While Dr. Mann and his attorneys are busy sending letters to threaten legal action against authors of a parody video depicting him chopping down trees, such as this one he hasn’t gotten to yet, Steve McIntyre points out that Dr. Mann has a bigger problem. Oak Trees were found in his paper Mann 2008 et al, which was touted as his “do over” of the original MBH98 hockey stick in response to critics. With this revelation, Sudden Oak Death appears to have afflicted the “robustness” of the paper.
Steve McIntyre writes:
Doug Keenan has received a favorable decision from the FOI Commissioner in his lengthy FOI/EIR battle for tree ring data collected by Mike Baillie of Queen’s University, Belfast. The data is from Irish oaks and was collected mostly in the 1970s. The decision has been covered by the Times, the New Scientist and the Guardian and at Bishop Hill here and here.
Responses to the decision from Baillie, Rob Wilson and Phil Willis are as interesting as the decision. Baillie and Wilson argued that oak chronologies were “virtually useless” as temperature proxies and “dangerous” in a temperature reconstruction. Nonetheless, as I report below, no fewer than 119 oak chronologies (including 3 Baillie chronologies) were used in Mann et al 2008 without any complaint by Wilson or other specialists. CA readers will also be interested in Baillie’s 2005 response to a Climate Audit post urging climate scientists to update the proxies.
Oak as a Temperature Proxy
The scientist who had been withholding the data, Michael Baillie, ridiculed the idea that his Irish oak data was relevant to temperature reconstructions, saying that it would be “dangerous” to use this data for reconstructing temperature. Hannah Devlin of The Times:
However, the lead scientist involved, Michael Bailee, said that the oak ring data requested was not relevant to temperature reconstruction records.
Although ancient oaks could give an indication of one-off dramatic climatic events, such as droughts, they were not useful as a temperature proxy because they were highly sensitive to water availability as well as past temperatures, he added.
“It’s been dressed up as though we are suppressing climate data, but we have never produced climate records from our tree rings,” Professor Bailee said.
“In my view it would be dangerous to try and make interpretations about the temperature from this data.”
Baillie made a similar statement to the Guardian:
“Keenan is the only person in the world claiming that our oak-ring patterns are temperature records,” Baillie told the Guardian.
Rob Wilson agreed with Baillie on this point, telling the Times that “oaks were virtually useless as a temperature proxy”.
Mann et al 2008
Notwithstanding the considered opinion of Baillie and Wilson that oaks are “virtually useless as a temperature proxy” and “dangerous” to use in a temperature reconstruction, no fewer than 119 oak chronologies were used in Mann et al 2008.
Among Mann’s oak chronologies were three Baillie chronologies: brit008 – Lockwood; brit042 – Shanes Castle, Northern Ireland; brit044 – Castle Coole, Northern Ireland.
…
Far be it from me to disagree with the specialist view of Wilson and Baillie that these oak chronologies are “virtually useless” as a temperature or “dangerous” to use in a temperature reconstruction.
However, surely it would have been far more relevant for them to speak up at the time of the publication of Mann et al 2008 and to have expressed this view as a comment on that publication. At the time, Climate Audit urged specialists to speak out against known misuse of proxies, but they refused to do so. (see Silence of the Lambs).
More here at Climate Audit
=========
Kinda puts a death knell on the entire paper when another tree ring specialist argues vehemently that oak trees are “virtually useless” for temperature and then we see that Mann used the very same oak tree data the scientist was arguing against releasing, because it would “dangerous” to use it as a temperature proxy.
Dr. Mann has bigger credibility problems to worry about than parody videos.
As I’ve written before, the whole premise of treemometers is not without its problems:
A look at treemometers and tree ring growth
Is there anything a Mann can’t do?
As we celebrate Earth Day 2010, let us give thanks for our unwarranted survival in the 45 intervening years since Earth Day 1970 and bestow our everlasting gratitude upon those individuals possessing divine omniscience, who warned us of the imminent dangers to our continued existence.
