Tim Barnett on the hockey stick- “statistics were suspect”–the rest of the team knew of problems with Mann’s reconstruction

 

Bishop Hill Writes:

Email 2383 contains further evidence that everyone in the world of paleoclimate knew the Hockey Stick was a duffer.

From: Tim Barnett [[2]mailto:XXXXXXXXXXX@ucsd.edu]

Sent: 11 October 2004 16:42

To: Gabi Hegerl; Klaus Hasselmann

Cc: Prof.Dr. Hans von Storch; Myles Allen; francis; Reiner Schnur; Phil Jones; Tom Crowley; Nathan Gillett; David Karoly; Jesse Kenyon; christopher.d.miller@noaa.gov; Pennell, William T; Tett, Simon; Ben Santer; Karl Taylor; Stott, Peter; Bamzai, Anjuli

Subject: Re: spring meeting

not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember. for instance, i seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures. best, tim

It’s interesting how much evidence there is now that the Hockey Stick was known to be a problem. Perhaps readers can help collate a list of emails making this point.

NAS panel review of hockeysticks prompted by McIntyre and McKitrick.

#1104 -Heinz Wanner – on reporting his NAS panel critique of Mann to the media.

I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.

#1656 Douglas Maraun – on how to react to skeptics.

How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.

#3234 Richard Alley

Taking the recent instrumental record and the tree-ring record and joining them yields a dramatic picture, with rather high confidence that recent times are anomalously warm. Taking strictly the tree-ring record and omitting the instrumental record yields a less-dramatic picture and a lower confidence that the recent temperatures are anomalous.

Paleoclimate and hide the decline

#0300

Bo Christiansen – On Hockey stick reconstructions

All methods strongly underestimates the amplitude of low-frequency variability and trends. This means that it is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.

Ed Cook #3253

the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).

#4133 Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review.

what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got.

[and later]

Unsatisfying, perhaps, since people will want to know whether 1200 AD was warmer than today, but if the data doesn’t exist, the question can’t yet be answered. A good topic for needed future work.

Rob Wilson – 1583

The palaeo-world has become a much more complex place in the last 10 years and with all the different calibration methods, data processing methods, proxy interpretations – any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.

#3234 Richard Alley – on NAS panel and divergence

records, or some other records such as Rosanne’s new ones, show “divergence”, then I believe it casts doubt on the use of joined tree-ring/instrumental records, and I don’t believe that I have yet heard why this interpretation is wrong.

#4758 Tim Osborne – Criticizing other people for doing the same thing

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we’ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley’s!

#0497 – Phil Jones UEA – Scientists don’t know the magnitude of past warming.

Even though the tree-ring chronologies used have robust rbar statistics for the whole 1000 years ( ie they lose nothing because core numbers stay high throughout), they have lost low frequency because of standardization. We’ve all tried with RCS/very stiff splines/hardly any detrending to keep this to a minimum, but until we know it is minimal it is still worth mentioning.

#0886 Jan Esper on his own reconstruction – also hidden decline

And the curve will also show that the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together.

Tiim Osborne 4007

Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were

Tim Osborne #2347

Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible!

#3234 Richard Alley

Unless the “divergence problem” can be confidently ascribed to some cause that was not active a millennium ago, then the comparison between tree rings from a millennium ago and instrumental records from the last decades does not seem to be justified, and the confidence level in the anomalous nature of the recent warmth is lowered.

I think the best way to sum up all of this is a quote from a guest post at tAV and DieKlimazweibel by Bo Christiansen:

Where does all this lead us? It is very likely that the NH mean temperature has shown much larger past variability than caught by previous reconstructions. We cannot from these reconstructions conclude that the previous 50-year period has been unique in the context of the last 500-1000 years.

