*
Steve McIntyre reports (via commenter AMac) that Mann’s inverted Tiljander sediment data lives on in Kemp et al 2011 like some zombie that will not die. I feel for graduate student Kemp, who will forever have the stink of Mann’s inability to admit and correct this simple issue tied to his paper.
AMac: Upside Down Mann Lives on in Kemp et al 2011
AMac writes:
Yesterday, Kemp et al. 2011 was published in PNAS, relating sea-level variation to climate over the past 1,600 years (UPenn press release). Among the authors is Prof. Mann. (Kemp11 is downloadable from WUWT.) Figs. 2A and 4A are “Composite EIV global land plus ocean global temperature reconstruction, smoothed with a 30-year LOESS low-pass filter”. This is one of the multiproxy reconstructions in Mann et al. (2008, PNAS). The unsmoothed tracing appears as the black line labelled “Composite (with uncertainties)” in panel F of Fig. S6 of the “Supporting Information” supplement to Mann08 (dowonloadable from pnas.org).
This is one of the Mann08 reconstructions that made use of the four (actually three) uncalibratable Tiljander data series.
As scientist/blogger Gavin Schmidt has indicated, the early years of the EIV Global reconstruction rely heavily on Tiljander to pass its “validation” test: “…it’s worth pointing out that validation for the no-dendro/no-Tilj is quite sensitive to the required significance, for EIV NH Land+Ocean it goes back to 1500 for 95%, but 1300 for 94% and 1100 AD for 90%” (link). Also see RealClimate here (Gavin’s responses to comments 525, 529, and 531).
The dependence of the first two-thirds of the EIV recon on the inclusion of Tiljander’s data series isn’t mentioned in the text of Kemp11. Nor is it discussed in the SI, although it is an obvious and trivial explanation for the pre-1100 divergence noted in the SI’s Figures S3, S4, and S5.
Peer review appears to have been missing in action on this glaring shortcoming in Kemp11′s methodology.
More than anything, I am surprised by this zombie-like re-appearance of the Tiljander data series — nearly three years after the eruption of the controversy over their misuse as temperature proxies!
For those that don’t know this story, here’s some links to get yourself up to speed. In a nutshell, Mann took some sediment data, inverted it in sign, and even though the scientist (Tiljander) who gathered and published the data says it is inverted, Mann has done nothing about it, and it continues to find its way into peer reviewed literature.
AMac has more at his blog: The Tiljander Data Series Appear Again, This Time in a Sea-Level Study. Apparently, realclimate.org won’t allow him to comment on the issue.
Here’s a graph from an earlier CA post: More Upside-Down Mann
The difference is shown below:
Imagine the caterwauling if we published the bottom graph regularly:
Here’s some links for background:
Upside-Side Down Mann and the ”peerreviewedliterature”
Upside Down Tiljander in Japan
IQ Test: Which of these is not upside down?
Here’s an interesting use of upside down graphs followed by a consensus insistence that the orientation of the data is correct:
* That’s an actual company http://www.zombiedata.com/
David Hagen’s link to Kemp’s ‘Yale bio’ above reveals that as he ‘progresses’ there in the midst of an existing plenty which in contrast his microscopically limited ‘work’ there would help to destroy, Kemp’s likewise very unspecial widdle theme song has unfortunately not been reproduced there:
What the world needs now
Is clones, more clones
It’s the only thing that
There’s just too little of
Smokey (June 22, 2011 at 6:39 am)
I think this statement involves some mind-reading — something I am not good at, and which I advise others to avoid, as well.
If one wants to live in a world that benefits from science and technology, one must come to terms with the fact that scientists always have and always will make mistakes. For a slew of reasons ranging from base to noble. Prof. Mann might be a scoundrel or a hero, or both at once. Be that as it may, neither he nor anyone else is exempt from errors.
In fact, to Mann’s credit, in the paper and the SI he discusses potential problems with the Tiljander proxies. His subsequent use of them was, it turns out, erroneous. No reason that I know of to think that the deed was malicous or even intentional. Sometimes a slipup is just a slipup.
In my view, the problem isn’t that Mann and co-authors made these clear-in-retrospect errors. Rather, it is what followed. Editors and the peer-review process exist to catch such problems. Where were they? One purpose of journal Comments is to air disputes on matters like this. Why didn’t the Comment and Authors’ Response work in this case? Why has the Pro-AGW-Consensus community of scientists and advocates used the Tiljander03/Mann08 kerfluffle as a Rally Round The Flag issue, rather than as an affirmation of “Get the Data and Methods Right” and “Let The Cards Fall Where They May”?