————————————————————-
Earth Day Predictions, 1970
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
– Kenneth Watt, ecologist
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
– George Wald, Harvard Biologist
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
– Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
– New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
– Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
– Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
– Life Magazine, January 1970
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
– Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
– Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”
– Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
– Sen. Gaylord Nelson
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
– Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Sounds to me as if Prof Mann should transfer from the Penn State to the State Pen! Or am I being too harsh?
40 years!!!
given that in cold climates trees don’t “grow” during winter months the only thing a tree ring could (I stress could) measure is summer temperature averages …
If the summer average for 2 years was 75 degrees and 73 degrees but the winter average was 20 and 30 degress the annual averages would be 47.5 and 51.5. Tree rings would have called year 1 the warmer year when in fact it was the colder year.
This is OT, but sort of relevant. Dr Weaver is suing the National Post here inbCanada. See
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/21/bc-andrew-weaver-national-post-lawsuit.html
It could be interesting if it actually goes to court.
Ed Scott (09:05:48) :
“As we celebrate Earth Day 2010, let us give thanks for our unwarranted survival in the 45 intervening years since Earth Day 1970 and bestow our everlasting gratitude upon those individuals possessing divine omniscience, who warned us of the imminent dangers to our continued existence.”
An interesting list of side splittingly hilarious predictions, but you missed the one where they said that the Earth will be fried up by 2100 because of humans burning fossil fuels.
Comment from climate audit,
Bristlecones were discussed at the NAS panel in 2006, who recommended that strip bark trees (especially bristlecones and foxtails) be “avoided” in temperature reconstructions. This recommendation was totally ignored by paleoclimatologists, who, if anything, actually increased their use of both strip bark chronologies and even Mann’s PC1 as a sort of solidarity against third party criticism. Subsequent to the NAS panel report, strip bark chronologies were applied in Hegerl et al 2006, Juckes et al 2007, Mann et al 2007, Mann et al 2008 and most recently in Tingley and Huybers (submitted).
Now Mann et al are using Oaks as a temperature proxy even when one of their own grouping states that oak chronologies were “virtually useless” as temperature proxies and “dangerous” in a temperature reconstruction.
Any one heard of double blind.
But that correlation means that Mann chose only trees which behaved the way he wanted them to behave. If you only choose trees which only behave the way you expect, of course the result will tend to be what you already expect. If you only choose trees with narrow rings during a time when the temperature was rising, and wide rings during a time when the temperature was falling, then of course you’ll find that your trees are following the temperature record — except when they don’t follow the temperature after a certain date and you have to hide the decline.
Just because you’ve found trees which behave the way you think they should does not mean that the trees are measuring what you think they are. Baillie and Wilson say that oaks are sensitive to water rather than temperature. So they may be more sensitive to what the shovel is doing rather than what the thermometer is doing. Choosing those which behave in an expected way does not mean they behave the way you expect outside your calibration period.
A tree study would have a stronger base if, instead of trying to tease info out of statistics of a wood pile, a researcher looked at the history of an individual tree and understood what had affected it. Does the soil indicate what kind of weather took place during the lifetime of the tree? Ash deposits? Any springs, creeks, or lakes nearby? Is the terrain susceptible to flash flooding or nearby water accumulation? Are nearby trees of the same age, or has the surrounding botanical environment changed? Were rabbits or cattle introduced during the tree’s lifetime? Any other livestock changes, such as replacing ten horses with vehicles? Has land use changed during the lifetime of the tree? Did this tree begin growing among logs or other material which has since vanished or become less obvious?
Jumping over a fence, taking a core sample, marking the location, and rushing off to catch a train is not the same as knowing the tree’s history. Unless you can tease out the details from your core sample. I don’t think Mann had nutrient studies in the factors he was analyzing.
Isn’t the unreliability of tree ring data what Briffa proved when the thermometer records differed markedly from the tree ring proxies from 1960 onwards? “Hide the decline.” I think so.
Jim Cripwell (09:22:00) – That was already mentioned in the Tips section. See “Tips” up there in the menu options? See the menu options, the horizontal list under the site banner? If a moderator snips your post, that’s probably why.
