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
templar knight (08:12:03) : edit
I disagree. In general, the problems that I find are the lack of one single thing – quality control. Anthonly’s recent posts on the M for METAR are a great example.
I see this all the time, that as soon as a computer is involved, there is a tendency to design the whiz-bang algorithm (for turning tree rings into temperature, or for “homogenizing” temperature, or whatever). But there seems to to be little effort put in to see if what comes out the other end of the computer has any relation to reality.
So no, I don’t think that most climate scientists are liars or hypocrites. I do think that when the results agree with their beliefs, they don’t bother to check them closely. And when they are serving as peer reviewers, many of them do a grade-school job when they believe in what the paper under review says.
And I do think that there is a tragic lack of climate scientists who are willing to police their own backyard, to call the few who actually are liars to account.
Watch and see how many climate scientists are willing to step up to the plate on this one … Judith Curry has more balls than almost all of them. Let’s see if Rob Wilson or Baillie say a single word about the use of oak tree rings in Mann 2008 …
As if the problems of separating temperature from rainfall from sunlight duration and stage of growth and insect damage and limiting nutrients and U-shaped response curves are not enough, there are futher complexities.
The nutrition of a plant is not simply governed by whether there is adequate nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, CO2 etc, or even if these are limiting over time or not. In a simple analysis, the nutrition of a plant depends on a mixture of about 20 known simple nutrients (leaving aside innoculants and special chemicals for legumes and so on). If you add in the other required chemical nutients like Ca, Mg, Na, Fe, Mn, Mo, Cu and so on, then do experiments with all combinations of several levels of all chemicals, you do not find a simple linear system where one low nutrient sets the growth limit.
You find dependencies of higher oders and complexity, so that for example the yield response to Mo is related to the abundance of Ca and both to pH, with different relations at different moisture levels, sometimes with the concentration raised to a power (like pH is).
You can pull apart such effects by an analysis of variance approach in a controlled situation, but there is no way you can look at a set of old Irish oak trees and assume stationarity for assigning effects to tree ring thickness or density or isotope composition.
Even competition by a different surrounding vegetation ensemble (there, I’ve used that word!) in past time means that you can not take the relationships of experiments today and apply them back a few hundred years. Even a short rabbit plague could make a difference, Eli.
It’s stetching faith in uniformitarianism too far. My bet is that dendros know this only too well but also know their careers would be limited if they ‘fessed up.
It’s more like “Hide the decline in (a*Ca+=) + (b*K+) / c*(2.303*-lnH+)” or something more complex.
Somewhere Albert Einstein is crying for scientific integrity.
@mrpkw (08:22:55) :
“For the robustness of using Oaks, who ya gonna trust’?
Oakbusters
How do you actually choose a temperature tree .
Alan the Brit (09:07:29) :
“Sounds to me as if Prof Mann should transfer from the Penn State to the State Pen! Or am I being too harsh?”
Thanks for giving me the first smile of the day 🙂
However, I don’t think your being harsh enough! I’m a great believer in the old biblical adage an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and the punishment must fit the crime.
Anyone for hockey???
johnythelowery (08:54:20) : He worries that although the tree growth is good, it’s as if they are on steroids, the QUALITY OF THE WOOD might be affected.
New warmist meme: “The carbon industry is injecting our trees with steroids!”
A bit over 10%
Tim Clark (09:56:23) :
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.
Make that 51papers:
davidmhoffer (11:03:44) :
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.
They were groing wine grapes in Northumbria during Venerable Bede’s time at Jarrow monastery. He lived from about 673 – 735AD.
Bet you can’t grow wine grapes there now.
mandolinjon (15:59:40)’s caution about flinging accusations of fraud or unethical—or even criminal—behavior against specific individuals should be well-taken. Not only might such accusations be construed and actionable as libel, but also, absent undeniable proof it is reprehensible to make them.
It is never, I would venture to say, libelous to criticize a scientist’s data, methods, or conclusions as false, misleading, or just unscientific poppycock. Where you cross the line is when you impugn someone’s motives or character. Given the outrageous behavior of some in the ‘climate science’ community, this is admittedly tempting. And since some of the principals have become, at least in some measure, public figures, they may be fair game. But, as Mandolinjon says, best to err on the side of caution: you don’t want to waste a year or two and untold dollars in court.
That said, as I recall the truth is a perfect defense against libel (at least in the United States), so if you are prepared to defend your charges in a court of law, go for it!
/Mr Lynn
Re Ed Scott (09:05:48)’s list of ‘Earth Day’ predictions:
If that list weren’t so pathetic, it would be funny.
