However, I can safely announce the existence of the paper, since Dr. Mann has already effectively broken the embargo by advertising the existence of the paper on his own website in his curriculum vitae (CV).
You can read his CV here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html
The paper is:
Kemp, A.C., Horton, B.P., Donnelly, J.P., Mann, M.E., Vermeer, M., Rahmstorf, S., Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (in press)
By placing this on his website, Dr. Mann appears to have jumped the starting gun a bit, since I can not find any existence of the paper in any of his co-author websites or anywhere else on the web for that matter:
While I can’t say anything about the contents of the paper or the press release, I can tell you that very little has changed in the pursuit of the hockey stick.
I’ll have the full report tomorrow when the PNAS embargo is lifted at 1500EST.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The director, Steve Nerem, wrote:
Let’s say the ocean basins were shrinking. Would he have reduced the rate of sea level rise to compensate?
To ask the question is to know the answer.
I just know, that the word “unprecedented” will feature prominently in that paper.
It already did in the Student Poster Session (see No. 9) here:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/earth/climate_poster.html
The author A. Kemp dealt with an unprecedented sea rise at North Carolina only, but in the fresh-out-of-oven paper he does that worldwide, apparently.
Cassie King says: June 19, 2011 at 9:56 pm
[…]
New oracle different priests, same fiscal incentives with the same outcome, you gets what you pays for.
Repent sinners or doom will befall you, BTW please supply more money or doom will befall you soon.
You made me realize, happy models are obviously much more expensive than pessimistic models.
Do scientists ever play a game amongst themselves where you choose a ridiculously wrong conclusion and then gather evidence to support the claim? For instance say you had a conclusion that Lions should be classified with Dogs than Tigers. You could then work out all the reasons for reinforcing this wrong conclusion; Lions hunt in packs which is unknown amongst other cats, and is a dog-like behaviour.
I thought it might be a fun thing to start a thread with a conclusion and ask all your contributers to show how easy it is to make the science fit the conclusion. I am sure it has been done many tiomes before, not least by M Mann.
Academia has always been deeply corrupted by politics. The triumph of truth will not come fast, internet and blogs like these one will finally defeat the corrupt mainstream academia and will bring out the truth but I think that the process of bringing deserved discredit to corrupt -often financed by taxes- academia will take several more years, even decades.
Mark and two Cats says: June 19, 2011 at 5:25 pm
omnologos said:June 19, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Whether to be included in the DSM-V?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist
and
jeez says: June 19, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Ed Barbar,
Mann doesn’t take measurements. He takes other researchers’ data and mines it using “novel” and “new” methods. Or as an objective observer is likely to conclude, he tortures it until it confesses.
Accurate observation there jeez. Your comment is evidenced in the released CG emails, the narrative of the data collectors. And their questioning.
In the meatime the rate of sea level rise has decelerated over the last 80 years. Currenlty it’s flattening.
Why do people persits in seeing demons where they don’t exist?
R. Shearer says: June 19, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I am not sure to that question.
But studies by behavioural-economists have pondered on your very question for some years.
Monkey Business
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05FREAK.html?pagewanted=all
It takes more than a box full of hockey sticks to win The Cup.
Anthony, allow me to recommend to your readers the excellent sport of Underwater Hockey. It’s wot Canadians do in the summer when the ice melts 😉
“Anything is possible says:
June 19, 2011 at 4:58 pm
My home is about 120 feet above sea level.”
Look on the bright side . . . your property value will go way up when you are a waterfront property.
Selling real estate is all about timing 🙂
Jeremy says:
People play hockey underwater????
yes, it is excellent sport, but be sure to wear glvoes :-0
Too bad the satellite data doesn’t show a hockey stick. That might have meaning if it did. In fact it might be meaningful if the satellite data showed any trace of global warming. For Mann it is really too bad that it doesn’t.
Robert of Ottawa says: June 20, 2011 at 5:36 am
That must be a nice season up there in the north?
Absence of Brigette B and the all the other celebrities visiting for a few icy months must be a huge relief?
THis posted above is the clearest indication that we are going into a protracted cooling phase
satellite data.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/paintimage2111.jpg?w=640&h=422
In my previous post I meant that I it will take several years, perhaps decades until internet and blogs like this one bring a widely accepted -and fully deserved- discredit to the corrupt mainstream academia and media.
“Let me guess the conclusion: models show catastophic sea level rise in the near term…more research required.”
More EXPENSIVE research required. FIFY
Be on the lookout for tide gauge data that stops ~2002. Just sayin’.
Just read the paper and his data only goes through 2000 and his hockey stick makes a guest appearance. Guess he hasn’t seen (certainly doesn’t care to mention anyway) the flattening/stabilizing sea level measurements.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/AREPS-preprint06.pdf
Apparently Mann couldn’t wait until 3 pm Eastern Standard Time to throw his latest pal reviewed paper against the wall to see if it sticks.
It doesn’t. As usual, Mann’s graphs show lots of hockey sticks, and erase most of the MWP and the LIA. He ignores contrary evidence, such as the fact that a warming planet would cause thermal expansion of the oceans and thus an accelerating sea level rise, when just the opposite is occurring.
This latest Mann paper is more CAGW propaganda, just like the debunked MBH98 and Mann 08 were. His conclusions are based on a fantastic and easily refuted conjecture, not on verifiable evidence. I look forward to Steve McIntyre’s deconstruction.
I find it interesting that Mann is being so fastidious about keeping his CV up-to-date.
Roger Knights says:
June 20, 2011 at 4:01 am
I heard that next year CSU are going to introduce a correction to sea level for the growing sea mounts in the Hawaiian chain and elsewhere that are reducing the volume of the oceans.
nevket240 says:
June 19, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Australians don’t need CSIRO to tell them what’s going on at Cape Grim with greenhouse gases. If they were really interested they would have found the data ages ago on the following site:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
@rhs
Your link is to the wrong paper. It points at a review entitled “Climate Over the Past Two Millennia”, from 2006.
@Smokey
“Mann’s graphs show lots of hockey sticks, and erase most of the MWP and the LIA. He ignores contrary evidence, such as the fact that a warming planet would cause thermal expansion of the oceans and thus an accelerating sea level rise, when just the opposite is occurring”
Which paper are you referring to?
I guess the head of the Royal Statistical Society telling him that not only were his ‘Climate Statistics’ not STATISTICS, but that NO ‘Climate Math’ is MATH at ALL,
didn’t tamp down him and the rest of the team furiously CALCULATING DOOMSDAY with it.
Wow. I guess Mann’s just born to cypher.
I think he was born to get indicted, myself. Typically when these loons run amok in a government, the people who finally bring them down, start charging them with different things, making them prove what they say is even LIKELY.
In a civil case, sheer preponderance of evidence is all that’s needed.
Once you establish that Mann was LIKELY to KNOW his FAKE DOODLES are JUST THAT,
and you have him continuing to try to get money for it, his college degrees make him without any excuse that he knew, or should have, that his mathematics are not giving accurate statistical results.
Civil suits against these people are the answer. Make them prove every single word they say by a preponderance of evidence: not even a 90% likelihood.
For instance have him simply prove in court that pink noise doesn’t produce hockey sticks.
If he can’t, after he’s been told, then he’s liable for various torts.