With apologies to the Geico caveman, paleoclimatology isn’t just for grant enabled scientists anymore.
Priceless Climategate email 682: Tom Wigley tells Michael Mann that his son did a tree ring science fair project (using trees behind NCAR) that invalidated the centerpiece of Mann’s work:
‘A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR. He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation’
From email 682.txt
h/t to Tom Nelson
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hugh Pepper says:
December 1, 2011 at 9:02 am
Actually, Hugh, I suppose in a way you’re right. But I could let Mann’s hockey stick program work on my bank account numbers (and I can assert since I’m now unemployed they have NOT been going up recently), and it would STILL show the “hockey stick” signature curve.
I’m sure if you wanted to make money, simply take the reciprocal to flip that “hockey stick” curve upside down and use it as the basis of an on-line diet center; whatever people put in as their weight will show as a weight loss curve. Everybody will be “happy”, ’cause it absolutley won’t matter what their true data shows.
…tree ring data; my bank account; your weight; what’s the diff? (ATBSWD*)
*Any time-based series will do!
Global Incontinence?
Ninderthana says:
December 1, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Point well taken, Ninder, as long as you DON’T use Mann’s program to calculate the curve.
Yvo de Boier, Revkin, Jones whoring science behind the curtain.
As I, said, i invited a to found “hidden files”, but who cares,
ilkka,mononen@gmail.com
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1267.txt&search=Yvo+de+BOER
*******************************************************************
“date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:49:05 -0500
from: Andrew Revkin
subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Dot Earth: Climate Panel May Not Have Time to
to: Phil Jones , ???@nytimes.com
don’t suppose you’d be willing to post that as a comment, phil?? : )
would help jog folks a bit.
At 10:37 AM 12/6/2007, Phil Jones wrote:
Andy,
You hit the nail on the head in your last few sentences.
There will be less science done on climate change if govts of the
world ask for another review. Hardly any of the scientists
who did the last one will want to do it again.
Also the conclusions aren’t going to change. This talk just
seems like a delaying tactic to put off decisions till a later
date. The message isn’t going to change. It’s about time they
started doing something as opposed to talking about it.
The issue isn’t like most normal things they deal with. Let’s
set up a committee and wait for it to report. The issue might then
go away and our electorate think we’re doing something. They have
the report now – 2007 – they need to act.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:18 06/12/2007, you wrote:
[]
[1]The New York Times E-mail This
This page was sent to you by: ???@nytimes.com
Message from sender:
Don’t spend too much time in those tuxedos, all ye Nobelists.
SCIENCE | December 6, 2007
[2]Dot Earth: Climate Panel May Not Have Time to Celebrate
Andrew C. Revkin
Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary managing the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, gave his latest update to the press today in Bali on negotiations over
next steps under that faltering 1992 climate treaty. Some excerpts are here: Among other
things, he said, several countries suggested that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, which […]
[]
[]
Most E-mailed
1. [3]Op-Ed Columnist: Intercepting Irans Take on America
2. [4]Mind: Unhappy? Self-Critical? Maybe Youre Just a Perfectionist
3. [5]A Liquor of Legend Makes a Comeback
4. [6]Well: Aspergers Syndrome Gets a Very Public Face
5. [7]Study Shows Why the Flu Likes Winter
» [8]Go to Complete List
[9]Copyright 2007 [10]The New York Times Company | [11]Privacy Policy
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ???
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ???
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
————————————————
Ninderthana– fair points, except the gratuitous shot at “simplistic”. The reality is all of the public evidence at this point is that Mann did not control for all of the variables that contribute to tree rings, in fact the evidence is the opposite, he looked for a time series that fit the profile he was looking for, and then he culled out of that database the inconvenient information post-1940. If you think commenters are being too ‘simplistic’ or otherwise being unfair to Mann, urge him to respond fully to the FOIA requests and show the careful controls for all of ther variables. Because, the reality is mann is fighting tooth and nail to refuse to show his work. I think he’s a fraud, and until he shows his work, he has no credibility.
Ed Caryl says:
“Mann knew exactly what he was doing. ……..The whole thing has now been SO thoroughly falsified that this writer can’t see how Michael Mann can still have ANY scientific standing.”
=====================================================
Mann is simply manufacturing an analytical product to fit a market-driven requirement, which is the overwhelming need to get rid of the Medievil Warm Period.
In the opinion of his customer clientele in the AGW industry, Mann has succeeded admirably, in that his analytical product gets rid of the Medievil Warm Period while also having the outward look and feel of real science to those who don’t know the difference.
Must be missing something here.
Tree ring widths are being used to infer the local tree temperature.
Which means that there must be conceptually some calibration curve. Presumably linear.
For a particular location:
If temperature is linearly related to rainfall and rainfall is linearly related to tree ring widths then temperature must be linearly related to tree ring width. So the calibration curve is valid though with possibly with too much uncertainty.
So logically this is fine and so what exactly is the problem?
Cause and effect is not the issue.
The classic example of “correlation is not causation” is the very high correlation between apple sales and the divorce rate.