Of course we all know that the IPCC reports differently.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John Garrett

Unbelievable— and here I thought Wall Street was the ground zero and citadel of hypocrisy.

jaypan

Very telling. Nobody, even in the wider circle, dares to raise their voices in public, when this stick was wi(l)dely used for concerted misinformation on a global scale, wasting hundred billions of taxpayers’ money, killing the children FOIA2011 is talking about.
I’d call this a crime against humanity and a strong example how science should not be allowed to work out.

jeanparisot

John, I was about to say the same about DC and Brussels

pat

Note that these are the same individuals that were either silent or vigorously defended Mann when he was criticized.
The “hide the decline” discussion by Alley and Osborne is important. No claim of ‘scientific lingo ‘will change the meaning of that discourse.
There seems to be a hint that at least one writer is close to understanding that Mann’s mathematical model will cause a hockey stick no matter what data is introduced.
The pretense that there is a scarcity of data regarding the Medieval Warm Period (a pretense maintained by NOAA to this day) is laughable given their reliance on highly suspect data to prove a dramatic warming trend.

Interstellar Bill

Today’s letters in Wall Street Journal has Mann’s latest propaganda attempt.
Reminds me of Tariq Assiz pronouncing Iraqi victory
while American tanks were rounding the corner right behind him.
The last the world heard from him as he ran the opposite way was:
‘Look, look! We are winning!”

David Schofield

Sorry name escapes me but what about that email from a young Ph.D. at CRU who wanted a meeting with the rest of the team there as he was uncomfortable about letting the hockey stick get away without criticism?

manuel

All the quotes are out of context!
Really.

P.F.

And wasn’t Gilbert at NAS criticized for what he said in his review of MBH — something like “flawed math,” “corrupt data,” and “Whatever it is, it isn’t science.”

This is an important area. Of the various sins of omission and commission that these emails reveal, the sheer irresponsibility exposed by such as the above quotes is a great source of dismay. The irresponsibility lies of course not in the quotes themselves, but in the subsequent silence in the public square on the part of those who made them. The blatant promotion of the hockey-stick by the IPCC and such as Al Gore led to, as an all but inevitable consequence, the deliberate, profound frightening of children. To fail to protect children from such abuse represents an abdication of a basic adult responsibility. This was and is not ‘scary fairy tale’ level for the children, although the ‘science’ may be at that level. This was and is a level at which damage to their sense of wellbeing and security can be expected, and has indeed been observed – driven by people convinced that the hockey-stick was evidence of imminent catastrophe (http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/p/climate-anxiety-reports-of-frightened.html). A few calming words from those IPCC scientists ‘in the know’ would have helped create a calmer, more accurate, more credible, more defensible perspective. But I guess such words would also have harmed ‘the cause’. I wonder what awful malevolence lies in that ’cause’ that it could be the motivation for such inaction.

Jake

I’m sorry, but this whole thing just seems very ironic in light of Santer et al attack on the Satellite record in the latest edition of Science (their “special” on Data Replication and Reproducibility):
From the abstract:
“Although concerns have been expressed about the reliability of surface temperature data sets, findings of pronounced surface warming over the past 60 years have been independently reproduced by multiple groups. In contrast, an initial finding that the lower troposphere cooled since 1979 could not be reproduced. Attempts to confirm this apparent cooling trend led to the discovery of errors in the initial analyses of satellite-based tropospheric temperature measurements.”

Al Coholic

By way of threadjack: In Durban, “One more proposal simply requires that rich countries commit to cutting their “greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040.”” http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/05/delusional-in-durban (paragraph 11)
I think we got an Ig Nobel candidate right there

Here’s set of links for these messages:
2383.txt
1104.txt
1656.txt
3234.txt
0300.txt
3253.txt
4133.txt
1583.txt
3234.txt
4758.txt
0497.txt
0886.txt
4007.txt
2347.txt
2346.txt
(in case anyone wants to check context…)
I think that the one that you have referenced as 2347 should actually be 2346 (also linked above).

John

To John Garrett, whose comment was:
“Unbelievable— and here I thought Wall Street was the ground zero and citadel of hypocrisy.”
Wall St. was going to make huge amounts of money buying and selling CO2 credts, making derivative markets on them. The next big scam after selling worthless housing derivative products.
Wall Street;s use of PAC money may explain why so many politicians were, and still are, silent on Climategate and the hockey schtick. If they want to get reelected, today, they need money. If financial entities give them PAC $, those entities don’t want a still possible mega-market in CO2 trading being undercut.
It’s really a three cornered hypocritical stool — disingenuous climate “scientists,” financial PAC money, and politicians who need that $.

