Mann oh Mann. Tom Nelson continues to wade through the 5000+ Climategate 2 emails. I’ve selected a few he’s highlighted in the vein of behind the scenes discussion of Dr. Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” which claimed we were living in a period of unprecedented warmth.
It seems though, that the stick isn’t nearly as robust as we have been led to believe, such as it isn’t consistently replicable by the team itself and Briffa admits the trees are more precipitation sensitive (told ya so), and besides, Mann says it all big oil’s fault anyway.
The triggering issue was the “divergence” problem as raised by Rosanne D’Arrigo, that a spatially and temporally complex difference has arisen between many of the long tree-ring records and the instrumental record more recently than the calibration period in many cases. This has been in the literature for a while, as you know much better than I do, and was not highlighted by Rosanne in her talk, but some committee members jumped on it in questions, and she was not convincing that trees were thermometers when it was warm a millennium ago but are not thermometers when it is warm now.
…(I’m happy to go into details as to why the arguments were not convincing, insofar as I captured the arguments, but they were not convincing to me, and looking around the committee room, I don’t think they were convincing to important members of the committee.) …I don’t want to stir up trouble, I don’t want to piss off the tree-ring people yet again, but I do think that the tree-ring workers (and by association, all of us who do climate change) have a serious problem, and have not answered it very well yet. If better answers are out there, I hope that they come out soon.
Email 775, Feb 2006, Briffa to Henry Pollack
date: Wed Feb 15 15:49:58 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Science paper to: Henry Pollack
thanks Henry – sorry also about the ridiculous way the Paleo chapter is being rushed. I have found loads of errors /typos that crept in
Email 4853, Keith Briffa, Nov 2006: “dropped the inference of direct, positive association with temperature, because we added in sites that Mike in particular had used because of their inverse sensitivity – ie they were really more precipitation sensitive”
cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:26:25 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: TSU Figure label to: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen
..Tim has just pointed out to me that the caption to the current TS-20 contains the words “locations of temperature sensitive proxy records..”. In the revision of the Figure ( showing the 3 maps ) as presented in the Chapter , we refer to sites ” used to reconstruct temperature” and dropped the inference of direct, positive association with temperature, because we added in sites that Mike in particular had used because of their inverse sensitivity – ie they were really more precipitation sensitive . It would be better to amend the TSU caption to show the latter wording to account for this also. cheers Keith
Email 4854, Oct 2003, Phil Jones: “It is rather odd that the email said [M&M] had rerun his (Mann’s) exact analysis and got quite different results. I know I couldn’t do this, as when Keith, Tim and me wanted to do some comparisons with MBH98 a few years ago a few of the series could not be made available.”
subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL
Thanks Phil, Got your email just as I sent off my latest. I agree fully with what you say–it is very difficult to repeat such an analysis exactly, and the real point here is, who knows what this guy (Steven McIntyre–I don’t know who the supposed 2nd author is) actually did. The Mann et al ’99 paper was clear that the results were sensitive to a small number of skillful predictors prior to AD 1400, and that non-climate biases had to be corrected for in some of the longer series to get a skillfully cross-validated reconstruction. Without knowing what the guy did, I’m guessing that he doesn’t even demonstrate that his alternative “reconstruction” passes cross-validation. If not, its all moot… But more fundamentally, this wasn’t submitted to a legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal. Its a social science journal, and one that has shown a disdain for peer review (e.g. in publishing the Soon et al Climate Research paper essentially in its original unedited form–and see the recent documented comments of the editor). I agree this might blow over, but the folks in DC, such as McCain and Lieberman, who are fighting to represent what the legitimate scientific community has to say, need to be prepared in case the special interests try to use this. Hence, the short response I sent out. [Mike Mann]
[Phil Jones] Mike, Depending exactly on what it says I suggest we should do our best to ignore it. E&E is edited ( a very loose use of the word) by Sonia Boehmer-Christiansen, who’s generally involved, in some way, in all skeptic stuff here in Britain. It is rather odd that the email said the two had rerun his (Mann’s) exact analysis and got quite different results. I know I couldn’t do this, as when Keith, Tim and me wanted to do some comparisons with MBH98 a few years ago a few of the series could not be made available. I’m not trying to make any sort of point here, just to state that repeating an analysis with exactly the same data is normally very difficult.
Email 4758, UEA’s Tim Osborn, Oct 2000: “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! “
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!
