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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Goodwin;
But The Team has not a clue what empirical means in this context.>>>
Excellent deconstruction!
The spectre of a team of dendrochronoligists calling a botanist “stupid” because he tried to point out to them what the known factors were in plant growth tells you just how arrogant “the team” had become at that point. The conclusions were set in stone, and any that dared defy them were “stupid”.
So where does their folly leave them today?
Well, from 1920 to 1960 trees grew faster, and CO2 rose at the same time, so CO2 must cause global warming.
From 1960 to 2010, trees grew slower, and CO2 rose at the same time, so CO2 must cause global warming.
When you stand back and boil it down… that’s what their claim rests upon. Conclusions first, all data collected points to the conclusion.
John Shade says: December 5, 2011 at 8:45 am
Well said.
davidmhoffer says: December 5, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Well said.
Theo Goodwin says: December 5, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Well said.
And others well said. Another classic post with replies. Thank you.
It’s the heads of the scientific institutions that I’m looking to at this time. The kindest thing that can be said about the scientists involved is that some of them believed in their work (at times), there were no engineering standards brought in when the science tipped from pastime to R&D-with-consequences, and they did not see the damage they were doing to Science.
Therefore, leniency in some of the individual sentences. But draconian measures of reform from the leadership in Science. That’s you, Paul Nurse. That’s you, Gerry North. And more. In fact, the best thing you could do would be to stand down and allow someone of the calibre of Jonathan Jones or Judith Curry to take over the reforming process.
davidmhoffer says:
December 5, 2011 at 7:30 pm
David, all well and good. However, when will energy policy be reversed? When will inexpensive energy (the life blood of every economy) be a political goal? When will enviromental concerns be restricted to good science and common sense? The US is still going backwards in this area. Europe has not accepted that clean CO2 emissions are likely a good thing. Inexpensive energy is really the only hope for the worlds economy.
Given that some of these emails clearly show that the Hockey Stick had issues, I wonder if there is going to be another investigation into the Hockey Stick?
There ought to be and it seems like it should be a slam dunk conclusion that it has issues like McIntyre first showed.
I think we need to gather all of the emails that show issues with the Hockey Stick and send them to a MSM reporter along with the story behind the hockey stick. This is definitely a newsworthy story IMO.
Not funny. I’m not a Democrat and have no fondness for John Kerry whatsoever. But his service record is not one of the areas that can legitimately be criticized. The official position of the Veterans of Foreign Wars is that whatever is says on your DD-214 is your service record. John Kerry did serve two tours in Vietnam and was awarded the Silver Star for conspicuous gallantry in combat. End of story.
I served with guys that had been in the “Brown Water Navy” and there is no way, no way at all, that you could have done that and not have been involved in some truly hairy bare knuckles combat. Period. Full Stop.
I forgot rising sea levels —
* Rising seas — inexorable, accelerating seas will drown coastal areas — same slow rise since the LIA, no need to sell your beach house
TomB says:
December 6, 2011 at 6:43 am
APACHEWHOKNOWS says:
December 5, 2011 at 2:59 pm
TomB, please calm yourself. Military records are curious things, and politicians have been known to, well, influence them. As for the Silver Star, please consider this:
http://hnn.us/articles/153.html
My read on this is conflicted. It would seem that so many heroes served in the armed forces, with no accolade, and so many politicians have stolen valor, with no reckoning. Back on subject, please.
ApacheWhoKnows, Yah-te-hey. Sensitive subject, right? Don’t poke the bear, if you don’t like the roar. Back on subject, please.
Grampa.
Jean Parisot says:
December 5, 2011 at 9:33 am
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?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Very good! A nice compendium of ‘where are we’ on this AGW vs. Reality competition.
The Hockey Stick graph–from what I can tell from Steve’;s posting recently, was not even ‘PEER reviewed’. The 2 days prior to IPCC submission, giving the reviewers no time to digest the portent of the boggus blade on the hockey stick–had they been inclined to do so!
IT was peer reviewed in any traditional sense of the word. (I never had Sex with that woman…..(for clarity sake let me add the next bit)….Ms. Lewinsky!)…..Peer Reviewed.
The Hockey Stick — Peer reviewed Science — Well, neither Peer reviewed nor Science
IPCC authority — 2500 of top scientists — Especially if you count WWF, Greenpeace rain makers! Children writing phd thesises
Hurricanes amplified and multiplied — No increase in either category
KIlamanjaro Snow melt victim of AGW — Er….not quite
Himalayan Snow melt AGW — Er.. Not really
Ocean level rise catastrophic — 1 mm is catastrophic? Er Not really.
Patchy Morals qualified to be head of IPCC — His knowledge of Climate practicallty zero.
Etc, Etc,…. Anyone else like to have a go??
Please, START AND FINISH ONE COGENT THOUGHT AND IDEA before starting another!
.
Prof Wegman did Mann’s statistics properly and provided the corrected chart.
[From Wikipedia, grudgingly: Edward Wegman is a statistician, a statistics professor at George Mason University, and past chair of the National Research Council’s Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. He holds a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics and is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association and a Senior Member of the IEEE. In addition to his work in the field of statistical computing, Wegman is notable for contributing to the 2006 Committee on Energy and Commerce Report investigation which inquired into the Hockey stick controversy.]
Dave Wendt says:
December 5, 2011 at 12:25 pm
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.
====================
Pyramid scheme about to collapse: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/707568901000000-how-and-why-banks-increased-total-outstanding-derivatives-record-107-trillion-6?page=1
Government bond scam by banks,
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/rob-kirby/the-extinction-of-the-bond-vigilantes
“What this all means folks is that the much ballyhooed “flight to quality” and rush to buy U.S. Government bonds is really an elaborate hoax–ENGINEERED in the bowels of the Federal Reserve and executed on the trading desks of their proxies; the likes of Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, B of A, Citibank and Morgan Stanley by creating ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY for U.S. Government debt.”
I wonder of the pigs in Animal Farm ever went to such trouble to obfuscate the stats.
If the farm animals had better education and access to information, they wouldnt have been so easily led into the ‘re-adjustment’ of farm animal rules. The Cause of course, is more important than anything else, “You don’t want to see Jones Back!”