Unattorney

Mann’s letter in the wsj demonstrates the left’s delusional reality.Truth is to climate as efficiency is to green energy–irrelevant. There is no limit to our government borrowing. There is no limit to how many laws and regulations we can create. We can spend whatever it takes for whatever we want. Let’s build pyramids so we can create jobs. Pretend these are the worst times and we can party on.Our grandkids are gonna puke when they pay our bills.

Honest ABE

Another email to add to the list is the one where someone (Wigley?) was talking about their kid’s science project and how it disproved the notion that trees are reliable temperature proxies.

Vince Causey

But didn’t the AR4 conclude that the recent warming was “very likely” due to human activity? If there is nothing anomalous about recent warming when compared to the past, then this conclusion is “very likely” wrong.

Colin Porter

Ed Cooke in email 3253 says
“but honestly know fuck-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).”
Is that the true state of climate science? “We know with certainty that we know fuck-all.”
Please don’t delete this Mr Moderator. These are not my words.

R Barker

At this point, I believe that dendrochronology could say something about the net quality of life on an annual basis for each tree from which a core sample was taken and analyzed. Beyond that i will need more than a ” just trust me on this”.

Jeremy

There is no other word for it but FRAUD.
This FRAUD is on the scale of Bernie Madhoff. In this case, Billions of taxpayers funds have gone down the drain!!!!
These people ALL directly benefited from taxpayer funding due to the fraudulent “scare mongering” by some of their “team”.
When you know or realize you are part of a FRAUD against the public, you owe it to those being scammed to speak out and report it. You owe it to the taxpayers who fund your work. You owe it the institutions you work for. You owe it to yourself and your family if you have any moral or ethical compass at all.
This goes beyond DISGUSTING. It is CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE – through their inaction these people knowingly allowed a FRAUD to be perpetrated.

jeanparisot

With respects to Apollo 13:
Gene Kranz: Let’s look at this thing from a… um, from a standpoint of status. What do we got on the spacecraft that’s good?
[pause]
Sy Liebergot: I’ll get back to you, Gene.

Where does AGW stand — is anything good?
Topic — Then — Now
* Hockeystick — current warming is exceptional — dead, and they knew it
* Glaciers are Melting — graphic example — not due to warming or not happening
* Polar Bears — graphic example — doing well, misused photos
* Hurricanes, Tornados, Drought — graphic examples — not linked to climate change
* MWP — ignored or “not global” — still there
* Surface Temperature Record — what problems (pre-Anthony) — problems don’t matter (BEST)
* Abuse of Statistics — we know what we are doing — internally, no we don’t
* Antarctic ice sheets — accelerated melting — not
* Arctic Ice — ice free by 20xx due to AGW — ice fluctuations due to wind patterns
* CO2 residency — short – long -short – long — ?
* PDO drivers — what PDO — still don’t know
* Cosmic Ray seeding clouds — crazy alternative hypothesis — experimental support
* Sulphate Hypothesis — keep in back pocket — SO2 down due to clean coal?
* The Cause — shhhhh — out of context
* BBC, NYT, etc. — bastions of journalistic integrity — ho ho ho
* “Science” — the settled consensus of … — internally, we don’t know either, but were going to get you fired if you disagree
* Divergence — hide it — caused by something we don’t know, so ignore it
* Missing data — its all on the web — we lost it
* IPCC — impartial review of peer-reviewed literature — biased review by stacked committees of environmental ngo propaganda, mixed in with literature written by committee members
Did I miss anything?

