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.
If you ask me , this paper is just another attempt to stop the MWP debate. The science is settled…
Michael Mann and the MWP – From Denial to Acceptance?
Btw, the instrument record goes straight up till 2006. In the supplemental information Mann writes
Is that a 7 year running mean, or what kind of trick did Mann use this time to hide the decline?
forgot the link…
Supplemental information for:
Global Signatures of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly and Plausible Dynamical Origins
Rudolf Kipp (18:07:01) :
Do they say where the 1850-2006 instrumental data is from?
The PDO and Nino3 don’t look like anything I have ever seen.
lgl (07:13:31) :
In the text they say intrumental temperature data is from
P. Brohan, J. J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S. F. B. Tett, P. D. Jones,
J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 111, D12106 (2006). (Link)
Where the ocean data comes from, I can not find in the text. And I, too, have no Idea, where thy come from.