NOTE: This has been running two weeks at the top of WUWT, discussion has slowed, so I’m placing it back in regular que. – Anthony
UPDATES:
Statistician William Briggs weighs in here
Eduardo Zorita weighs in here
Anonymous blogger “Deep Climate” weighs in with what he/she calls a “deeply flawed study” here
After a week of being “preoccupied” Real Climate finally breaks radio silence here. It appears to be a prelude to a dismissal with a “wave of the hand”
Supplementary Info now available: All data and code used in this paper are available at the Annals of Applied Statistics supplementary materials website:
http://www.imstat.org/aoas/supplements/default.htm
=========================================
Sticky Wicket – phrase, meaning: “A difficult situation”.
Oh, my. There is a new and important study on temperature proxy reconstructions (McShane and Wyner 2010) submitted into the Annals of Applied Statistics and is listed to be published in the next issue. According to Steve McIntyre, this is one of the “top statistical journals”. This paper is a direct and serious rebuttal to the proxy reconstructions of Mann. It seems watertight on the surface, because instead of trying to attack the proxy data quality issues, they assumed the proxy data was accurate for their purpose, then created a bayesian backcast method. Then, using the proxy data, they demonstrate it fails to reproduce the sharp 20th century uptick.
Now, there’s a new look to the familiar “hockey stick”.
Before:
After:
Not only are the results stunning, but the paper is highly readable, written in a sensible style that most laymen can absorb, even if they don’t understand some of the finer points of bayesian and loess filters, or principal components. Not only that, this paper is a confirmation of McIntyre and McKitrick’s work, with a strong nod to Wegman. I highly recommend reading this and distributing this story widely.
Here’s the submitted paper:
(PDF, 2.5 MB. Backup download available here: McShane and Wyner 2010 )
It states in its abstract:
We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.
Here are some excerpts from the paper (emphasis in paragraphs mine):
This one shows that M&M hit the mark, because it is independent validation:
In other words, our model performs better when using highly autocorrelated
noise rather than proxies to ”predict” temperature. The real proxies are less predictive than our ”fake” data. While the Lasso generated reconstructions using the proxies are highly statistically significant compared to simple null models, they do not achieve statistical significance against sophisticated null models.
We are not the first to observe this effect. It was shown, in McIntyre
and McKitrick (2005a,c), that random sequences with complex local dependence
structures can predict temperatures. Their approach has been
roundly dismissed in the climate science literature:
To generate ”random” noise series, MM05c apply the full autoregressive structure of the real world proxy series. In this way, they in fact train their stochastic engine with significant (if not dominant) low frequency climate signal rather than purely non-climatic noise and its persistence. [Emphasis in original]
Ammann and Wahl (2007)
…
On the power of the proxy data to actually detect climate change:
This is disturbing: if a model cannot predict the occurrence of a sharp run-up in an out-of-sample block which is contiguous with the insample training set, then it seems highly unlikely that it has power to detect such levels or run-ups in the more distant past. It is even more discouraging when one recalls Figure 15: the model cannot capture the sharp run-up even in-sample. In sum, these results suggest that the ninety-three sequences that comprise the 1,000 year old proxy record simply lack power to detect a sharp increase in temperature. See Footnote 12
Footnote 12:
On the other hand, perhaps our model is unable to detect the high level of and sharp run-up in recent temperatures because anthropogenic factors have, for example, caused a regime change in the relation between temperatures and proxies. While this is certainly a consistent line of reasoning, it is also fraught with peril for, once one admits the possibility of regime changes in the instrumental period, it raises the question of whether such changes exist elsewhere over the past 1,000 years. Furthermore, it implies that up to half of the already short instrumental record is corrupted by anthropogenic factors, thus undermining paleoclimatology as a statistical enterprise.
…
We plot the in-sample portion of this backcast (1850-1998 AD) in Figure 15. Not surprisingly, the model tracks CRU reasonably well because it is in-sample. However, despite the fact that the backcast is both in-sample and initialized with the high true temperatures from 1999 AD and 2000 AD, it still cannot capture either the high level of or the sharp run-up in temperatures of the 1990s. It is substantially biased low. That the model cannot capture run-up even in-sample does not portend well for its ability
to capture similar levels and run-ups if they exist out-of-sample.
…
Conclusion.