From Wikipedia re the Hockey Stock:
“The graph was seen by mass media and the public as central to the IPCC case for global warming, which had actually been based on other unrelated evidence. Jerry Mahlman, who had coined the “hockey stick” nickname, described this emphasis on the graph as “a colossal mistake, just as it was a mistake for the climate-science-writing press to amplify it.” He added that it was “not the smoking gun. That’s the data we’ve had for the past 150 years, which is quite consistent with the expectation that the climate is continuing to warm.”[22] From an expert viewpoint the graph was, like all newly published science, preliminary and uncertain, but it was widely used to publicise the issue of global warming.”
If the hockey stick was not that important, why was it not demolished from the ‘inside’ in the name of scientific honesty and public accuracy, since obviously Mann’s colleagues saw the problems with his construction? Why did the warmists continue to defend it even after McIntyre and McKitrick demolished the mathematical and statistical basis for the graph and Edward Wegman’s report for the senate uncovered further problems in 2006? The warmists’ claim that the hockey stick was a side-show needs to be completely disemboweled, and the enormity of wrongdoing revealed in these e-mails needs to be put in its true context.
As John Shade says above, this ‘science’ was used to terrorize children. Every generation needs its bogeyman, I suppose, but global warming has none of the thrill for children of ‘trolls under the bridge”. Plus it is explicitly intended to create a burden of guilt in children and adults alike for partaking in the original sin of being born and thereby generating environmental damage. These ‘scientists’ deserve our utmost scorn.

Joe

Really, it’s time to start thinking about criminal action. The amount of money wasted globally chasing this alarmist claptrap that the individuals privately KNEW to be claptrap puts Wall Street to shame (not to mention the number of dead from substandard power grids/astronomical fuel costs in the poorer areas of the world).
The one pleasing thing to come out of all of this is that most of these “scientists” who defended Mann and Jones over the years have turned out to have equally low opinions of them as ours. Mann just happened to be the useful idiot who bumbled into what amounted to a great ad campaign. Now these “scientists” were tasked with producing what the ad campaign promised.
It’s interesting that these scientists agree that Mann and Jones 2003 paper was “the worst thing Jones has produced” when that paper really cemented Jones as a full fledged, arm waving global warming fanatic. His past work, and even the last two years after Climategate shows a Jones much more willing to accept the fact that we are 1) no longer warming and 2) we really don’t know that much about the long term trend. Mann just seems to exude this aura of horribly bad science that infects whoever he is working with.
Real Climate, as a product of Mann himself, is sitting dead center in this Mannian anti-Science field.

Werner Brozek

“David Schofield says:
December 5, 2011 at 8:34 am
Sorry name escapes me but what about that email from a young Ph.D. at CRU who wanted a meeting with the rest of the team there as he was uncomfortable about letting the hockey stick get away without criticism?”
That was mentioned.
See
http://algorelied.com/?tag=douglas-maraun

Paul

Somehow, even after everything else, I expected some angst over how reality continues to diverge from the path that supports “the cause”, but no just cold blooded conniving. Here’s a riddle, what’s the difference between a “Flat-Earther” and a “Climate Scientist”; answer, the “Flat-Earther” enjoys the rational debate even knowing their position is false.

Luther Wu

Amazing how little courage is displayed among the members of the scientific community.
Again, we see that many scientists have known full well that climate alarmism is entirely fictitious, yet they have done nothing to stop the madness.
Gotta go along to get along.
Right.

Keith Battye

I do hope that someone here with a subscription to the WSJ pastes this article into the comments section on Mann’s pathetic whimper of a letter.
[Reply: You don’t need a WSJ subscription, just sign up and log on to comment. ~dbs, mod.]

Joe

Also, for fun and profit, can we start referring to this particular scandal as “Hide the Mann”? That is essentially what all of these “scientists” are discussing here: limiting Mann’s presence in the future without excluding him all together since excluding Mann would simply be admitting what skeptics have been saying all along.

crosspatch

Ed Cook in 4241.txt

Hi Rob,
You are a masochist. Maybe Tom Melvin has it right: “Controversy about which bull caused
mess not relevent. The possibility that the results in all cases were heap of dung has been
missed by commentators.”

In response to Rob Wilson discovering that RegM provides a hockey stick when fed randomly generated time sequence data.

crosspatch

Meant “time series” not “time sequence” in my last comment, if it matters. In this case it might mean the same thing.