But here’s the kicker, it’s all big oil and big coal’s fault:
Mann calls the hockey stick “an obscure graph”; other unnamed people have stripped the error bars away, “making it appear more definitive than it was ever intended”; “the entire apparatus for propelling this manufactured scandal on to the world stage was completely funded by the fossil-fuel front groups”
Mann believes the theft of the emails was not the work of a random hacker, but part of a sophisticated campaign. “It was a very successful, well-planned smear campaign intended … to go directly at the trust the public had in scientists,” he insists. “Even though they haven’t solved the crime of who actually broke in, the entire apparatus for propelling this manufactured scandal on to the world stage was completely funded by the fossil-fuel front groups.”…Climate contrarians argued that Mann and his colleagues were concealing their research methods because they had something to hide. In reply, Mann insists that he has been as open as he can about data and methodology, but the aim of these requests has more to do with intimidation than openness. “What they are trying to do is to blur the distinction between private correspondence and scientific data and methods, which of course should be out there for other scientists to attempt to reproduce.
“I think it’s intentional and malicious. It’s intended to chill scientific discourse, to intimidate scientists working in areas that threaten these special interests,” he says. “It’s the icing on the cake if they can also get hold of any more private correspondence that they can mine and cherry pick. It’s a win-win for them.” Why an obscure graph published in a scientific journal should enrage so many people has been the subject of much internet conspiracy (or genuine scientific debate, depending on your point of view).
The original 1998 hockey stick study by Mann and his colleagues did in fact emphasise the tentative nature of estimating past temperatures before the invention of accurate thermometers.
…”When we first published our Nature article in 1998, we went back six centuries,” Mann says. “A year later we published a follow-up going back 1,000 years with quite a few caveats. In fact, the caveats and uncertainties appeared in the title, and the abstract emphasised just how tentative this study was because of all the complicating issues.
“It’s frustrating that to some extent all of that context had been lost and the result has been caricatured. Often the errors bars are stripped away, making it appear more definitive than it was ever intended.”
E-mail 4854:
“Who knows what this guy [McIntyre] did?…”
“Without knowing what he did…”
Wouldn’t it be better to understand what that guy did before preparing McCain and Lieberman (et. al) against whatever it was that the guy did? I know I would worry about that, even if “that guy” had declared neverending love for big oil, and hatred for kids, kittens, and life in general.
The existence of a pronounced Medieval Warm Period automatically casts some good measure of doubt upon the scientific validity of the climate models, regardless of any other supporting arguments for CO2-driven AGW which might be offered.
Proponents of the theory of CO2-driven AGW must defend the hockey stick — error bars or no error bars — until the last dog dies.
To do anything less is to risk losing the public relations battle with the AGW skeptics, and the alarmists all know it.
The alarmists know what the stakes are by not allowing any public discussion of the true uncertainties of performing a Mannian type of paleoclimate temperature reconstruction.
In public, they won’t go there, because they can’t publicly admit any uncertainty or doubt about the hockey stick and still defend the reliability of the climate models.
That their behavior behind the scenes would be very different from their behavior in front of the public should therefore be no real surprise.
Well, it is getting a bit warmer- at least in Europe and North America-, or is it not? (If it is not the case, then, prove it). Bristlecone pines from some remote place in the US might have a slightly different perception of overall changing conditions than -say- deciduous and non-deciduous trees in the remaining parts of the Northern hemisphere (we are comparing a square foot to a a square mile, to use your pre-industrial measurements), so what?
Francois says:
“…in Europe and North America…”
You do understand that the issue is global warming, don’t you? Furthermore, the issue is human-caused warming – for which there is not a shred of empirical evidence.
And using treemometers is anyway highly questionable. Had Briffa deleted only one tree, YAD061, there would have been no hockey stick shape in the chart. If that doesn’t convince you that these guys are climate charlatans, probably nothing will.
“I’m no scientist, or Sherlock Holmes, but isn’t that an enormous clue to it being wrong?”
“When I’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how mad it might seem, must be the truth.” -Sherlock Holmes.
I’m pretty sure Sherlock isn’t at all worried about “Mann-made” Global Warming.
“Are Dr. Mann’s grades in undergrad and grad school not avaiable also?”
They won’t even release our Dear Leader’s Kinderkarten transcripts. Good luck on Mr. Mann’s grades.
On what planet Phil? I’m embarrassed for you that you even put PhD after your name with comments like that. If you had trouble re-running Mann’s analysis with his exact data, shouldn’t that raise questions in your brain that you would then pose to your colleague? Phil seems to display zero curiosity even with regards to his own colleagues work. He is a fail professor in the extreme with an attitude like that.
I think Jones comment about replication with the same data needs to be read in conjunction with the preceeding paragraph.
I think he means it is very difficult to repeat an analysis WITH the same data
Francois says:
January 16, 2012 at 9:47 am
“Well, it is getting a bit warmer- at least in Europe and North America-, or is it not? (If it is not the case, then, prove it).”
HA HA HA HA!!!
I am a genius, and God’s gift to women! (If it is not the case, then prove it).