Research on multi-proxy temperature reconstructions of the earth’s temperature is now entering its second decade. While the literature is large, there has been very little collaboration with universitylevel, professional statisticians (Wegman et al., 2006; Wegman, 2006). Our paper is an effort to apply some modern statistical methods to these problems. While our results agree with the climate scientists findings in some
respects, our methods of estimating model uncertainty and accuracy are in sharp disagreement.
On the one hand, we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a ”long-handled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data. The fundamental problem is that there is a limited amount of proxy data which dates back to 1000 AD; what is available is weakly predictive of global annual temperature. Our backcasting methods, which track quite closely the methods applied most recently in Mann (2008) to the same data, are unable to catch the sharp run up in temperatures recorded in the 1990s, even in-sample.
As can be seen in Figure 15, our estimate of the run up in temperature in the 1990s has
a much smaller slope than the actual temperature series. Furthermore, the lower frame of Figure 18 clearly reveals that the proxy model is not at all able to track the high gradient segment. Consequently, the long flat handle of the hockey stick is best understood to be a feature of regression and less a reflection of our knowledge of the truth. Nevertheless, the temperatures of the last few decades have been relatively warm compared to many of the thousand year temperature curves sampled from the posterior distribution of our model.
Our main contribution is our efforts to seriously grapple with the uncertainty involved in paleoclimatological reconstructions. Regression of high dimensional time series is always a complex problem with many traps. In our case, the particular challenges include (i) a short sequence of training data, (ii) more predictors than observations, (iii) a very weak signal, and (iv) response and predictor variables which are both strongly autocorrelated.
The final point is particularly troublesome: since the data is not easily modeled by a simple autoregressive process it follows that the number of truly independent observations (i.e., the effective sample size) may be just too small for accurate reconstruction.
Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxy based reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models. We have shown that time dependence in the temperature series is sufficiently strong to permit complex sequences of random numbers to forecast out-of-sample reasonably well fairly frequently (see, for example, Figure 9). Furthermore, even proxy based models with approximately the same amount of reconstructive skill (Figures 11,12, and 13), produce strikingly dissimilar historical backcasts: some of these look like hockey sticks but most do not (Figure 14).
Natural climate variability is not well understood and is probably quite large. It is not clear that the proxies currently used to predict temperature are even predictive of it at the scale of several decades let alone over many centuries. Nonetheless, paleoclimatoligical reconstructions constitute only one source of evidence in the AGW debate. Our work stands entirely on the shoulders of those environmental scientists who labored untold years to assemble the vast network of natural proxies. Although we assume the reliability of their data for our purposes here, there still remains a considerable number of outstanding questions that can only be answered with a free and open inquiry and a great deal of replication.
===============================================================
Commenters on WUWT report that Tamino and Romm are deleting comments even mentioning this paper on their blog comment forum. Their refusal to even acknowledge it tells you it has squarely hit the target, and the fat lady has sung – loudly.
(h/t to WUWT reader “thechuckr”)
James, kudos to you for helping me test the notion that the MBH 1999 graph is ‘iconic’.
So, they didn’t know what it was exactly?
Madonna and Child is iconic. 7 out of 10 adults in first world nations will recognize the statue of David. I’m pretty confident that virtually no one outside the climate wars will know that the graph, unlabeled, is an estimate 1000 years of global temperatures, or that it appeared in the IPCC.
That was the point. The new one introduced since I last replied is that this graph has had a great impact on governments around the world. So now I’ll address that.
After it was introduced in 2001, my own government, and the US government (and the Czech government, amongst others) remained skeptical of climate change. It wasn’t until the 2007 report, which doesn’t have the MBH 99 graph in the summary for policy makers, that the then government started changing its tune (similar in the US). The current Australian government speaks of the instrumental record, not the last 1000 years. The opposition leader – skeptic – does not talk about Mann et al, but ‘cooling since 1998.’ The graph does not appear in An Inconvenient Truth.
I note that 9 years after this graph appeared, governments around the world have done little to address climate change. In fact, observing government response to date makes me wonder why skeptics are worried.
I think pinning any governmental momentum towards climate change mitigation (such as it is) on a single millennial temperature reconstruction graph is pure speculation, ridiculously simplistic and just wrong. If governments are piqued by this thousand-year record, the first thing they will ask is, “how reliable is it?” The IPCC reports are, after all, agreed on line by line. Government reps at the UN would be familiar with the amplitudes and uncertainty, having participated in great detail with the report. They report back to their political masters, who would like nothing better than for the issue to go away.