Julian Williams in Wales

“Judge a man by the company he keeps”
Surely this applies to science to as in “Judge a scientist by the scientists he mixes with.”
Will scientists with good reputations want to be associated with AR5? Will they be happy to have their names printed in the same list as Phil Jones “the serial liar” and M Mann? At some point this will become a serious problem, maybe it already is a problem?
Do real scientists want to work for the IPCC?
How about the ones who contributed last time, are they happy to leave this mess unresolved?

Jeff Id

Crosspatch,
Nice.

Alix James

Well, it seems they’re on to us:
#2960
So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being “warmer” than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.
But I don’t know why they’d get that idea:
#5017:
I just downloaded your powerpoint presentation from your server and looked at it. Very nice job! It really covers many of the issues regarding proxy uncertainty and tree rings.
It is also really important not to let the instrumental people off the hook, especially after that debacle just published on by Thompson et al. in Nature concerning the SST corrections or lack there of.
The recent Eos article by Vecchi likewise shows how much uncertainty remains in the instrumental SST fields. So it is increasingly clear to me, as I believe it is to you, that the climate data homogenization methods used can contribute significantly to the uncertainty in the reconstructions even when the proxies are typically assigned pretty much all blame. So while we need to be completely honest about the many large uncertainties in our tree-ring data and reconstructions, the instrumental data mob needs to be equally honest and upfront about how they are contributing significant uncertainty to the reconstructions as well. This is especially important at the lower frequencies, which makes time-scale dependent calibration even more difficult to objectively assess.

But after all, we’re just amateurs who, according to Jones, are retired, with lots of time. Considering what they think of actual, you know, experts, though, we get off fairly easy:
I mean, just because a guy is a “Professor, Tree Physiology/Biochemistry, Forestry & Environmental Management, University of New Brunswick” (i.e, in an area of the world where forestry is very important) says
#3219:
I would add that it is the exceptionally rare dendrochronologist who has ever shown any inclination to understand the fundamental biology of wood formation, either as regulated intrinsically or influenced by extrinsic factors. …It would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the scientific method.
That doesn’t mean the team can’t slime him:
Rod’s comments are remarkably ignorant and insulting. I suggest that he stick to what he knows best and not claim that he understands dendrochronology and its methods. That way he would not sound so stupid. To suggest that dendrochronology does not embrace the scientific method and is as biased as he claims verges on libel. Of course, Rod has the right to his opinion. It is just a shame that he chooses to expose his ignorance of dendrochronology in such a negative way.
Actually, as a student of history, it appears that dendrochronology is about as scientific as reading the entrails of sheep.

Alix James

Sorry, but that last paragraph is mine, the preceding was from Ed “Swearingist Scientist Evah” Cook.
BTW, 1469 is also a doozy concerning tree rings:
“A substantial number of the sites across Canada are in the boreal forest but nowhere near latitudinal or elevational treeline. The boreal forest is complex and should not be catagorized by a blanket “temperature sensitive” description regarding ring widths”

Roger Knights

When Mann wrote his forthcoming book, he didn’t think these ghosts out of the past would arise to haunt it. Reviewers will be able to quote them, and this thread, to rebut claims he makes therein.

