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
Dennis Nikols (08:31:14) :
S. McIntyre makes some good points as he usually does. If memory serves, often less well then I am like, a Canadian researcher has published on a technique of oxygen ratios in tree rings that produces temperature proxies. Her method removes most of the usual objections about growth rates
Leif Svalgaard (08:59:35) :
If the old chronologies are ‘made available’ does that mean the measurements or are the actual samples of woods still around? If so, the 18O technique might be used on them.
Since most descriptions of the 18O technique seem to require that tree foliage is at ambient temperature this paper
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/earth/pdf/nature07031.pdf
which details how tree foliage, through the operation of various natural processes maintains its temperature within a much narrower range than ambient temps, would seem to have put a rather large hurdle in the path of utilizing 18O as a temp proxy. The paper drew a brief flurry of interest for a couple weeks after it was published, including a post here at WUWT, then it seemed to be consigned to the memory hole. I always found that intriguing.
From DirkH (10:33:26) :
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.
The situation with Greenland is obviously a local phenomenon, the change from the previous warmth is easily explained. The ocean currents changed after Atlantis sunk.
That is at least as believable as what Mann says the tree rings tell us, therefore it must be true.
Vincent (09:24:05) :
“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.”
————————————————————-
Vincent have faith in our divine prognosticators. We, at least our descendents, have 89 plus years to cower in fear before being consumed by the fiery conflagration as the year 2100 nears. Hopefully, the citizens, surviving at that time, will have been spared the agony of the unending verbal bombardment of Gorisms as the end looms ominous.
By the way, buy my book, which in gory detail, describes the calamities which will befall the World’s citizens living, er, existing at that time.
Step right up folks, and see the next Miracle of the Modern Mann World.
We’ll pop open a can of Oak Tree Ring Basting Sauce and before you know it, the smell of Hockey Stick Ribs on the barbie will have your guests drooling.
Irish Oak’s as proxies?
Did you know that Phytophthora infestans, the potato blight, which caused the Irish Famine also attacks Oak Trees.
I wonder what the tree rings will say the temperature was between 1845 and 1852?
We are so lucky that human beings have never introduced new species from one continent to another as this would surely bugger up the proxies. Even something as simple as the European Earthworm would completely change the ecology of the root system of trees. Thank the Lord it never reached the Bristlecones.
Interesting juxtaposition:
The picture: “It’s dead Jim”
World Climate Widget: “Sunspot #: 0”
Just a random event… means nothing… moving along…
It just keeps getting worse!
In the meantime, in the election debate on BBC in Monty Pythonland, the leaders are all talking about climate change as if all this Climategate fallout doesn’t exist.
The two Whitewash Commissions have trumped all else. 2 + 2 = 5. Long live the Party.
From DocMartyn (12:59:19) :
We are so lucky that human beings have never introduced new species from one continent to another as this would surely bugger up the proxies.
Absolutely. Now let’s go take some new tree ring cores from some American Chestnut trees, see what they say the temperatures are. 😉
enneagram (10:10:31) :
Well, all hockey sticks are made of wood, aren’t they?
——————–
Your question/statement does not pass the falsifiability test. Some are made of fibreglass. I frequently trip over one or two in my front yard or driveway, depending on where they end up after the latest street-hockey game.
What an appropriate picture, seeing that Leonard Nimoy announced his retirement from acting today.
Claude Harvey (10:55:32) :
“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.”
Nice… very nice :o)
The thing about Irish oaks is they may be inside out. They are Irish after all!!!
a dood (10:30:42) :
“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.”
No, its easy to tell the hot from cold tree rings. As you know, tree rings are not perfectly circular, they protrude and indent around the ring with a couple of markings. When one sees a cool year tree ring, it looks similar to this :-). Conversely, a CO2 induced hot year tree ring looks like this…..:-(. See, easy.
“Liars and hypocrits…”?
Possibly. Delusional? Absolutely.
I think the conceits of Post-Normal Science explain why they stick to their delusions in the face of observational evidence that invalidates the whole stack of cards.
Claude Harvey (10:55:32) :
“REPLY: That’s discrimination. All trees should be seen as equal, no matter what their species. 😉 – A”
Ah. But some trees are more equal than others.
“No, its easy to tell the hot from cold tree rings. As you know, tree rings are not perfectly circular, they protrude and indent around the ring with a couple of markings. When one sees a cool year tree ring, it looks similar to this :-). Conversely, a CO2 induced hot year tree ring looks like this…..:-(. See, easy.”
…. that … is ridiculous 😛
Isn’t the climate science doublethink interesting? Mann uses them in his temperature reconstruction, Baillie & Wilson say they have no merit as temperature proxies. And yet they are still blowing smoke up each other’s orifices.
