This is a simple IQ test anyone should be able to complete easily. Here are four images, which one of the images has elements that are not upside down? You have 5 seconds. Go.
Answer below.
Chances are, if you are not Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University, you’d answer: “It’s a trick question, all of them are upside down”.
And you’d be right.
If you are Dr. Michael Mann, and continue to insist that data in the image (from Mann et al 2008 ) in the lower right is not upside down, please contact me about some real estate in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you at a bargain price.
As WUWT and Climate Audit readers know, Mann made some blatantly obvious mistakes in his use of proxy data in Mann et al 2008, where he claims to be able to make a present day “hockey stick” of climate without the use of Bristlecone Pines that he used in his flawed 1998 study which produced the original Hockey Stick. Mann inverted data, upside down if you will, notably the Tiljander sediment as pointed out by Steve McIntyre.
Mann didn’t just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down, a point illustrated in the graphic below from a Japanese language article that rather appealed to me.
This isn’t an opinion. McIntyre personally verified this data inversion with the researcher, Tiljander, who collected the original proxy data. Yet Mann still denies it, probably because using the data right side up doesn’t produce the desired results.
Here is a figure from Tiljander et al showing the density graphic, rotated so that up corresponds to warm periods.
Figure 1. Excerpt from Tiljander et al, rotated from vertical in original graphic to show interpreted warm periods as up.
Here is the corresponding Mann data inverted from the Mann orientation:
Even if Mike Mann doesn’t, the Japanese know this:
Mann didn’t just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down, a point illustrated in the graphic below from a Japanese language article that rather appealed to me.
Figure 3. Excerpt from Itoh graphic identifying upside down Tiljander proxies.
In a more mundane version, the figures below (from CA in fall 2008) show the Xray density series shown above in the upside down Mann orientation together with another upside down Tiljander series.
Figure 2. Two of 4 versions used in Mann et al 2008
The huge HS blade is, as noted above, attributed by Tiljander to “intensive cultivation in the late 20th century… peat ditching and forest clearance … the rebuilding of the bridge.”
The SI to Mann et al 2008 conceded that there were problems with the recent portion of the Tiljander proxies (without mentioning that they were using them upside down from the interpretation of Tiljander and Finnish paleolimnologists), but argued that they could still “get ” a Stick without the Tiljander sediments. However, as I observed at the time, this case required the Graybill bristlecone chronology (where they failed to mention or cite Ababneh’s inability to replicate Graybill’s Sheep Mt results, even though Malcolm Hughes, a member of Ababneh’s thesis panel was a coauthor of Mann et al 2008). Thus their “robustness” analysis used either upside down Tiljander sediments or Graybill bristlecones.
Even though there is no doubt whatever that Mann used the Tiljander proxies upside down, in their reply to our comment, Mann et al flat out denied that they had used them upside down. Mann:
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.
These comments are either unresponsive to the observation that the Tiljander sediments were used upside down or untrue. Multivariate methods are indeed insensitive to the sign of the predictors. However, if there is a spurious correlation between temperature and sediment from bridge building and cultivation, then Mannomatic methods will seize on this spurious relationship and interpret the Tiljander sediments upside down, as we observed. The fact that they can “get” a Stick using Graybill bristlecones is well known, but even the NAS panel said that bristlecones should be “avoided” in temperature reconstructions – and that was before Ababneh’s bombshell about Sheep Mt bristlecones. The claim that upside down data was used may indeed be “bizarre”, but it is true.
This wasn’t the only proxy used upside down in Mann et al 2008. In our discussion of Trouet et al 2009 in the spring, Andy Baker commented at CA and it turned out that Mann had used one of Baker’s series upside down – as discussed here.
Mann’s failure to concede that they had used the Tiljander proxies upside down resulted in Kaufman et al 2009 also using them upside down. Kaufman said that he was unaware of our comment on this point, but was sufficiently attuned to the controversy that he truncated the data at 1800. As a result, the big HS blade isn’t used, but the Little Ice Age and MWP are flipped over, a point made at CA here Kaufman and Upside Down Mann. Two other Finnish paleolimnology series also appear to have been used upside down by Kaufman.