The IPCC does NOT say that the graph in MBH 1999 is the ‘truth’, and politicians, for all that they are compromised and, well, political are generally not stupid, especially when it comes to contentious issues that may impact their economies.
One thing I will agree with – the Canadian government promoted the MBH 1999 graph as they campaigned for climate change policies, and that the graph achieved an almost iconic status for a brief time in that country.
Do you not imagine that each national executive is rather more influenced by the instrumental record, the ‘truth’ of increased temps from increasing cO2 now and into the future, and especiallyprojections that indicate problems in the future? Does a single graphic have significant impact than the full IPCC reports and general conclusions, or the advice given by the major national science academies?
In short, climate skeptics make far more of this single graph than is warranted. The narrative suggesting that AGW can be dealt a stunning blow by making the MWP warmer than recent temps (the really true ‘truth’, no doubt) may be appealing, but it is fanciful. It might feel good to stick swords in the dragon, but should that occur in such a way that it reaches the deluded governments of the world, the impact that will have on future policy will be rather less than you hope for, I’d expect. The relative warmth of the MWP really doesn’t impact the GH theory or projections, and the alarmists can always spin it to say that the climate is even more sensitive to change than was supposed if previous temps swung around so much.
I think we’re beating a dead horse.
(For the record, I’m not interested in persuading anyone that MBH, or the general contention on the MWP is ‘true’. I could care less about that. I’m not an advocate. I’m interested in accuracy, and how people interpret science. No one I personally know, or anyone on these climate blogs is ‘alarmed’ by IPCC climate projections. Some online who blog about it say they are ‘concerned’, at the most. Instead, the alarmist views I tend to come across are those espousing economic Armageddon from mitigation, and conspiracy theories about self-interested, or socialistc (take your pick) climate scientists)
Phil. says:
August 19, 2010 at 8:51 am
James Sexton says:
August 17, 2010 at 7:56 pm
latitude says:
August 17, 2010 at 5:17 pm
“Actually he didn’t do that, he superposed the temperature record in a contrasting color and clearly indicated in the legend that he had done so.”
Right, let me clarify. I needed a magnifying glass to determine the “superposing”. Clearly indicated in the legend is quite a stretch, but I would note all of his clarifying remarks after it was obvious that so many people misunderstood what he was showing. He clarified the misunderstanding by stating………..absolutely nothing.
Nice stretch and reach.
Richard, you said that the studies in the paper I cited all “used the flawed statistical analysis method adopted by MBH,” thereby dismissing them all as independent corroborators.
I think I showed it didn’t. That the study was an “intercomparison” does not mean there was commonality of methods between the nominated studies.
intercomparison
“A comparison made between diverse elements”
Let’s deal with this directly, yes?
Please name the the “flawed statistical analysis method” common to the studies listed. Acronyms or short-hand will do.
barry says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:08 am
Barry, I’m at work, so I probably won’t have time to properly address everything you stated, but …”No one I personally know, or anyone on these climate blogs is ‘alarmed’ by IPCC climate projections.”…….So how did we get from where you and your acquaintances are to the EPA control CO2 as a harmful substance?
“The relative warmth of the MWP really doesn’t impact the GH theory or projections, and the alarmists can always spin it to say that the climate is even more sensitive to change than was supposed if previous temps swung around so much.” That’s true, and probably will. I would note, that most of the MWP contention on this thread originates with the “alarmist” side of the discussion. Were it not for the laws and policies being passed, (ethanol, no reliable energy plants being built, EPA’s new found authority over productivity, ect.)I really wouldn’t care about the discussion. My climate observations would be limited to “Boy, it sure is hot/cold out here.”, dependent upon the season.
“It wasn’t until the 2007 report, which doesn’t have the MBH 99 graph in the summary for policy makers,……..” You’re right again, they had generated several more hockey stick graphs by then. I guess one could state Mann’s original was a prototype. Everything seems to have a hockey-stick graph these days. While I understand, and you understand and most in the debate understand that in itself is a trick of perception by scaling the x and y. By it’s very design, it is meant to alarm.
barry says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:08 am
Good post barry, I think you make some rational points but I see the situation differently. I’m a layman in the climate debate but I have been following what happens in the US Congress and House of Representatives very closely for 10 years. I’m left with the impression that the majority of our progressive democrats took for granted that the science was settled. People like US Senator Inhoff and other policy makers who dared to challenge assumptions were ridiculed and charged with being “deniers” whatever that’s supposed to mean. Now we can clearly see through the excellent work by interested citizens and academicians that the science is far from being settled. It appears to me that there are significant data quality issues and statistical analysis issues. If the debate over global warming was restricted to the science community, where is should stay until a true consensus is reached, then it wouldn’t be a critical issue for the general public.
