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.
Hans Erren (14:32:16) :
If Steve McIntyre wasn’t peer reviewer, then it’s worthless.
Are you serious?
Which peers? The same one peer-reviewing the ClimateGate scientists?
But you weren’t serious in the first place, right?
Bulldust (17:20:02) :
I see they turned off comments on the RC
I wonder if Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann will be able to shut off a Senate inquiry?
Why are the proxies replaced with instrumental data after 1850?
What would the plot look like if they continued to present day?
“Which peers?”
Forget peers. It should be reviewed by stats experts.
Tell me, when climatologists, glaciolocgists, any kind of scientists, study stats at University, do they have professors who are climatologists, any kind of scientists, teaching other than professors from departments named other than “mathematics” or “statistics?”
It has finally penatrated my thick head. The “Mann” computer aigorithm always outputs the “hockey stick” chart. The data input is not an important part of the formula, it’s just noise to give texture to the chart line.
Climategate Foretold…
“• What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann.]
Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.
“The moment you begin to believe your own hypothesis you are a dead duck as a scientist.”
Frank Beales, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto (1919 – 2004)
Never trust a pallbearer wearing a sling.
I sent my complaint to Penn State two days ago and they will take it under advisement. Follow the money!
I sent my complaint to Penn State two days ago and they will take it under advisement. Follow the money!
President Graham Spanier(president@psu.edu)
To all the experts on this site and climate audit:
First of all, let me thank for what you’ve done and are doing to let the truth be known about Mann made global warming and expose what is surely less than even psuedo-science.
WRT to the issue of this page, we lay people have no clue what you’re all talking about other than something is upside down. In order to help us understand why its important is possible to do an A – B comparison of the incorrect graph (A=up sidedown & B=right side up) so we can see what difference Mann’s “mistake” actually makes as well as explaining in simple English what is the issue and quantify for what the real impact it has on the results (ex. exaggerated recent warming by 40%, or shrank the MWP temperatures by 50%, or both, etc.)
Because according to a leaked e-mail quoted in this comment over on ClimateAudit (under the copy of the article over there), it seems that being upside down in this case doesn’t affect the results very much in this case (although I’m just guessing based on the name of the series being the same as the poster mentions)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7855#comment-367203
The more we lay people understand, the more knowledgeable (rather than merely trusting) supporters you’ll have and the less we can be taken in by the MSM.
Thx in advance.
> 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?
Political Science (sorry pol-sci majors, AGW’s taken the cake on this term)
Democratic Science (take a vote and go with the consensus)
Con-Science (as in lacking a conscience)
Tabloid Science (since it seems National Enquirer et al have expanded their offerings)
ScientistForTruth (09:51:26) :
Mann doesn’t have to be honest – he can still claim to be a scientist, one that furthers ‘post-normal’ science, which according to Prof. Mike Hulme of UEA, and contributor to the IPCC, is what climate change and the IPCC process is all about now. This all comes from a concept by the radical, J.R. Ravetz.
I took part in a few seminars with Jerry Ravetz back in the day. He’s a subtle thinker. Used to sit on bio-science ethics committees. People shouldn’t misunderstand the context of ScientistForTruth’s comment. When he says ‘post-normal’ science comes from a concept by Ravetz, he’s not saying Ravetz advocated ‘post-normal’ science. As a philosopher of science, he observed that this is what has been occurring, and described the processes which had brought it about.
anon (21:31:33) :
WRT to the issue of this page, we lay people have no clue what you’re all talking about other than something is upside down.
Try these articles on Climate Audit
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=71
… any other names come to mind?
pscience.
schmience.
By the way, Jerry Ravetz 1971 book “Scientific knowledge and its social problems” is available on google books here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OlFyG1BYTSEC&pg=PT1&lpg=PT1&dq=jerome+ravetz+scientific+knowledge+and+its+social+problems&source=bl&ots=-AFnxV9hLQ&sig=kXH_2gTa-AtLJdEZIrrG4zVtVKw&hl=en&ei=Ht4QS67JGYv_4AaG5oGHBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
tim c (11:16:07) :
Rod Serling would be proud of this “sci-fi” adventure.
L. Ron Hubbard would be *jealous*.
Uh-oh. On the BBC site I’ve just seen the picture of Mann with his collection of sliced tree trunks. What’s the betting that if there’s a cold winter in his area he’ll burn that wood in his fire place ‘by accident’, just as an FOI request comes in.
Odds, anyone?
“quality is a replacement for truth in our methodology.”
Fake, but accurate.
Yet another great example of Mann made global warming…
Steven Mosher
I finally see a response to a topic I raised naively a year ago. At first, (or third) blush, the correlation of the proxies to a purportedly definitive let alone accurate (to .01C) value is absurd; how can intelligent people accept a premise that defies logic (or even intuition) ? I posted long analyses of dozens of factors on tree growth, and while admittedly temperature is critical, the short cycle of growth of these trees wacks any intelligent isolation of one basis. Pah!
will
and to EdW
“just because it’s true doesn’t make it wrong” ….Alice?
> tallbloke (22:50:03) :
> Try these articles on Climate Audit
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=71
Thanks, however I really do not have the capacity to decipher all that and then come to an “aha moment” to understand the problem here. To help us lay people what is needed is a simple 1, 2, 3 presentation:
Step 1: Graph of what was done with Big Red Arrow pointing at the upside down data.
Step 2: Graph of correct way to use the data.
Step 3: 1 para description of the quantified difference the error made (warming instead of cooling, 50% more warming than there should be 50% less cooling than there should be etc.)
I appreciate that to get to that all the hard work that you folks analyzing Mann’s rubbish needs to be done, but then you really need to distill it down to the above each time so we “get it” — and more importantly decision makers “get it” too and can take action, ask pointed questions and hold people accountable too (if they decide to act).
Thanks
Climategate
Let’s see:
a) subverting the peer review process
b) stacking the UN IPCC
c) obstruction of the Freedom on Information Act
d) breach of university and state ethics codes
… and we haven’t even talked about the data yet.
Climate Science – the new Ponzi scheme!
p.s. – Is this what Science is all about? Meet the new boss (science), same as the old boss (religion). When are they issuing funny hats to scientists?
p.p.s. – Who needs Wall Street when you have Science?
wasn’t it determined that the upside down series in the last paper had no effect on the reconstrution when it was turned up the right way? I don’t see why it has to be included in that case, but I also don’t see why it matters if it doesn’t alter the results