Atte Korhola, a prominent Finnish paleolimnologist, familiar with the Tiljander and other sediments, recently commented on the upside down use of Finnish proxy data, as follows (Jean S’s translation) (Google translation here):
data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa.
And yet at realclimate, Mann and others not only deny the undeniable, but accuse anyone saying otherwise of being “dishonest”.
Chris Dudley in comment #651 says:
Over at Dot Earth, McIntyre is taking another shot at Mann et al. 2008. community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/climate-auditor-challenged-to-do-climate-science/?permid=302#comment302
He seems to still be worried about inverted data despite Mann et al. publishing a formal reply to this. At this point bizarre is not the word any more.
A few posts later #665, JM says:
He seems to still be worried about inverted data despite Mann et al. publishing a formal reply to this. At this point bizarre is not the word any more.
The word we’re all groping for is “dishonest.” I’m sure everyone is as shocked as I am.
At #673, Benjamin asked:
Could someone point me to where this “inverted data” issue is addressed by Mann or someone else who knows? I’ve so far been unable to debunk McIntyre’s claims that there was an error there. Thanks!
To which, Mann referred to the PNAS Reply referred to above:
[Response: The original commenter appears to be referring to: Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106, E11, 2009. – mike]
Yeah right-o buddy, robusto crappo.
In other words, Mann’s study is falsified, yet he’s not Mann enough to admit it.
Here’s an interesting use of upside down graphs followed by a consensus insistence that the orientation of the data is correct:
Caleb,
an obvious case of “double talk” wherein you insert a nonsensical phrase into your conversant, while nodding your head to seem to kn ow what you’re talking about. the following phrase would be just as effective, but shorter—–
“it’s crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide”
Raven, thanks for your response. I think it’s clear that Mann applies no scrutiny to his use of proxies in his reconstruction so long as it results in a hockey stick. Take away the bristlecones and the Tiljander sediment and he’ll find another proxy with anomalous change in the 20th century. He doesn’t even attempt to convince us that this reconstruction has any real meaning.
How can there be debate over this?
Am I missing something, or did Mann turn an anti-hockey stick into a hockery stick?
His explanation seems to resolve to “we flipped it over because it matched the other data better that way.” That doesn’t sound like science, that sounds like someone explaining evolution by claiming God put the fossils there 6,000 years ago when He created the Earth.
Mike and Raven
That is how I read Mann’s response as well. As if he is saying it doesn’t matter what the physical reality of the data represents, nor what the proxy is actually indicating.
We may presume an honest mistake but after this response the presumption is becoming a stretch.
Does this mean Dr Mann et al. are [snip over the top]
It’s no wonder Mann lost the medieval warm period.
Al Gore can’t give back the Nobel prize money, he invested it in a carbon trading venture.
evanmjones (18:19:14)
“Nonetheless, one must entertain the notion because falsifiability is an indispensable keystone of science.”
Seems like he IPCC doesn’t quite agree. From Section 8.22 of TAR:
Recent discussions by Randall and Wielicki (1997), Shackley et al. (1998 and 1999), Henderson-Sellers and McGuffie (1999) and Petersen (2000) illustrate many of the confusions and uncertainties that accompany attempts to evaluate climate models especially when such models become very complex. We recognise that, unlike the classic concept of Popper (1982), our evaluation process is not as clear-cut as a simple search for “falsification”. While we do not consider that the complexity of a climate model makes it impossible to ever prove such a model “false” in any absolute sense, it does make the task of evaluation extremely difficult and leaves room for a subjective component in any assessment. The very complexity of climate models means that there are severe limits placed on our ability to analyse and understand the model processes, interactions and uncertainties (Rind, 1999). It is always possible to find errors in simulations of particular variables or processes in a climate model. What is important to establish is whether such errors make a given model “unusable” in answering specific questions.
gtrip (17:32:04) :
But like all initiatives; One needs to know ones limits. As MS was diminished with the help of Jerry and the March of Dimes, it is unfortunate that the campaign is still going on.
As there is no AGW, to continue posting lame studies that show that there is no AGW just ends up making this site…..well…stupid. Over at CP big Joe try’s to get people on board by posting leftist political observations. And it may be working.