By the way, regular readers of Lucia’s Blackboard know that I am convinced by the evidence of the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in AGW. And also that the temperature record (despite its problems) clearly shows that the Earth has warmed by about one degree C in the past century or so. But to me, that’s the start of the conversation, not its conclusion. I know that not every reader of WUWT agrees with me! 🙂
Michael Monce says:
June 22, 2011 at 6:52 am
Fair comment Michael but here is the deal…you sort out the mire that climate scientists have dropped you into and then we will start to trust your peer reviewed papers. Is that fair?
Did the skeptics interfere with journals to get pay pal reviews in the first place? Did the skeptics mess with the data? Did the skeptics make up the RE? Did the skeptics use influence withing the IPCC to get people thrown out? Please send your answers on a post card to S.M. and then when he accepts all is well, then and only then maybe you will get some trust back and be allowed to comment here without our outrage!.
It is sloppy work llike Mann and now Kemp that just adds more doubt to the whole hypothesis of AGW. But if they are openly willing to push such sloppy work on the unsuspecting public – it begs the question. How much of their supposed data is real? And how much of it is just cooking the books?
As a scientist, I can say if I published data “up side down”, I’d be mortified. If I were to repeat that same mistake again, with the same data, I’d question my own competence.
Of course that’s all assuming it was a mistake. Any other interpretation is even worse…
Michael Monce says:
June 22, 2011 at 6:52 am
@James Baldwin Sexton: while what Mann et al (climate scientists) are doing is well beyond the pale, your blanket condemnation of “all science” and “all journals” is equally beyond the pale. Many of us still do strive to do the work of science honestly, and many journals still publish valid results. Here’s the link to my latest publication; please tell me how the paper is invalid, and where Physical Review, and the paper’s reviewers, went wrong in publishing the paper.
http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v83/i4/e042701
==============================================================
Michael, sorry you’ve taken offense. It wasn’t personal, and I’m quite sure you’ve adequately fulfilled your ethical obligations. That said, allow me to play devil’s advocate………
Hmm, seems this study is behind a pay-wall, beyond the reach of public scrutiny, I very familiar with this occurrence. Was this paper pal-reviewed? How would I know if it was or wasn’t?
Can I assume you are part of the APS? I’m sorry, did I miss that society’s condemnation of using known tainted data, specifically the Tiljander series? Please direct me to such condemnation. Or, is it that once again, instead of engaging, we hear nothing but crickets chirping from the scientific professionals and their various organizations. Leaving it to the laymen to do the heavy lifting in an attempt to keep ideology from taking over science and reinforcing the idea that ethical behavior is crucial to proper science. Thanks for all the help all of these years. Don’t fret, I’m not aiming specifically at physicists, I believe in this particular case it would be just as appropriate, if not more, for our geologist and archeologist friends to give a shout out for the integrity of science, but they’re probably too busy, too. Its just the world’s entire socio-economic structure we’re talking about, now if we were talking about something really important like information our laws get based upon, I’m sure you all would lead the way…… oh wait……
I understand you guys are incredibly busy with protons and photon research, but if it isn’t too much to ask, could you convince some of your fellow professionals (perhaps as a body of scientists) to publicly opine about the validity of using tainted material in research papers? And, could you guys be good chaps and show the public how the corruption that is clearly documented in the climatology peer-review process could in no way ever occur in your specialty?
If you can’t do that, then Michael, I’m sorry. I’m sorry for you. I’m sorry for the broad brush that you will be painted by, regardless of what I have to say about it. I’m sorry for science. But mostly, I’m sorry for the rest of society.
Michael, I take no delight in any of this. In fact, I’d rather watch grass grow than be involved in this mess in any manner. But I deem the issue too important to walk away from. THE ENTIRE AND ONLY REASON WHY I’M ENGAGED IN THIS DISCUSSION IS BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF FORTITUDE OR WILLINGNESS OF OTHER SCIENTIFIC PROFESSIONALS TO ENGAGE IN THE DISCUSSION THEMSELVES.
There was a time, a couple of years ago, that I was more than hopeful that other scientific organizations would involve themselves and once and for all end these shenanigans. Today, I’ve little hope this will ever occur in any form or fashion. So, Mike, you go on with your research, continue as if nothing is happening, and maybe if you’re lucky, after you’re done, there will be a recognizable society to benefit from all of your work. But, if there is, you’ll know the people who were responsible for preserving it for you.