However the lack of causation does not prevent an accurate inference of apple sales from a known value of the divorce rate.
LazyTeenager,
“For a particular location:
IF temperature is linearly related to rainfall and [IF] rainfall is linearly related to tree ring widths then temperature must be linearly related to tree ring width.”
That’s right Lazy. As they used to say, if my aunt had wheels she’d be a tea trolley.
Ninderthana says:
December 1, 2011 at 12:52 pmf
Sure. However, as your reading applies to Mann’s case, what you are asking is not different from asking that we accept proxy data taken only from river banks.
Some trees, and hidden MWP.
“date: Tue Jun 6 14:30:55 2006
from: Tim Osborn
One can see that the MWP and the Roman warm epoch were warmer then the current climate.
But one can see some delta-like peaks in the reconstruction by the reasn of poor
sampling for respective time moments.
Therefore, the second and third reconstruction are created with use the only cases when
more than 3 or 5 tree-rings
exist for a year. All peaks are absent in the third reconstruction, but some gaps exist.
Green line shown in the third reconstruction represent an estimation of temperature
variations BP”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3620.txt&search=moerner
Bob Rogers says:
December 1, 2011 at 10:07 am
I think I was in first grade when we did an experiment on how water impacts growth of plants…
=========================================================================
I need to get a gov’ment grant, but I think I can prove water makes my yard grow.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=%3D%3Fgb2312%3FB%3FJUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA%3D%3D%3F%3D
Hockey teams “Mitrokhin Papiers.
“Hockey teams email “Mitrokhin Papiers” , code book.
*****************************************************
“e) p16 – an operations timetable – need to specifically mention the setting
up of a comprehensive WWW site with public and private pages….
f) on page 3 of the call- para 3 starting Global climate models… it says
that a significant challenge for the new centre is …. I am NOT sure we
have explicitly addressed the question – esp local and regional scales, cut
down model etc
g) perhaps in Suggested Research Agenda intro need to specifically mention
existing close links with Hadley, UGAMP, UKICP, IPCC….. and say will work
closely with and compliment …
The list of typos and small changes(done on John Shepherd’s version of the
draft) :
1)p3, line 1 – double comma ,,
2)p3, line 7 – major cultural divides -> major cultural and organisational
divides
3)p3, last line – double full stop ..
4)p4, list of names -Markvart – Dr not Prof
5)p7 – management structure : bullet point one : line 2 scientists We ->
scientists. We
6)p7 – management structure : bullet point 2 : delete open square bracket [
7)p7 – management structure : bullet point 3 : need a little explanation
after the Programme Leaders if only to say ‘whose role is described below’
8)p7 – management structure : text after bullet points : Council’s ->
Councils
9)p7 – ditto – ditto : if the Soton & UMIST reps are well known figures then
I think they should be named now
10)p7 – ditto – ditto – need to define the Centre’s Science Co-ordinator and
Communications Manager – is this one post or two ? what are their role’s ?
how is the Science Co-ordinatoir different from the PL’s or the ED ?
11) p8 – line 1 – I thought the Management Team mtgs should be MUCH MORE
FREQUENT than every six months, if not then what body/person is running
things in the interim ?
12) p8, para 2, line 3 ‘responsible to implement’ -> ‘responsible for
implementing’
13) p8 ditto, last line – double full stop ..
14) p8, para 3, line 2 : this JIF -> a recent JIF
14) p8, ditto, ditto, office accommodation has -> office accommodation has
already
15) p9, para 2 line 2 – double full stop ..
16) p9, challenge 1, para 2, line 3 double full stop ..
17) p10, challenge 2 line 2 delete [and alternative]
18) p12, challenge 5 para 1, line 5 double full stop ..
19) p12, ditto, ditto, line 9 ?. to ?
20) p13, para 2 methodsl -> methods
21) p19, Jim Halliday, line 2 Director, Energy -> Head of the Energy
22) p20, Nick Jenkins, email address -> ???@umist.ac.uk
23) p21, Jonathan Kohler, email address -> ???@econ.acm.ac.uk
24) p21, Tom Markvart : details are School of Engineering Sciences,
University of Southampton email ???@soton.ac.uk”
**********************
Ilkka
Ninderthana says:
December 1, 2011 at 12:52 pm
“However, it is possible to chew gum and walk at the same time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using specific tree species that are located in environments that ensure that only one of the many factors controlling tree-ring width dominates over all of the others.”
You really want to be careful with this idea. From another point of view, you are selecting experimental subjects for the purpose of maximizing the change caused by the one factor that you selected as the most important before designing the experiment. This approach screams “confirmation bias” and might be a self fulfilling prophecy.
Several commenters on this thread have in one way or another made the claim that water affects plant growth. That sounds plausible; but didn’t a group of scientists (Italian, if I remember correctly) recently refute the equally plausible claim that water can prevent dehydration in humans? Since some of those scientists may now be out of a job, I recommend the “team” hire them to prove that water doesn’t affect plant growth. In today’s post-normal science world, that proof should be a piece of cake.