What has happened in the US, however, is special interest groups have used the global warming issue as a way to force their vision for social and political change on the rest of us. These may be well meaning people but they’re asking us to build economic policy on top of bad science. It would be like trying to build a home on a foundation of rubble. I’m not having any of it. I’d urge my fellow US voters to take a hard look at the policy makers that swallowed the global warming story hook, line and sinker. Any policy maker that did may not have the good old fashion common sense needed in these challenging times. I would also urge you to support people like Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and others trying to get to the bottom of how US taxpayer dollars may be involved in unethical practices at public institutions.
James Sexton says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:45 am
barry says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:08 am
“It wasn’t until the 2007 report, which doesn’t have the MBH 99 graph in the summary for policy makers,……..” You’re right again, they had generated several more hockey stick graphs by then. I guess one could state Mann’s original was a prototype. Everything seems to have a hockey-stick graph these days. While I understand, and you understand and most in the debate understand that in itself is a trick of perception by scaling the x and y. By it’s very design, it is meant to alarm.
Don’t you realize that you diminish the case you’re trying to make when you make stuff up? The Paleoclimate section of the 2007 Summary for Policymakers doesn’t have any graphs in it but refers to section 6 of WG I where the relevant graph does include the MBH 99 graph and explicitly discusses it in the body.
Phil. says:
August 19, 2010 at 10:54 am
Geez Phil, did I anywhere state I was specifically referring to “The Paleoclimate section of the 2007 Summary for Policymakers” ? The fact is, the words Paleoclimate section only appear in this post and yours. If you read my post, I think it was quite clear, by my use of the word “prototype” and the plural of graph that I was inferring to a much more general scope than The Paleoclimate section of the 2007 Summary for Policymakers. Of course, you could have read the next sentence where I state, ” Everything seems to have a hockey-stick graph these days.” Can you see a implication of generality there, Phil? Is your reading comprehension reduced only to explicit commentary? I made no attempt to mislead or misinform or in your uniformed words, “make stuff up.” I’ll try to remember to type slower for you if I think you’re reading the conversation. I’ll try to include pictures next time.
an implication.
Just knocked over my bowl of corn flakes.
Sad day for sports fans. Clemons found guuilty for lying to Congress.
In the other sport, Hockey fans will be saddened if Hockey stickster Michael Mann lies in front of the Virginia AG and gets the penalty box.
James Sexton says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:10 am
Phil. says:
August 19, 2010 at 8:51 am
James Sexton says:
August 17, 2010 at 7:56 pm
latitude says:
August 17, 2010 at 5:17 pm
“Actually he didn’t do that, he superposed the temperature record in a contrasting color and clearly indicated in the legend that he had done so.”
Right, let me clarify. I needed a magnifying glass to determine the “superposing”. Clearly indicated in the legend is quite a stretch, but I would note all of his clarifying remarks after it was obvious that so many people misunderstood what he was showing. He clarified the misunderstanding by stating………..absolutely nothing.
What’s so difficult to see, the ‘raw data AD 1902-1998’ is clearly shown as a red line whereas ‘reconstruction AD 1000-1980’ and ‘reconstruction 40 yr smoothed’ are clearly shown as a thin grey line and thick purple line respectively? It’s explicitly stated on the figure legend, it couldn’t be clearer. Anyone ‘misunderstanding’ that can’t have been trying very hard!
It’s in Figure 3a here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf
Barry:
At August 19, 2010 at 9:25 am you ask me:
“Please name the the “flawed statistical analysis method” common to the studies listed. Acronyms or short-hand will do.”
Sorry, I assumed you knew since you have displayed such confidence in it (above).
The “flawed statistical analysis method” is to use Principle Component Analysis (or PCA) that applies principal components in a ”skew”-centered fashion such that they are centered by the mean of the proxy data over the instrumental period.
This method was novel to Mann et al. in MBH98. Standard PCA analysis centers by the mean of the entire data record.