Sincerely,
James Sexton
The Mann sea level study is irrelevant. We have satellite data since 1992. This shows an average rate of sea level rise of 2.7 mm/year (3.0 mm / year for UCB adjusted), with a declining trend in recent years. The rate of rise is thus about 1 inch per decade–hardly a crisis. And as this rate is tending to fall rather than rise, there is no visible sign of any “tipping point” either, despite vast increases in CO2 emissions in recent years.
As a result, what happened a thousand, or even one hundred, years ago has no bearing on our expectations for the future. The satellite data supersedes it.
We all seem to forget, this is not a controversy. A member of the “Team” admitted that they plotted the Tiljander data upside down in the Climategate emails. What does Mann say about that?
Relax. The public is right to question all science with or without scandal. When there is a scandal, those who have never previously questioned what experts tell them are going to react harshly and negatively. They will (correctly) harbor a feeling of betrayal even though their trust was too easily given in the first place. When they see obvious lies propagate and the perps not held to account for their actions, it can easily appear as if all science is corrupt to someone who has no finger in the process. Experience with the messy process of whittling off falsehood to reveal plain truth is not available to most people. Most people have a preconception of a smooth progression of ideas and acceptance of them to a final perfect understanding. The reality is humanity at its intellectual finest is so fantastically ignorant of the universe around them that it’s a bit of a surprise that atheism has taken hold this early. As a species we’ve convinced ourselves that we’re at a level of mastery over the forces of the universe long before we’ve even learned to truly survive in it.
The data were not used upside down as you present here, either in this paper or the EIV portion of Mann08. The program itself will not care which way it is oriented, it will still use it correctly, flipping if necessary. The problem isn’t that they used it upside down, but that the data itself cannot be used. It looks like a hockey stick, but it shows cold for the modern period, due to other factors. The program is taking the cold portion, seeing that it is warm now, and flipping the proxy so the cold becomes warm and vice versa. Perhaps this seems like the same thing as saying it was used upside-down, but I disagree it’s the same as ‘Mann took some sediment data, inverted it in sign,’
The further problem that the Tiljander is not good data , even Tiljander admits to that and suggest it should not be used in the way Mann has.
Keith W. says:
June 22, 2011 at 7:46 am
Actually, James, other than the contaminated periods (reason detailed in other posts) which Tiljander identifies in her study, the proxy is perfectly acceptable. Her work is perfectly legitimate. The problem is in what Mannian statistics does to her work.
================================================================
You are, of course, correct, and I should have been much clearer and specified. Thanks for pointing that out.
AMac, Mann has repeatedly missed-used data which he knew was problematic, this not a one off, this part of pattern, and this has occurred becasue this process supports his view not becasue it offers a value to the science.
Ferd, such a thing is not possible. It is not a matter of Mann’s using the data upside-down, but rather that the data cannot be used in this way.
Check out what the Inconvenient Skeptic stumbled onto…
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/06/what-instumental-record-did-mann-use/
Looks like in order to get their crappy dataset to fit, they needed to double the HADCRUTv3 with a +0.5deg bias. Astonishing.
MikeN:
At June 22, 2011 at 8:43 am you say;
“The program is taking the cold portion, seeing that it is warm now, and flipping the proxy so the cold becomes warm and vice versa. Perhaps this seems like the same thing as saying it was used upside-down, but I disagree it’s the same as ‘Mann took some sediment data, inverted it in sign,’”
Please explain the difference between
“flipping the proxy so the cold becomes warm and vice versa”
and
“it was used upside-down” or “inverted it in sign”.
Frankly, I fail to see any difference except in the sets of words that each accurately describes what was done.
Richard
LearDog says:
June 22, 2011 at 8:07 am
I wonder if there is some way for Tiljander to scientifically enjoin Mann from using her data in such a manner. A scientific ‘cease and desist’ letter ha ha ha!
If she were so inclined. Her silence speaks approval to me….
==========================================================
I’m not sure exactly where she falls in the greater discussion, but she’s specifically stated the part upside down should not be used for these purposes. You may well imagine that this wouldn’t be a favorite subject of her’s to bring up.
Richard S Courtney (June 22, 2011 at 9:10 am) —
MikeN has given a lot of thought to this issue, and examined the code used by Mann08 for the EIV and CPS methods. What he says sounds right to me.