You guys are being way too simplistic about the tree rings. Every tree grows in its own unique highly variable ecosystem. It takes a lot of trees to make a statement about climate – like a whole forest’s worth. Briffa and Mann’s sampling was absolutely without meaning, too few trees, too many uncontrolled variables, not enough like variables. That’s the world of a tree. If you want to look at climate and trees you look at the movement of forest boundaries, and even then…
If yu are intrested in decrypted emails, im´joying > >
“WWF takes Japan & EU, to dance.
Correspondents Club of Japan last Friday I described the proposal as a
“joke”. This was well picked up by the written press here.
Now more details have emerged, the proposal is even weaker than first
thought. We are faxing a press release out this afternoon to Japan-based
agencies and press with WWF?s reaction (see below). You might like to join
in the condemnation of what Japan is proposing and ensure that your country
flatly rejects the proposal.
Japan?s Special Ambassador, Toshiaki Tanabe, is on a world tour canvassing
for the support of other industrialised nations. After visiting Washington
DC he moved on to Hawaii a few days ago for an informal conference”
including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US. Today’s Yomiuri
Shimbun gave front-page coverage to Australia?s outrage over the stringency
of the Japanese proposal!”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0876250531.txt&search=%40post4.tele.dk
And, the case;
I just read something hilarious in the comments on a political blog, that I had to bring it here as a small and insignificant gift:
A discussion was underway on the new study from a doctoral candidate (in social psychology) at the University of British Columbia that seems, with a very small statistical sampling and some VERY strange questions, to “prove” that there is reason to consider atheists a class worthy of protection from discrimination.
Someone responded “Isn’t this how global warming started? Someone just made a bunch of stuff up?”
Here’s the money response to that, which had me laughing out loud: “Yes–the global warmists used the social scientific method”.
Enjoy!
Wanna more proofs? They are watrproofs.
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
X-Sender: ???@pop.uea.ac.uk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.0.6
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:40:05 +000 ???
To: ???@uea.ac.uk
*******************************************************************************’
John-X says:
<>
Lol… Erik is hurting the cause.
There are trees only in about 15% of earth. 70% is water, then we have deserts, mountains.
How that matters for the so called “world temperature” when we are a talking about variations of 0.XCº …
Greenpeace betting money from UAE,s Mike Hulme to campaign agaist “skeptics”
(Jo Nova?).
Results are seen on John Cookse “Skepticalscience”.
“Dear Mike,
I am wondering whether you could help us with some urgent (paid) work we
need doing for Kyoto. Or perhaps you can recommend someone else?
We want to produce a briefing that replies to all the usual climate
‘sceptics’ arguments, in the form of short questions and answers. The
work would involve supplying short (single paragraph) answers to a list
of about 15 to 20 questions. Unfortunately, we have (as usual!) a very
tight deadline – Friday 3 October. We could pay standard rates for the
work, and it would be fine to have a number of different people helping
with the answers, provided one person could be responsible for meeting
the deadline. The report would be published as a Greenpeace
International one.
If you are unable to help, perhaps you could suggest someone else in
your department who could – maybe with help from postgrads/postdocs in
your department?
Thanks in advance for your help, I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Helen Wallace
Dr Helen Wallace
Senior Scientist
Greenpeace UK
Greenpeace, Canonbury Villas, London, N1 2PN
Tel: +4 ???-171???
Fax: +4 ???-171???”
*******************************************************’
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2099.txt&search=%40ams.greenpeace.org
Video.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2099.txt&search=%40ams.greenpeace.org
NK, Rocky Road,
I am in no way supporting the pseudo-scientific studies of Mann et. al. and the like. If you are going to use tree-rings as proxies for temperature you better be sure that that is in fact what they are measuring.
Theo,
There is absolutely no confirmation bias in using the tree-ring widths of trees whose growth is critically dependent on air temperature, to measure air temperature. All you have to do is show that it is reasonable to assume that the strong dependence on air temperature persists through-out the period that the proxy applies. I think that if you are using trees that are on the verge of freezing to death on or near the tree-line of the coastal Rock Mountains, you are probably making a reasonably safe bet.
@lazy teenager
“However the lack of causation does not prevent an accurate inference of apple sales from a known value of the divorce rate.”
I think you just broke my brain. Rather than ask how and risk further damage I’m just going to have a cup of tea.
LazyTeenager says:
The classic example of “correlation is not causation” is the very high correlation between apple sales and the divorce rate.
However the lack of causation does not prevent an accurate inference of apple sales from a known value of the divorce rate.
This is the sort of lousy thinking that got us into this pickle.
You cannot make an accurate inference of apple sales from divorce rate from a known correlation outside the period of that correlation. Things change too much.
And this is precisely what Mann did (and does). Take a known correlation and extrapolate it ludicrously to cover periods for which we have not the slightest idea whether the correlation still holds.
What is worse, he even omitted any evidence that showed the correlation was, in fact, weak (the “divergence problem”) and also any evidence that didn’t match the required answer (even going to the extent of inverting one series).
We understand the concept of proxy measurements. We aren’t stupid. We contest that tree rings are remotely accurate enough to be a proxy over centuries.