Steve Mc deserves some kind of award when this is all over. No one can extract the inconsistencies of climate science as he can. While Climategate was a blow, you see how The Team has circled the wagons and whitewashed the problems. I think Steve is the only one with enough background and experience to accurately call BS when they try to pull off the pea under the thimble as he would say.
Only a thousand paper cuts will bring the tribe to it’s knee’s. Keep digging Steve and others.
Well, those of you in academic climate research enjoy your academic freedom while it lasts. When the legal profession sees a golden opportunity to get in the middle of the climate debate with lawsuits against the Universities and Colleges sponsoring climate research and/or against vocal critics who use strong language in criticizing the researcher’s motives, academe may demand that all individual researchers in climate science have a malpractice insurance policy. Then the academic institutions that sponsors even incompetent or untruthful researchers will protected from costly lawsuits.
A suit planned against a paper for libel is new thrust against the AGW critics. Mann’s threatened lawsuit against the Minnesotans for Global Warming is another. The AGW movement will use these threats to silence the critics. While the threats are intimidating, it is not a reason to be silent. It is one thing to find fault with the research methods and conclusions; and it is quite another to defame the scientist no matter how obvious the motives are that there is plenty of subjective bias in the results. Unfortunately, allegations of unethical behavior or a lack of integrity made against an individual openly on this BLOG as well as in comments made on the other sites that favor AGW could be used as a basis of a libel suit. Even though many of us use an alias on the BLOG, the use of an alias would not prevent the managers of a BLOG site from being required to divulge the true identity of any commenter. Further, comments are frequently archived. I strongly urge anyone who comments here to limit your criticisms to the science and not to a personal attack on the individual. I am quite sure that many sites will continue to make angry comments about people who criticize AGW but it doesn’t made it right for us to do the same. I believe that the vast majority of lawyers are not conservative and would therefore favor attacking the critics of AGW. If you have never experienced the anxiety associated with a libel law suit, I suggest you talk to someone who has before you tear down a researcher for biased and unethical actions.
The text of this post references a link to “this one,” apparently meant to point to a tree. It actually points to the Mann parody song. Was that intended?
@ur momisugly templar knight (08:12:03) : “Is it just me, or is it becoming patently obvious to anyone interested in the truth, that the vast majority of academics who have anything to do with climate science are liars and hypocrites?”
I think that’s too harsh. Mann, for example, is probably neither. He is simply incompetent. No rational scientist would accept the results he gets without questioning them several different ways. Don’t ask me how he got where he is. Surely a peer has noticed this in the past.
I can probably accept the thesis that many if not most of the academics in climate science have no credibility.
I’m all for seeding these planets with something that could survive in their environment and potentially change the environment towards a more hospitible place for humans. If there is water and sunlight…hey. I wonder if I could get some AGW funding!
When I was doing research, the last thing I would ever want to do is write a correction, or follow-up “clarification”, study of a study I did way back when. Which is why I was trained to find every which way the conclusions to my study were wrong before I ever tried to publish it. The current crop of mostly young but even older scientists seem loath to try to prove themselves wrong. But they skip that step at their own peril. And in this case, ours.
these scienctist call themselves climatologists, climate researchers, but what are their credentials. i believe mann is a geologist, correct me if im wrong, but a geologist studies rocks, why is he doing tree ring research? i do like all thesh&%#t coming down around them now. if they would step back and redo the research with better and realistic methods we would all get somewhere.
grayman, I just downed two glasses of a very delicious red wine with my meal, and can hardly type without making a mistake. I am also a special educator. I work with students who can’t, well, you know, write very well. I can understand the texting craze but I don’t avail myself of that shorthand. But unless you sent your message from a phone, use the ^$%^*&@ur momisugly shift key!
I admit to not having read every post, but has it been postulated that the use of dendroetc. is inappropriate in this climate discussion and should be shelved for the obvious reasons of not being able to discern the reason in each season for the retarded growth, or great growth? If not, I propose that that be considered for comment the next time anyone from WUWT is asked to comment on a paper that contains this crap.
It seems to me that everything having to do with tree rings has become a massive distraction from serious consideration of the issue of abrupt climate change. Not only is tree ring measurement not exact, there is not enough data to establish the correctness of the presumed answer. Nor is it the appropriate time frame to establish climate guideposts. Glaciation occurs with regularity every 15- 20,000 years. And lasts about a 100,000 years.
This tree ring issue is convenient for warmers to an extent. No wonder they had to hide the decline. None of their anlysis means anything.
Again the King has no clothes.
How about the young to old drayus data? What does that tell us?