You may be barking up the wrong tree.
From the abstract of Mann’s 2008 paper: “Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html
REPLY: Which has been the point M&M made back in 2003. You could feed white noise into MBH98 and get a hickey stick. The fact that Mann used a questionable Oak proxy point further to his questionable methods. -A
Ibrahim (08:31:35) :
Northern Ireland Trees Provide Clues to Climate Change
Secondly, they find that Ash and Beech are more sensitive to climate changes than Oak and that these species respond more clearly to rainfall and drought conditions than to mean temperature.
This agrees with about 50 other papers I have on file, all peer-reviewed. Mann is not a physiologist and I’m glad someone from within the paleo community is finally calling his work rubbish.
Good job to Steve also.
Well, all hockey sticks are made of wood, aren’t they?
This appears to be a very significant setback for the Mann / Jones cabal. It will be interesting to see how CA handles the spin on this one. Great work to all the honest people who did not give up and continued to push for the truth.
“the vast majority of academics who have anything to do with climate science are liars and hypocrites?”
They are above such limitations.
I just read the “A look at treemometers and tree ring growth” story linked above (with the awesome Snoopy graphic). Fascinating…. it never dawned on me that growth was parabolic… so basically if it’s especially hot, you get smaller amounts of growth, same as when it’s cold. I’m trying to wrap my head around that. How can they determine if a smaller ring indicates a cold year or a very hot year?
Sounds fishy.
” Mike (09:51:25) :
You may be barking up the wrong tree.
From the abstract of Mann’s 2008 paper: “Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used.”[…]”
Mann himself admits he doesn’t need tree ring data to make the MWP disappear? Unfortunately, i don’t get anything under
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html
but i found it here:
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0901-temperatures.html
“The results confirm that temperatures today in the Northern Hemisphere are higher than those of the Medieval warm period, a time when the Vikings colonized Greenland are are believed to have become the first Europeans to visit North America. ”
Wait. NH temps are higher now than when the Vikings colonized Greenland? Then why is Greenland so cold today? An inexplicable local phenomenon? Writing obviously contradictory stuff is normally the domain of bad journalism, not of scientists.
Paper doesn’t contain the substring Greenland. So no explanation by Dr. Mann.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf
vboring (08:16:36) : “…I’m not saying treemometers make sense, quite the opposite. I’m saying that you could probably remove any or all of the tree ring data and still come up with the same hockey stick shape using his methods….”
Only if we hide the decline. Dildoclimatology is pseudoscience, mummery, ancient astrology. The science is meddled, not settled.
I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree. Only Mann can tell which trees are the “treemometers” and which are just ordinary trees, although I have learned how to make a pretty good guess. If it produces a “hockey stick”, it’s probably a treemometer. If it doesn’t, it’s probably just a regular tree.
REPLY: That’s discrimination. All trees should be seen as equal, no matter what their species. 😉 – A
[snip]. Let’s hope he calls someone out soon so he has to lay his cards on the table once and for all.
It is truly unbelievable that these guys state oak rings are rubbish for establishing climate trends yet they said nothing to counter Mann.
Its snouts in the trough.
OT: SOI again positive:
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_enso.jsp?c=soi&p=weekly
http://www.gov.mb.ca/stem/mrd/geo/pflood/p_pdfs/climaticextremesinsmb.pdf
800 year oak tree chronology from Manitoba. found good correlation to moisture, but a NEGATIVE (though not statistically significant) correlation to temperature. Quotes repeatedly about methodology referencing… oops, Jones and Briffa.
Tree rings do not grow all year throughout much of the northern hemisphere. Where I am, tree rings grow for about 6 weeks. The rest of the time the tree is actually growing, it is growing roots, leaves, seeds/cones, buds etc. Rationalizing a 6 week interval as a proxy for 52 weeks of temperature is preposterous.
Only if these wood samples were used to make real hockey sticks would we actually get some real value.
So, what’s next?
Can this lead to some sort of retraction of the Mann 2008 paper? If so, who will make that happen?
And how many times will Mann humiliate Penn St before they give him the boot?