It is time to stop arguing the science and start attacking the oppressors. (unless of course you get income from it).
Are you on a trip from a different reality? Is that what g(reat) trip is ?
Even the link you gave says the opposite of what you claim and concludes :
“People are entitled to entertain whatever apocalyptic view of the future they choose, but such ideas have nothing to do with science. Climate prediction is not science, it is pseudo-science, and sooner or later more real scientists are going to wake up to this fact.
In the conduct of human affairs it is surely preferable that we base our actions on reason and evidence rather than on piety and myth.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense
One swallow does not mean spring has come, and to advocate otherwise makes your stance suspicious of being a fifth column member(google it if you do not know the term). This is the time to multiply the blogs of the wattsupwiththat stance, not to shut them up.
Seems like he IPCC doesn’t quite agree. From Section 8.22 of TAR:
Yes, how they dance. They seem to be trying to say they can be, well, wrong yet still “not unusable”.
Do they go on like that in AR4?
Mr Lynn (21:02:06) :
I agree, a very good article. I have been waiting for someone with a background in fluid dynamics to have a shot at the models.
Is Our Sleepy Sun Making Our Planet Cold?
I’m trying to think of a good headline written on a 4th grade level for the sheeple to understand for an article I’m writing.
Our Sun has been in a low output state for more than two years which is a major reason why last year was cold and why this year will be even colder.
Does this sound like a good starting point for an article on why it has been getting so cold in recent years?
I look forward to seeing you people freezing your Fing a$$e$ off to make you realize global warming, global cooling, and climate change are not your fault.
You must speak out to stop Obama from signing the Copenhagen Treaty in December, based on Man-Made global warming. They want to take control of the worlds energy markets blaming it on you because you are causing global warming with your CO2.
This is sort of what the article will be like.
What do you think of the headline?
P.S.
The is a live stream feed of this new movie tonight.
Not Evil Just Wrong
Stream of Conscience: Not Evil Just Wrong to Stream Live, for Free, Over Internet This Sunday
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS172412+16-Oct-2009+PRN20091016
Peer reviewed science. Accept no substitutes.
tokyoboy (18:52:58) :
Please see page 5/6 in the following pdf file:-
http://www.jser.gr.jp/activity/e-mail/gw2-1.pdf
evanmjones (22:27:44) :
(BTW, should be 8.2.2 not 8.22 in TAR) It’s fairly general and vague. No mention of falsifiability, but this:
“Differences between model and observations should be
considered insignifi cant if they are within:
1. unpredictable internal variability (e.g., the observational
period contained an unusual number of El Niño events);
2. expected differences in forcing (e.g., observations for the
1990s compared with a ‘pre-industrial’ model control run);
or
3. uncertainties in the observed fi elds.”
1. Opens up the possibility that a failure of the model can be excused if something unexpected happens (unexpected by the model? by the modeller?). Expected is an increase in temperature, so anything else is unexpected.
2. Seems reasonable, for example changes due to economic collapse brought about by a cap and trade. Except that the model could easily be “tested” by rerunning it with all parameters the same except for “forcing”.
3. Seems to be saying that the model failure relative to observations are insignificant if the observations (fields?) are wrong. OK, but I can’t see anything comparable about model agreement with data that is wrong. To me that would come close to falsification. No criteria that I can see for quantifying “uncertainties”. Could this be disagreement with the models?
Different words, much the same position as far as I can see. (Section 8.1.2)
A proposed model, as the AR4 GCMs are cannot be taken as science if there is no propagation of errors, a chisquare per degree of freedom and the subsequent error band on the projected temperatures. It is OK for a video game, for alternate realities, for whatever, but not as a scientific proposition.
At the same chapeter 8 of AR4 , 8.1.2.2 Metrics of Model Reliability
The above studies show promise
that quantitative metrics for the likelihood of model projections
may be developed, but because the development of robust
metrics is still at an early stage, the model evaluations presented
in this chapter are based primarily on experience and physical
reasoning, as has been the norm in the past.
This is enough, in my books, to throw the whole IPCC thing in wastepaper basket.