I think there’s a subtle distinction, between “what operations the computer code performs” and “what the end result is, when a given proxy is included in a reconstruction.”
– – – – – – – – – –
Consider a thought experiment with two versions of “lightsum,” one of the “upside-down” proxies.
ls-actual is the genuine series as archived by Tiljander.
ls-modified is a pseudoproxy. For each year’s varve record prior to 1850 (i.e. prior to the beginning of the screening/calibration period), I take the ls-actual value (in millimeters) and add 0.1 mm to it.
According to Tiljander03, higher values of lightsum indicate colder, snowier winters. Thus, according to Tiljander03, were I to use ls-modified in place of ls-actual in a multiproxy reconstruction, the ls-modified containing version should “hindcast” a lower temperature for pre-1850 years.
For the CPS method described in Mann08: the ls-modified containing version would hindcast a higher temperature for pre-1850 years.
For the EIV method described in Mann08: the ls-modified containing version would hindcast a higher temperature for pre-1850 years.
– – – – – – – – – –
I don’t think MikeN would disagree with what I’ve presented. He has gone on to look at why this is the case. He has found that the reasons for CPS aren’t the same as the reasons for EIV.
The point to me is that, as used in Mann08, with ls-actual as archived by Tiljander, both methods yield counter-intuitive and incorrect hindcasts.
Actually, the important point is that lightsum and the other Tiljander data series cannot be meaningfully calibrated to the instrumental record. In any orientation…
AMac,
I greatly respect your scientific opinion. However, our views diverge when it comes to how we judge human nature.
If this was a one-off mistake by Michael Mann I would give him the benefit of the doubt. But it only adds to the growing mountain of evidence showing that Mann is playing games in order to produce another hockey stick – which can be found in all of his climate papers going back to the discredited MBH98. And the fact that he deliberately misused a corrupted proxy which he knew was bad is not made into a good proxy by a few sentences in Mann08 excusing its use.
Mann has a tame pal review system and cowed professional journals right where he wants them. The Climategate emails clearly show his deviousness and lack of character in that regard. Therefore, I am not willing to give Mann the benefit of the doubt on the Tiljander issue, any more than I would pay Elmer Gantry to make it rain.
Michael Monce I have to say I totally agree with James Sexton on this matter. Science organizations and their members have NOT stepped up to the plate. Unfortunately blogs such as WUWT and Steve McIntyre’s to name just two have been forced to step into the breach and act as the only genuine peer review process. That is both fortunate and unfortunate – fortunate that education, talent, and intelligence is no longer limited to borders nor science organizations. WUWT and Mcintyre’s comment section are indeed testimony to their tremendous worldwide reach attracting very talent individuals who have knowledge and expertize in the diverse fields commonly classified under science and the tools science uses.
Unfortunate in the sense science and their associated organizations along with their peer review process is contaminated to the point of mediocrity. Consequently science itself is tarnished with a wide brush – a very natural response when those directly responsible for the rigorous discipline of the scientific methods no longer police themselves. Perhaps more importantly fail to censure junk science when junk science has proven to be the case such as in the Mann examples.
No doubt there are many dedicated scientists in the various fields who still know what honor and integrity mean and adhere to their codes of personal conduct. I salute all those who stand NOW more than ever before. For THIS is the time honorable man and women are indeed forced to take a stand. Indeed Mr Watts himself and no doubt Mcintyre to name two are themselves facing death threats for merely speaking UP for the scientific process. That, SIR, is what honor and integrity means in the face of adversity.
Just my view – but if Tiljander wanted to TRULY establish her career as a serious researcher – she would cry foul – clearly, loudly, prominently, over and over in support of proper use of data and adherence to ethics.
Now THAT would be a solid contribution to the science surrounding AGW. A well-penned note to Curry’s blog would start the ball rolling.
Sigh, I should clear some things up.
@ur momisugly Michael Monce and all. I note that I stated I was playing the devil’s advocate. That said, even then the tone was harsh. It was intentionally so, but I recognize how it could be misinterpreted as a personal attack. It was in no way meant to be one. Michael, I assume only the best of characteristics to you. I would also recognize that my statements are an over-generalization. Reading my diatribe, one could be left with the impression that I believe no scientists have stood up and challenged the climatology orthodoxy. This is, of course, not a true sentiment. There are numerous examples of brave scientists that have shown a willingness to risk reputation and livelihood in an attempt to correct the egregious misuse of science. And some have suffered more than insignificantly. I know that I ask much.