But the self-termed ‘hockey team’ are dedicated followers of fashion so they all adopted Mann’s novel method.
And the Mann-‘skew’ induces PCA to generate ‘hockey sticks’.
Richard
I am interested in all this.
However can anyone help me on another matter – is it the case (or not) that the CRU has made available all its raw data and computer programs for its conclusions so others can have a look at it and think around it?
Last time I looked many moons ago they said the raw data had been lost/ thrown away and was protected by confidentiality agreements.
Is this still the case or is it all now available for anyone who asks?
I cannot do this (I have not the ability) but it would be nice to know others could.
I have not heard that Einstein had any difficulty in getting the raw data for his theories – and yet he was only a clerk in the Swiss Patent Office. Doubtless he would be laughed out of court by the current masters of these “universities”.
Are all the workings available (or not) for whoever wants to go over them? If not then that is not “scientific”.
Eduordo Zorita (no Mann fan) has a strong critique of M&W. His conclusion:
re: barry at 9:08 am,
“…..the current Australian government speaks of the instrumental record, not the last 1000 years….”
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/50.shtml
The Australian Government BOM site still makes a feature of it:
There’s a interesting comment on Hans von Storchs Klimazwiebebel worth reading
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-on-climate.html
… even if it might be bad manners for a reviewer to mention his own “recent paper” where it comes to conclusions.
@Deech56,
I cannot see where anyone could possibly disagree with that conclusion. Perhaps they should have consulted scientists. That is a fair critique although the argument could be made that they were just crunching numbers that were already there. But one cannot state that climate scientists are disingenuous by not including statisticians and at the same time not acknowledge that these guys failed to do the same the other way. But whether this is a “bad” paper as a result I think remains to be seen. Time will tell.
As for the last sentence, amen and lets hope that this is what happens moving forward.
BPW
Cheese Grater says:
August 18, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Interesting how the CO2 levels and multiproxy temp series are a neat fit.
An example of such a “neat fit” (not) between proxy temperature and CO2 conc. can be found at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/10/study-climate-460-mya-was-like-today-but-thought-to-have-co2-levels-20-times-as-high/#comments
This graphic alone totally falsifies CAGW. Deep time is not an escape from this falsification. Nor is a dim sun, nor is volcanism, nor is continental drift. Over deep time there is a HUGE signal of CO2 conc. variation. If CO2 was even a weak driver of global temp then a correlation with global air temperature would be visible. There is none.
Mr. Watts, a smart fellow like you ought to be able to figure out that Moranic is an adjective pertaining to Morano, that is to say a diminutive of Limbaughoid, Conservapedian or Coulteresque
REPLY: I was considering the urban dictionary definition.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moran
Either way, your intent was to insult, and it reflects poorly upon you and MIT when you write such things. – Anthony
As five minutes is the canonical duration of weather events in New England , we naturally take umbrage at attempts to stretch the word into the realm of decadal climate oscillations.
Readers of my earlier comment should note that , though disinterested, the American Meteorological Society has occupied the same headquarters on Beacon Street in Boston for the last century, and so may be prejudiced in this matter.
Excellent post! By the way, realclimate.org is sinking like Titanic, their last post is from August 7th while wattsupwiththat.com has several posts a day and hundred thousands UNIQUE (!!) visits per day !
The pseudoscience from realclimate.org , IPCC, NASA GISS, NOAA ,CRU, UN, etc, is sinking. Such a beautiful sight. God! How much I love the see the OLD ACADEMIA, so easily corrupted by politics, being replaced by the NEW ACADEMIA created by SUPERB blogs like wattsupwiththat.com!
Keep on your SUPERB work! It is so beatiful to see finally TRUTH and REAL SCIENCE!!
barry says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:08 am
Maybe the “hocky stick” is not at the forfront in the political debate, and maybe governments in power don’t mention it anymore but the impact is still there.
Take Bob Brown, the leader of the “Greens” in Australia, eg, stated at the Australian Press club 2/3 days ago in his rant on “climate change”, “2010 is hotter than 2009, and in fact 2009 was the hottest year in a thousand years”. Clearly, that statement was based not on the instrumental record but what Bob Brown remembers about the shape of the “hocky stick”. Following on in his rant, he stated “we must remove all the “carbon” from the atmosphere or (blah, blah, blah)”. I turned the TV off.