What it really says by obfuscation is, if errors were computed they would be so large to make the projections to future meaningless.
experience and physical reasoning after all.
AnonyMoose (18:07:41)
“Nice excuse, Caleb, now show your work.”
Um…errr…Briffa has it? (Point across room at Briffa, who will state he cannot show the work because he got from a Russian who hasn’t published his paper yet.)
My actual strategy, all those years ago in Geometry class, was to make my excuse so very long, and so very interesting, that the end-of-class bell would ring, and I could bolt for the door.
He seems to still be worried about inverted data despite Mann et al. publishing a formal reply to this. At this point bizarre is not the word any more.
Would the new word be “lie”…?
Mr Lynn (21:02:06) :
I agree, the article by John Reid (cited by gtrip) is one of the best reasoned explanations of how Climatologists should be ranked on a par with Phrenologists. Perhaps by next century, they will be.
davidc (22:09:10) :
Your extract from Section 8.22 of TAR:
Was a very large computer software development company involved in testing the climate models by any chance?
Oh, there was no testing?
Oh, well that explains EVERYTHING, then.
davidc (21:04:36) :
Thanks for the explanation. Now begins the tiresome business of comprehending. I am amazed by what goes into all the various “adjustments.”
As soon as I see the word “adjustment” alarms go off in my suspicious head.
I have a cousin who worked for a high-tech aircraft engine maker. He made a good living, and his job largely consisted of taking the manuals the scientists wrote, and turning them into manuals which mechanics could actually read.
I think we need to do the same thing with the jargon used by Climate Science.
What I find, after I sweat and strain to comprehend all the reasons for altering the raw data, is that all the jargon forms a weave which forms a fabric which is worn by an emperor who has no clothes.
“What I find, after I sweat and strain to comprehend all the reasons for altering the raw data, is that all the jargon forms a weave which forms a fabric which is worn by an emperor who has no clothes.”
Elegantly put!
The truth, that AGW is really a confabulation of a few opinion leaders, is inconceivable for the true believers at this point in time. But facts are stubborn things, even in the age of political correctness.
Mann has been one of the prop masters for these opinion leaders. His group’s specialty has been to fabricate credible relics for the believers to objectify their faith, and to distract them from the complete lack of evidence for the hysteric claims of the AGW promoters.
Like all props, scrutiny shows them to be contrived and shallow.
That Mann uses his own work to defend his work is a perfect example of how shallow and self-referential his efforts really are.
I have a simple lay-person’s question:
In days of yore, when I was involved in constructing computer models, we used a branch of mathematics known as numerical methods. This involved techniques like using matrix arithmetic to solve simultaneous equations, or imaginary numbers to calculate vector arithmetic, or Simpson’s rule to calculate the area under a curve, etc.
Each of these techniques had a range of defined, and generally accepted, tests that could be performed to show that each algorithm was performing as designed, and more importantly, to show that it could detect erroneous input values, and act accordingly, and that the results were within a given tolerance level.
From some of the comments in this thread, I now have the distinct impression that these sorts of disciplines are no longer required.
So my question is two-fold: Do reputable scientific research facilities still employ professional modelers? And if so, do these modelers have a professional code of practice?
get a grip gtrip, WUWT can fight its own battles, but I looked at that link of yours and there is no idea in it that has not been kicked around the skeptic community for years.
An easy mistake to make. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And…
Two things about this make me nuts. First the sediment curve doesn’t look a damn thing like temperature. They might as well go hunting for mollusk sphincter diameters feed the happy little critters beans measure again and call that temp. Come ON.. not every imagined thing is a friggin thermometer. It’s like when they drill a hole for say … water and they go back and measure it’s temp at depths mash it with horrible mathematics and 100% of the time get a hockey stick. Never mind that the damn thing has had water flowing through it for 1000 years before it was ever drilled. Never mind that the math is just a pile, nope if it’s a HS it’s temp!
The other point is that when I pointed out that it’s typically considered incorrect to read the thermometer upside down IN FIRST GRADE! I had over 300 comments arguing with PhD’s about why it’s ok to read the damn things the wrong way.
It’s Friggin’ nuts that people can talk themselves into that sort of craziness.
Bad for my blood pressure.