Gail Combs

John Shade says:
December 5, 2011 at 8:45 am
…Of the various sins of omission and commission that these emails reveal, the sheer irresponsibility exposed by such as the above quotes is a great source of dismay. The irresponsibility lies of course not in the quotes themselves, but in the subsequent silence in the public square on the part of those who made them. The blatant promotion of the hockey-stick by the IPCC and such as Al Gore led to, as an all but inevitable consequence, the deliberate, profound frightening of children. To fail to protect children from such abuse represents an abdication of a basic adult responsibility. This was and is not ‘scary fairy tale’ level for the children, although the ‘science’ may be at that level. This was and is a level at which damage to their sense of wellbeing and security can be expected….
___________________________________
This reminds me of the 1950’s -1970’s nightmares caused by the thread of nuclear disaster via the cold war where kids were taught to hide under their desks and people built underground “Bomb shelters”
On the other hand Goldman Sachs went a step further and just starved kids to death outright in 2008. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis?page=0,1
(WTO agreement on Ag was ratified in 1995)
Number of hungry people, 1969-2010 Graph: http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/10/images/hungry_timeseries.jpg
The death of children under the age of five peaked at 9 million in 2008 then dropped to 7.6 million children in 2010.
“Hunger and malnutrition are the underlying cause of more than half of all child deaths… Most would not die if their bodies and immune systems had not been weakened by hunger and malnutrition moderately to severely underweight, the risk of death is five to eight times higher.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Agriculture_Organization
One could almost say the the commodities futures speculators lead by Goldman Sachs, managed to murder by hunger by about a million children.
The only thing the “investors” behind CAGW are interested in is money and power. People mean nothing to them. We are cattle to be used or destroyed as they wish. There are plenty of references to statements made about “Too many people”
Do you think the hedge funds and University Endowment funds and corporations rushing to “invest” in farmland in Africa and South America to profit from carbon credits, give any more of thought to the natives they push off the land than the American settlers did a hundred and fifty years ago?
The transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869…..

The hide hunters will do more in the next few years to settle the vexed Indian question than the entire regular army has done in the last 30 years. For the sake of a lasting peace, let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated. Then the prairies can be covered with the speckled cattle and the festive cowboy, who follows the hunter as the forerunner of civilization.
General Philip Sheridan, U.S. Army
…By 1875 the Plains Indians were finished…..
http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/oldzephyr/archives/buffalo.html

Ironically the Railroad Barons that fostered the slaughter of the buffalo, are often the ancestors of those we see today buying third world farmland.

Reed Coray

Luther Wu says: December 5, 2011 at 9:55 am:
Amazing how little courage is displayed among the members of the scientific community.”
I agree. You may or may not have noticed that the name Mann, Michael is missing form both the “To” list and the “Cc” list. What odds will you give me that Dr. Mann’s name also was NOT on the “Blind Copy” list?
Jean Parisot says: December 5, 2011 at 9:33 am.
Very good. I believe you’ve covered everthing.

Reed Coray

Question: How many “climate scientists” does it take to deflate an ego the size of Dr. Mann’s?
Answer: Give me a minute, I can’t seem to stop laughing.

Birdieshooter

I am hoping that a team of unbiased scientists will write a book about the holes in just the science that all these emails have surfaced. Not a hatchet job but a very scholarly analysis of how the science was so poor. There is too much just for the taking to let this opportunity slip by.

Poor old Michael Mann after the cascade of inside opinion now seeing the light if day! You can almost feel sorry for him. But not quite!
Oh, the schadenfreude almost hurts!

Duster

Alix James says:
December 5, 2011 at 10:31 am
. . .
Rod’s comments are remarkably ignorant and insulting. I suggest that he stick to what he knows best and not claim that he understands dendrochronology and its methods. That way he would not sound so stupid. To suggest that dendrochronology does not embrace the scientific method and is as biased as he claims verges on libel. Of course, Rod has the right to his opinion. It is just a shame that he chooses to expose his ignorance of dendrochronology in such a negative way.
Actually, as a student of history, it appears that dendrochronology is about as scientific as reading the entrails of sheep.

Dendrochronology and dendro-haruspication are really quite different. Dendrochronology is a useful (and really, a scientific) process that counts tree rings and develops regional patterns of ring-development over time. It is handy for many things including calibrating C-14 measurements, and directly dating structures that include logs. Used properly only religious fundaentalists with fixed ideas about the planet’s age dislike it.
Haruspication using tree rings is different. It purports to tell you why that tree grew as it did, when it did. When, as in the case of the Yamal data, you use too few trees to derive a regional pattern, well that isn’t science any longer. “Guess work” would be a superior term.

