I mentioned yesterday in the press release thread:
So here’s the question, the press release below mentions sediments. Place your bets now on whether the Tiljander sediment series remains inverted or not.
Peer review doesn’t seem to catch the problem of using inverted data. That’s a good question for science and the peer reviewers. I suggest those who have contact put the question to them, because the results will look different when the data is used properly. In case anyone doubts this. The inversion was confirmed by the principal researcher that gathered the data, Tiljander, who confirmed this in an email to Steve McIntyre. – Anthony
============================
Yet another Upside Down Mann out
Science published today yet-another-Mann-et-al-reconstruction:
Michael E. Mann, Zhihua Zhang, Scott Rutherford, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Drew Shindell, Caspar Ammann, Greg Faluvegi, and Fenbiao N: Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly, Science 326 (5957), 1256. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1177303].
Seems to me that Mann has re-discovered the Medieval Warm Period.
I had a quick look at the paper, SI, and the code. What seems to be done this time is that the proxy network of Mann et al (2008) is processed with a slightly modified screening of Mann et al (2008), and then the reconstruction is done with a slightly modified RegEM CFR of Mann et al (2007)! Now to answer the question that seems to be on everyone’s lips: yes, Tiljander series are still used as inverted. This can be seen from the positive screening correlation values reported in the file 1209proxynames.xls. In fact, going quickly through the screening code, it seemed to me that they have really “moved on” from the screening employed in Mann et al (2008): only “two-sided test” is used!
%------------------------------------------------------------------
%% below is for selecting full/screened/1856-1925 screened/1926-1995 screened proxy-network
%% replacing "abs(z(4,i))>=0.165"/"abs(z(5,i))>=0.513" in line 75/84 with the followings for your expected proxy-network
%% abs(z(4,i))>=0 / abs(z(5,i))>=0 (full proxy-network)
%% abs(z(4,i))>=0.162 / abs(z(5,i))>=0.496 (screening over 1850-1995)
%% abs(z(6,i))>=0.195 / abs(z(7,i))>=0.602 (screening over 1896-1995)
%--
This means that if a proxy has a strong inverted correlation to the (two-pick?) local temperature, it gets picked – no matter what the physical interpretation is! Since RegEM doesn’t care about the sign, it is now really so that the sign does not matter to them anymore. Anything goes!
I’m speechless.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Roll up, roll up ! See the amazing feats!
You’ll gasp as a Mann jumps the shark.
ScientistForTruth, I am flabbergasted by the philosopher Jerome Ravetz. Stunned. I won’t pretend I can understand all of the above information about Tiljander and the upside down graphs at first reading but I know what science is meant to be about. Truth is the goal. Quality instead of truth? Truth is the quality of science. I’m a nurse in an ICU and I can’t begin to imagine the troubles our patients would be in if we didn’t have accurate data. If we started to use quality numbers we liked for our patients’ pathology results rather than the truth there would be death and chaos all around…
A mate of mine works in the science dept of a major Aussie university, one which has superb AGW credentials. Over the last year or so I’ve given him info about the bad science going on with AGW and he’s been tolerant of my views. The latest revelations of fraud etc have made him think twice. As a holder of a science degree and a lover of science even he concedes that fraudulent use of data is not not to be tolerated. I have a minor win on my side but I’m yet to win the battle on that front. I shall battle on to convince him, slowly but surely!
Where is Erasmus when we need him. His work (never officially signed by him but ascribed to him) “Julius Exclusis” is a classic. We need somebody to do a “Gore, Mann, Jones et. alia Exclusis” as to what happens when these guys die and show up trying to get into heaven.
Those graphs serve to confirm my earlier guess that Mann would produce … “a warped and twisted hockey stick, proving once again that we are experiencing unprecedented warmth.”
It’s déjà vue all over again.
Ray (10:15:15) :
We knew of the two branches of Science: Pure and Applied Sciences. We will now need to add a new branch the “Anything Goes Science” or “Twaddle Science”… any other names come to mind?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How about Ecneics and Erutan — science and nature spelled backwards. I would also add Setutitsorp.
