempt.
“Mann is using “overwash” silt and sand as his new proxy. ”
Perhaps things would have a different perspective if one substituted “hog-” for “over-“
Ric Werme (21:24:11) :
Great work!
“During the past 35 years, the United States has experienced three Category 4 or stronger hurricanes: Charley in 2004, Andrew of 1992 and Hugo of 1989. However, on the average, a category 4 or stronger hurricane strikes the United States about once every 7 years. This suggests we have seen fewer exceptionally strong hurricanes than an expected 35-year average of about 5.”
Consider Al Gore’s statement hurricanes are getting stronger.
From the National Hurricane Centre
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/Deadliest_Costliest.shtml
Bill Illis
Great links to the ‘melting’ glacier. Have you got a day/moth for each of those photos to ensure we are comparing like for like.
Way more ice now but the dates need to coincide. If dates match a complaint to the BBC is in order
Tonyb
[snip]
Snip at will.
Reply: While some of us may appreciate the sentiment, let’s not go there. ~ charles the moderator
Who’s stick this, I think I know,
This louse spews lies and Co2,
He made one once before, it’s true,
Made from tree rings, falsely glued
To his hubris and some grass, this
Mann sure mangles randomness,
Won’t someone PLEASE hand him his ass?
:))
You know, looking at the picture of Michael Mann. I am struck by a remarkable resemblance to Gavin. Can it be that they are the same person? 😉
CtM:-)
I agree, I shouldn’t have been too keen, & I wouldn’t want the responsibility!
It seems a shame to chop all those tree down in search of proxy data. What to do with all this timber ? Perhaps he could carve out a hockey stick ?