But, in general, the larger body of science has turned its back on this issue and has kept it turned for many years. There is only a certain distance that bloggers can carry this ball. As great as Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Jeff Id, Willis, et al …. are, and as great as all of the commentators on these blogs are,(there are many brilliant minds here and at the other various sites), there is a need for the larger house of science to forcefully engage. These occurrences will not stop until that happens. I don’t believe bodies such as the APS will engage. I think we’ll be stuck in this stalemate until reality shows climatology to be wrong. I think if that occurs, science as a whole will suffer enormously and as a result, so will humanity.
I hope that clarifies the intentions of my offering.
James.
AMac:
Sincere thanks for your post (at June 22, 2011 at 9:51 am) that attempts to answer my question (at June 22, 2011 at 9:10 am). Unfortunately, I still fail to see any difference.
As I understand your point, you are claiming that Mann did not invert the data because he used a computer program which inverted the data.
But the method he used to invert the data is not pertinent to the fact of what he did. I fail to understand why anybody thinks it makes any difference whether Mann chose to use a pencil and paper or a computer program to invert the data.
The important point is that Mann inverted the data.
I add that this is another example of the ‘computer excuse’ which is widely used in AGW-‘science’. Computers do what they are programed to do.
An assertion of AGW is not converted into evidence for the existence of AGW by being spoken, written in words, or written in computer code. Similarly, inverting data is not excused by the person who conducted the inversion having used computer code to do it.
Richard
The most tiresome part of the AGW fraud is the fallacy that we can even measure the Earth’s ‘average temperature’ to 1 degree C, let alone that such a number is thermodynamically meaningless when applied to anything but small closed containers of fluid. The essence of the ice ages wasn’t a drop in this pointless number, but in the long-term phase change of vast quantities of water. When this phase change reversed, sea level twice rose at a foot per decade for thousands of years. Now that 90% of that ice is gone we are supposed to believe that this same rise-rate is just around the corner, despite its absolute imposibility — there isn’t enough ice in the world to generate it. Worse yet, centuries-old British Admiralty Charts show, for most of the world, the same low-tide markers as today. Those satellite figures of 3mm/yr are undoubtedly bogus too, since the real figure is probably zero.
This is as massive and pernicious a scientific fraud as Lysenkoism, which very uncoincidentally was pushed by a previous bunch of die-hard Lefties. Today the same stupid adherents of Marx and Keynes are successfully pushing AGW, having grown fat on the successes of their previous frauds, Freon’s Ozone Hole and DDT’s Silent Spring. Air conditioning and insectice are such powerful 20th-century marvels that the Left, fountainhead of Mob Barbarism, naturally wants to destroy them, along with automobiles, airplanes, and mechanized farming.
Be assured that by the time AGW is finally abandoned, the Left will have gravitated to the next fraud, to whatever fallacious malarky they can exploit in their relentless drive to destroy civilization. Thank God for the upcoming Solar Minimum.
James: I understand yours was a devil’s advocate response; you stated as such.
Wil and others: You assume my complicity. I was a signer of the original Oregon petition. I was also one of the 200+ APS members who protested against the APS statement on climate change, and we also have been successful in having a topical group on climate being instituted. I’m a member of a small group of scientists, engineers, and meteorologists in Connecticut that regularly respond to biased newspaper articles, science museum displays, etc. around the state concerning the global warming “myth”. I have had alums call for my firing to the president of the college because I don’t toe the party line on climate. I’ve given talks on campus, and may have actually changed a few minds. I protested to the Dean and President when the college signed on to the University Sustainability Agreement a few years ago. If I was a full time climate researcher perhaps I could do more, but my time is needed in my lab and in my classes. I did spend my sabbatical last year calculating radiation input and output from CO2 and H2O molecules in the atmosphere using a new method employing Einstein coefficients. I have the expertise in atomic physics, and thought it would be interesting to see if I could do the calculation; some intesting results came out especially relating to the sun’s radiation field. I was thinking of submitting the work to Anthony for publication here, but since I’m one of the “not to be trusted” I now have second thoughts.
A lot of us understand the corruption in climate science, and the great misinterpretation of data that exists there. We do what we can within the confines of our own lives and careers.
[Reply: Please don’t let a few opinions stop you from submitting an article. Moderation is done with a light touch here. The alternative can lead to censorship. ~dbs, mod.]