Bob
“NC (10:07:27) :
Does Science and Nature have the same publisher as the National Enquirer, just asking? I maybe belittling the National Enquirer”
Along the lines of JamieLee Curtis saying to Kevin Kline…”Otto…to call you stupid is an insult to stupid people everywhere.”
It’s pretty amazing that in this day of electronic “instant-on” communication, the publishing industry is still so old-fashioned and behind the times that they couldn’t stop the presses on this awhile ago when the upside-down discovery was first made and brought to light here.
Now they look “more dumber”…
JimB
threadjacking in progress (sorry!):
much of what george monbiot has written in the guardian the past few days has apparently been scrubbed from the site. and for those entries that remain, the comments section has been scrubbed. the current entry apparently has the comment section turned off. too much truth telling going on, i guess.
REPLY: Be careful with this, might just be a browser problem or PEBKAC somebody else reported something similar a couple of days ago, turned out to be PEBKAC. – Anthony
The term “fudge factor” was used in the CRU code, so I would call it all “Pure Fudge”. (Which, of course, is just a metaphor for something else.)
Sorry, would have been here sooner but I suffered an inversion and went to wattsdownwiththat.com instead.
Probably worth linking again.
I bet they set this up by phone !!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8381317.stm
I have heard Jerry Ravetz speak and he is quite convincing. I bought his little book on post normal science, expecting to rip it to bits, but it is very hard to do so. My heart says I disagree with him, but my head found it difficult to develop reasoned arguments. This will be important in where we go next with science. We can’t just say we are speechless about post-normal science.
Not that that has anything to do with what has been going on with The Team, of course. They are a discredit to any phrase with science in it.
Twaddle Science
New Science?
Fraud is closer to the truth. I’m impressed with all this – I compiled an Index on Censorship report into gagging pressures in science, pressures to conform, or ignore outliers. That was “Big Science and Little White Lies” 1999:3. We found exactly this kind of behaviour – including bullying and coercing journal editors, demanding consensus in order to gain tenure etc, but on such a tiny scale compared with this. I spent months looking at scientific scandals – nothing was this big. This is astonishing, and the *impact* of the fraud has been collossal.
I’m not speechless. I don’t get speechless. But I am stunned.
How did they think they could get away with it?
Re Monbiot – its still there and has gained another 100ish comments since I looked about 6 hrs ago = up to 983 as of GMT+1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response#start-of-comments
For some of the story behind the story, see
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1011&filename=1252164302.txt
Apparently one problem was the ease of using data that seems to fit. This is one of the ways papers get published showing too much warming. If the data didn’t fit, then it’s more likely to be tossed as obviously defective.
A good scientist is skeptical of his own data….
Excerpts from the Email:
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Darrell Kaufman <Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nick McKay <nmckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, David Schneider <dschneid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, “Bette L. Otto-Bliesner” <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Raymond Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Miller Giff <gmiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bo Vinther <bo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Arctic2k update?
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:25:02 -0700
Cc: <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
D et al – Please write all emails as though they will be made public.
I would not rush and I would not respond to any of them until the best strategy is developed – don’t want to waste anyone’s time, including yours or Mc’s.
Be careful, very careful. But now you know why I advocated redoing all the analyses a few months ago – to make sure we got it all right. We knew we’d get this scrutiny.
On 9/5/09 8:44 AM, “Darrell Kaufman” <[1]Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
Regarding the “upside down man”, as Nick’s plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.
I’m also thinking that I should write to Ojala and Tiljander directly to apologize for inadvertently reversing their data.
““quality is a replacement for truth””
In the case of Climate Science as practiced at CRU and by all the Team that phrase could be”
“lack of integrity is a replacement for truth”
“political expediency is a replacement for truth”
“dishonesty is a replacement for truth”
“Keeping our funding Gravy Train rolling is a replacement for truth”
I think I saw an earlier comment that the temperature record was spliced onto the end of the proxies. Can anyone confirm that since Mann said that no “real” scientist would ever do that.