DCA

Here is a reponse to a question about Osborne’s email from gavin.
Tim Osborne #2347: “Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible!”
Speak to us about the context of that.
[Response: Read the whole email. Osborn is using RegEM to do a reconstruction of temperature using his MXD tree ring data. The method as programmed by Tapio Schneider produces a record that is equal to the real temperature series where they exist and the imputed values elsewhere, for both the MXD data and the temperature reconstruction. If you don’t include MXD data post-1960, they will be imputed by the RegEM algorithm (based on correlations and covariance from where there are both sets of data). – gavin]

Brian H

Al Coholic says:
December 5, 2011 at 8:47 am
By way of threadjack: In Durban, “One more proposal simply requires that rich countries commit to cutting their “greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040.”” http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/05/delusional-in-durban (paragraph 11)
I think we got an Ig Nobel candidate right there

Hilariously, considering the JAXA IBUTU(?) satellite results, it seems that the West absorbs more CO2 than it emits already, so the >100% has already been achieved.

Henry Phipps

Jean Parisot says: (You know, about letting the Wall Street Journal they were listening to another Madoff.)
Well, I tried. Before I could find the correct link at WSJ.com to post your suggestion that the WSJ should see that the Science Is Not Settled, a compatriot beat me to it.
WSJ.com
Jeremy Poynton wrote: 8 minutes ago
He copied the entire article and it got online. The comments to Mann are a mite hostile, I must admit. Kinda like they were talking to Scrooge.
Merry Christmas, and any other holiday that makes you smile. Grampa.

Dave Wendt

John Garrett says:
December 5, 2011 at 8:08 am
Unbelievable— and here I thought Wall Street was the ground zero and citadel of hypocrisy.
I think you are being unjust to Wall Street. They may be many things but they are rarely hypocritical. They’re a bunch of smart guys who are unabashedly in pursuit of making loads of money and who have repeatedly demonstrated that they will do anything they can get away with to do it. When the government forced them to issue millions of mostly worthless subprime mortgages, they did what smart guys do, they found a way to make money off them. In the Congressional hearings in the aftermath of the 2008 debacle, one of the leading government regulators testified that as the derivatives market blossomed to the doom threatening level, they had all the legal authority they needed to bring it under control, but chose not to because their financial models, similar to climatic GCMs, showed a rising trend extending out to the horizon.
I doubt there are many of us who would not be more willing to engage in risky behavior with our money if the government allowed us to keep any profits but promised to cover any of our losses. BTW, for anyone who might want to believe that we are moving closer to resolving the world’s financial mess, I recommend going to the U. S. Debt Clock site
http://www.usdebtclock.org/#
Go to the lower half of the graphic and look at the number under “Currency and Credit Derivatives”. For those who have difficulty dealing with large numbers that’s $761 TRILLION, more than 15 times total global GDP. When the next cascade of defaults occurs there won’t be anything close to enough money in the whole wide wonderful world to stop it.

Jack Thompson

Reading all this good work done by diligent sceptics makes the AGW deceit very obvious but who else is reading it? I mean who else in a position to do something about it e.g. the Royal Society; they must be aware of what’s going on..
I sometimes feel like Kevin McCarthy at the end of the film Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 version). Thank God for WUWT – a refuge of sanity.

Steve Garcia

@Colin Porter December 5, 2011 at 9:12 am:

Ed Cooke in email 3253 says
“but honestly know fuck-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).”
Is that the true state of climate science?

The real story is that climatology is a REALLY new scientific “discipline” (don’t choke on that word too much), and like any new science, it is in the period where it is still getting its feet under it. This is the period where they are supposed to be reporting to the public in terms like, “So far it seems that…” and “We are still piecing it together, and will know more later, as we solidify what we know.” Unlike other new sciences, climatology was accepted without having to prove itself, Immediately everyone in it was an expert. (By “immediately” I mean within the first 75 years.)
And with the “-ology” the public assumed since it wasn’t “astr” -ology, and that public pronouncements were solidly researched and vetted, not just something pulled out of people’s bums.
What they really needed to be doing was proving every way but Sunday that tree-rings are excellent proxies, and especially that the divergence problem (which underlay the “hide the decline” effort) was solved. And they needed to empirically test out the re-radiance issue of CO2, determine in 20 different studies WHAT the UHI for individual cities and towns are, and to prove the assumption about ice cores (that the ice in any one level has not been contaminated).
And most of all, they need to simply do studies that falsify forcings other than anthropogenic CO2 as the cause of whatever warming there is. And, after the CG2.0 emails, there is much more doubt that warming is even happening.
Right now it is a science based mostly on untested hypotheses, and they need to admit it. By pretending that the know things which are only guesses or assumptions, they are not only giving their own -ology a bad name, but science in general.
So, yes, it does appear that they “know fuck-all.” But at the same time, that is why science studies things – to get past that stage. Honesty helps.