Bob Browns “Greens” will hold the balance of power in the next Australian Government, no matter which party wins on the 21st August, and with rat bags in control, God knows where Australia is heading.
So, Barry, I don’t think we are. ” I think we’re beating a dead horse.”
We must debunk this scam at every turn of the course, and if we have to kill the “hocky stick” 20 times, then do it, until the message gets through to the Australian Greens, and the EPA in the USA, etc., and then, maybe we can get back to doing some “living”.
Dear Fat Lady,
I think that you misspelled a word in your statement. But if you didn’t, I want to know what costumes you wear in your performances for your customers?
I would think that the proxies like treerings always would be result of multiple factors.
One factor which is especially important instead of temperature is the CO2 concentration. It is well known and mainstream knowledge the higher levels of CO2 correlate with the plant faster growing, because the CO2 is the most important plant nutrient thus the correlation is well known expression of the causal relationship, while the relationship between the plant growing speed and temperature is correlated by far not so well (and there is not a linear causality) like in the case of the relationship of CO2 concentration->speed of the growing, and it is not correlating well, because i.e. there is the interfering factor of moisture especially rainfall and evapotranspiration which is also largely crucial for plant growing, having intriguos relationship with the temperature.
So I would think what the biologically dependent proxies as treerings could be much more suitable to be used for is deriving of the the CO2 concentrations signal rather than the ones of the temperature.
This objective biology-physics relations facts made me always wonder about the one-sided interpretation of the hockey stick graph, because even if ploted well by Mann et all it in fact can’t be straightforwardly interpreted like a temperature proxy and instead it is essentially much more a proxy of the CO2 concentration -which partially can be noissed by the factors of temperature and moisture and partially with the also very well known more or less linerar causal relationship of temperature->CO2 concentration due to the strong dependence of the CO2 sulubility in water on the temperature and its huge reservois in the oceans (while the opposite causal vector in CO2 concentration->temperature relationship due to greenhouse effect is orders of magnitude more weaker, because of its inherently logarithmic nature).
Sorry if the following comment has been made in this 800+ comment thread, but as significant as McS-W’s criticism of MBH98 might be, I think it diverts attention from the real problem(s): the poor proxies and wholly unjustified way they are constructed. Thorough evaluation of the base data is likely to be a more powerful way of showing MBH98 to be sheer nonsense than showing their stats are bad.
Phil. says:
August 19, 2010 at 10:54 am
James Sexton says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:45 am
barry says:
THEN,
Phil. says:
August 19, 2010 at 12:40 pm
James Sexton says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:10 am
Phil. says:
August 19, 2010 at 8:51 am
James Sexton says:
August 17, 2010 at 7:56 pm
latitude says:
August 17, 2010 at 5:17 pm
To culminate to ,
“What’s so difficult to see, the ‘raw data AD 1902-1998′ is clearly shown as a red line whereas ‘reconstruction AD 1000-1980′ and ‘reconstruction 40 yr smoothed’ are clearly shown as a thin grey line and thick purple line respectively? It’s explicitly stated on the figure legend, it couldn’t be clearer. Anyone ‘misunderstanding’ that can’t have been trying very hard!
It’s in Figure 3a here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf”
Phil, thank you for showing the world the thinking process of an alarmist. You actually spliced two separate conversations I was having into one. All the while making it look seamless! That is an act of beauty!
Phil, you may be correct, while I was having the two different conversations, I may have lost track of which incarnation of the Mann hockey-stick graph I was referring to, dependent upon which conversation you are referring to. Please note, the last comment I made really wasn’t relevant to Mann’s trick, but rather the scaling of the graph, but again, I may have lost track. Thanks for interjecting, in the appropriate times, to splice my two separate conversations into one. Even though the subject matter were entirely separate, you trudged on. Even though your point was not relevant to my last comment,(other than responding to your comments towards me) you may have struck upon some minutia in which you can hang your hat.
Phil, stop. If you really want the title of “CAPTAIN OF IRRELEVANT MINUTIA”, I’ll lobby Anthony for you to have the title! I’m not sure how much sway I have though, so we may have to start a grass roots campaign before you can claim it.
Phil, wtf? I’m having two separate conversations, attempting to be relevant to this thread and you’re going to interject and tie them both together to show I was wrong about one of the several representations of a picture in which it isn’t clear about which picture? My bust. I thought we were here to discuss things of relevance. Again, thank you for showing the world the mindset of an alarmist.