Interesting how the emails show Steve Mc was right:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11563
Ric, see you beat me to the punchline!
Mann was a co-author of a recent paper E. Crespin et al.(2009): The 15th century Arctic warming,where naturall variation (aka random behaviour) is blamed.
E. Crespin et al.2009: The 15th century Arctic warming
Abstract. An ensemble of simulations of the climate of
the past millennium conducted with a three-dimensional climate
model of intermediate complexity are constrained to
follow temperature histories obtained from a recent compilation
of well-calibrated surface temperature proxies using
a simple data assimilation technique. Those simulations
provide a reconstruction of the climate of the Arctic that
is compatible with the model physics, the forcing applied
and the proxy records. Available observational data, proxybased
reconstructions and our model results suggest that the
Arctic climate is characterized by substantial variations in
surface temperature over the past millennium. Though the
most recent decades are likely to be the warmest of the past
millennium, we find evidence for substantial past warming
episodes in the Arctic. In particular, our model reconstructions
show a prominent warm event during the period 1470–
1520. This warm period is likely related to the internal variability
of the climate system, that is the variability present
in the absence of any change in external forcing. We examine
the roles of competing mechanisms that could potentially
produce this anomaly. This study leads us to conclude
that changes in atmospheric circulation, through enhanced
southwesterly winds towards northern Europe, Siberia and
Canada, are likely the main cause of the late 15th/early 16th
century Arctic warming.
http://www.clim-past.net/5/389/2009/
Concluding paragraphs
The patterns of surface temperature and sea level pressure
over the years 1470–1520 is somewhat similar to the early
20th century Arctic warm event. The available data indicates
that the winter times in the 1920s were characterized by increased
warm air inflow into Europe, while the Baffin Bay
experienced a cooling. (Overland et al., 2004; Bengtsson et
al., 2004). The pattern of sea level pressure (SLP) anomalies
during this period is comparable with the pattern of the 1470–
1520 warming period obtained in our model reconstructions
(the geopotential height being the closest variable to the SLP
in the model). The early 20th century warm event might thus
not have been unique in the recent past. Furthermore, the
negative anomaly centered over Bering Strait is responsible.
I’d like to know where in the IPCC/AGW movement is there clean and reliable science?
There must be some components which are untainted.
Robinson (09:47:45) :
Well, at least we know one thing: Mann has an impeccable sense of comedy timing.
I’m sure the new Mann work was in the pipe before the ClimateGate story broke.
One problem I see with how ClimateGate is being handled in the media is that they don’t know what the emails really mean. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, James Hansen, Kieth Briffa, these are new names to them. We know the impact of the ClimateGate file because we are so familiar with the whole issue. We immediately know what the Mann Hockey Stick is and we are shocked over what Mann did to produce it.
If most of us were in charge of how ClimateGate stories are presented in the media we would add so much more background that viewers would become just as shocked as we are.
Gene Nemetz (11:07:08) :
Robinson (09:47:45) :
Here’s how Michael Mann is spinning things :
“What they’ve done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world,” Penn State’s Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made “something innocent into something nefarious.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Ya Mike, that innocent “Mike’s Nature trick”.
Climategate has grown about 1m references in the last 3hrs – now Results 1 – 10 of about 10,700,000 for climategate. (0.11 seconds)
Holy Cow.
Rod Serling would be proud of this “sci-fi” adventure.
Thanks to you Anthony, and M&M, for all the truth you have produced.
NZ Willy (10:09:53) :
“Whilst I do not endorse inverting the series, it’s a fact that if series correlate, the sign is unimportant. You just assign a negative coefficient.”
—
So you are just investigating black boxes and look for correlations? Then on what reasons do you propose to reject correlations such as declining stork populations and birth rates? Your stance is patently absurd.