/Mr Lynn
Shevva (00:33:44) :
Somewhere Albert Einstein is crying for scientific integrity.
_________________________
He and Richard Feynman are talking a long stroll, busy talking about squirrels, and sub atomic particles half lives, UV radiation levels, and what that means to (night crawlers) in the half light of morning after a good rain.
Those of us left on this plane still have choices to make (fish, or cut bait) be critical of all things for ourselves, and let others flounder with their own level of cognitive (dis)functioning, sharing truth when and where you can find it.
Just when you think climate “science” as practiced by Mann et. al. could not get any more absurd, here is another incredible story.
I didn’t think my jaw could drop any further than it already had.
Unanswered questions:
Removing the “dangerous” data does what to the analysis?
If it does nothing, then why was it used in the first place?
If it changes the result, then isn’t anything Mann has produced more suspect than ever, if not completely useless?
What other demons lie in Mann’s machinations?
Why does this person still have a job?
PamelaGray, No I am not ateenager nor do I text , I am 47 never learned to type I hunt and peck to type. But i am trying. When I said to correct me if i am wrong I was talking about my comment not my typing skills. Point taken and i will try to do better for you and all educators. Myself I am not to good at this being only the 3rd time i have actually ever posted on this thread or any other.Most other comment threads the people on them are well IDIOTS, but on most climate blogs I find some people with some smarts. I know my grammar probrably does not pass muster for you ethier,but this will have to do. I have enjoyed reading the post on here yours too,so forgive my grammar and typing skills and let us get back to the problem at hand.
Mann is mostly a victim of his own delusions of grandeur.
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.
REPLY: That’s discrimination. All trees should be seen as equal, no matter what their species. 😉 – A
================================================
And take care, because trees now have lawyers. Remember Polly Higgins, the lawyer who is promoting the idea of eco-genocide and criminalizing global warming “denial”? She has a website called “Trees Have Rights Too”. See:
http://www.treeshaverightstoo.com/
One of the rights that trees have, according to Ms Higgins, is the right to not be polluted. Given the push by warmists to define CO2, which is the very oxygen of trees, as a pollutant there is an obvious irony, if not outright hypocrisy, here. And curiously (to my mind) Ms Higgins doesn’t seem to believe that trees have the right to not be chopped down, whether for climatological research or any other purpose. If I were a tree and could speak, I think I would fire my self-appointed lawyer.
David Ball (08:37:09) :
“Then why all the effin fuss over the data if it is useless? Why put up such a big fight over nothing? Unless it reveals something other than the honest pursuit of truth”
The fuss comes from a healthy dose of skepticism. Why, with climategate, bad statistics, cherry picking of data, outright fabrications…should we believe what we are told the tree ring data contain. Why would we think that these experts have done all there is to do with data. Personally, I would even suspect the data and wonder if we could have a look at the wood itself.
enneagram (10:10:31) :
“Well, all hockey sticks are made of wood, aren’t they’
They used to be but now they are making them out of carbon of all things.
Digsby (07:53:14) : “Remember Polly Higgins, the lawyer who is promoting the idea of eco-genocide…. She has a website called “Trees Have Rights Too”.”
Please, let’s not be harsh toward Polly. She is only giving voice to the trees who cannot speak.
Makes me not want to commit genocide on my lawn this weekend. A billion blades of grass will suffer and die.
Try voice-recognition software. Dragon Naturally Speaking is reportedly quite good at turning speech into typed text.
/Mr Lynn
Mr Lynn (18:43:15) :
grayman (11:02:13) :
PamelaGray, No I am not ateenager nor do I text , I am 47 never learned to type I hunt and peck to type. But i am trying. . .
Try voice-recognition software. Dragon Naturally Speaking is reportedly quite good at turning speech into typed text.
/Mr Lynn
=================================================
Or, rather more simply, use the Opera browser which has built-in spell-checking for all text input. (It also has built-in voice-recognition for program commands, but, as I don’t use it, I don’t know if you can input text with it.) And BTW (/begin commercial), Opera also has built-in: email; news; feeds; BitTorrent; chat; mouse gestures; totally customizable side panels; and, what I find most useful of all, notes (/end commercial).
I’ve not seen anything on the effect of increased CO2 on tree ring growth. Around here folk pump in CO2 to get more growth in greenhouse crops.
Also has anyone any ideas as to what happens at Vostok when the temperature is below 72 degrees Celsius? The CO2 will be solid – will it show up in the ice core?
Rob