Gail Combs

Tim Osborne e-mail #2347
Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline)…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What intrigues me is the “Decline” after 1960. Here is a “hopefully” accurate chart of temperature from “Continuous data” http://justdata.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/continuitybysectors1900-2009.jpg
There was more variability in the data before 1960 then after 1960
Here is one of the CAGW graphs of temp and CO2 http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif
It shows an increase in CO2 of about 80 ppm. So how do trees response to an increase in CO2? They increase height and biomass. Increases in CO2 also mean more drought resistance. So why the heck would the trees used by Mann (Briffa) respond with a DECREASE in growth?
Response of spruce to 700 ppm CO2: http://www.co2science.org//subject/l/summaries/ltspruce.php
Another long term study shows a gradual increase of SHRUBS at the tree line, (Calif?) This may be the reason for the decline – COMPETITION! (Darn, I lost the reference @ CO2science)
Also of interest:

A Holocene History of Changes in Northern Russian Treelines
….”Has the pattern of recent warming over the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries caused significant changes in the density of trees at the treeline and/or an extension of the geographical location of the treeline?”
What was learned
MacDonald et al. report that “temperature increases over the past century are already producing demonstrable changes in the population density of trees, but these changes have not yet generated an extension of conifer species’ limits to or beyond the former positions occupied during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP: ca AD 800-1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum treeline extension (HTM: broadly taken here to be ca 10,000-3,000 years ago).”
Of the Khibiny uplands of the central Kola Peninsula, for example, they write that “the treeline was located 100-140 m higher in elevation than today during the MWP,” and that “forest has yet to recolonize these elevations (Kremenetski et al., 2004).” Likewise, of the northern Polar Urals they say “the treeline was at its highest elevation during the MWP between ca AD 900 and 1300 when it reached 340 m,” after which it “descended to approximately 270 m during the Little Ice Age and then ascended to its present elevation of approximately 310 m during the recent warming of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.”
http://www.co2science.org//articles/V11/N32/C2.php

(The elevation limit for shrubs would also change similarly to that of the tree line)
Cyclical Environmental Change Depicted in Lake Sediments of Northern Russia
…The last 2500 years of the sediment record was strongly indicative of fluctuating limnological conditions… http://www.co2science.org//articles/V7/N16/C2.php
A completely separate study showing the typical Warm and cool periods.

Bob_L

The more I have read of the CG2 emails, the more I view Mann as the bully in the clique of Climate Science. You can see it in how hard and unwavering his rebuttles are in those few instances where teammates raise a concern. He really comes off as being an anal orifice to those around him.
Couple that thought with the back channel, Mann not included, emails that flew around, sighting his errors in science and approach.
I guess to advance your career in Climate Science, you are required to toe the line according to Mike. That way you get to sit at the cool table in the cafeteria, you get recommended for good jobs.
I’ll bet the atmosphere in on the Team is pretty frosty now that their back-biting is coming to light. (see what I did there? that was punny)

Alix James

Duster says:
December 5, 2011 at 11:39 am
Well said.
My family cuts 20 cord of wood every year, and has in the same wood bush since 1976, so I’m quite familiar with tree rings.
It was always fun as a kid to count back through and try to reconcile what the rings said with what our recollections of the weather was like. Of course, there was that year the eastern tent caterpillar ravaged the land, stripping trees so that June looked like November. I’m sure the scientists take stuff like this into account, right?

NotTheAussiePhilM

DCA says:
Speak to us about the context of that.
[Response: drivel from gavin]
Tut, Tut – gavin tries to defend the ‘not defensible’, but doesn’t do a very good job!