Posting on a phone is not the easiest way to do it. To conclude:
It’s not easy because you can’t be sure what data was used. Classic Mann.
That said, why does he think this is normal?
If there isn’t enough info on data or methods for replication, it’s not science. Back to failure by the journals again.
The thing I hate most about the Hockey Stick fiasco is how the MANN behind the myth can completely disregard 100’s of peer-reviewed scientific papers published over the past 40 yrs from many countries, with almost all papers showing the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than today AND a global phenomenon.
Its only proper for Dr. Mann to explain in detail how all these previous papers could all be wrong about the existence of the MWP. Without addressing the mistakes of previous MWP papers why his bogus paper negates all previous work.
“Mann insists that he has been as open as he can about data and methodology”
Of course he has been. He’s been just as open about his data and methodology as he has been about his UVA E-mails.
Thanks for the laugh!
@Francois who said “Well, it is getting a bit warmer- at least in Europe and North America-, or is it not? (If it is not the case, then, prove it).”
Nice straw man, Francois. But nobody denies that the climate is warming and has been doing so for thousands of years. But there is no correlation with atmospheric CO2 concentration, much less a cause and effect relationship as claimed by the CAGW crowd. If anything, the reverse is true; CO2 concentration lags warming which suggests that warming causes release of CO2 from the oceans.
I just pre-ordered Dr. Mann’s book. Unlike some deep thinkers we know and love, I have no intention of reviewing a book I have not read.
In my firtst post I should have emphasised SAME data. I’ll keep quiet now.
ew-3 says:
January 16, 2012 at 8:18 am
“all of us who do climate change”
Interesting phrase, quite revealing
——————
It gave me pause also.
Email 4854
“It is rather odd that the email said the two had rerun his (Mann’s) exact analysis and got quite different results. I know I couldn’t do this, as […] a few of the series could not be made available. I’m not trying to make any sort of point here, just to state that repeating an analysis with exactly the same data is normally very difficult.”
I don’t think that is very hard to understand.
SteveW on January 16, 2012 at 8:16 am: “Could one not paraphrase that as saying that “Our results are not reproducible.” ”
There is a place for the Hockey Stick and many other studies that have emerged from efforts of The Climate Team (Mann, Jones, et al). Trenberth’s “climate heat is hidden in the unmeasurable deep blue sea” is one of the recent knee-slappers.
http://www.jir.com/
The Journal of Irreproducible Results
Jeremy says:
“Phil (Jones) seems to display zero curiosity even with regards to his own colleagues work. He is a fail(ed) professor in the extreme with an attitude like that.”
Phil Jones and Mike E. Mann are twin sons of different mothers. While Mann uses the “If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with bullshit” approach, Jones apparently just makes his data up:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/16/jones-may-submit-a-correction-to-his-1990-paper-keenan-responds/
Ken Coffman says:
“…I have no intention of reviewing a book I have not read.”
Ken, for contrast, I suggest that you also order The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford, available on the right sidebar. It was published at about the same time the first Climategate emails were released, so it only tells the sordid and damning tale of the Mann/Jones clique prior to the world seeing their emails. If you don’t come away realizing that Mann’s “Team” are terribly dishonest manipulators and self-serving scientific charlatans gaming the system for their own benefit, then your mind is as made up as those you implicitly criticize for their opinions.
I think what you mean to say is that Phil is saying it is difficult to get the same data set to start off a re-examination. Why would Phil have this problem?
Presuming you have the same data available to you, any trouble re-analyzing it should generate questions for you to ask until you either understand the process someone else used perfectly and can re-do it, or you find an alternate method and disagree with the original research.
Presuming you do not have the same data, and you are in a position of data-keeping and central the IPCC effort to determine climate, what good are you if you can’t manage to get the exact data that someone else used in an IPCC report?
The 1999 hockey stick graph is so old news, lets keep up to date http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html
Steven Rosenberg says: “Wow. Not the content, but the horrible English prose. Bad writing is possible the single best marker of bad thinking.”
Good point. I recently came across this at my local library, was intrigued by the double entendre title, and then couldn’t put it down:
Communicating Rocks\
“Writing, Speaking, and Thinking about Geology”
149 pages
by Peter Copeland, U. Houston
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/product/Communicating-Rocks-Writing-Speaking-and-Thinking-About-Geology/9780321689672.page
Or order through Amazon.
This book applies to most fields, not just Geology. I highly recommend it. One of the points he makes is that, as Steven indicates, clear writing is related to, and often forces the writer to produce, good science. This might warrant a full book review post here.
“inverse sensitivity”
Made up concept to say that the trees in question are not responding to temperature.
“But more fundamentally, this wasn’t submitted to a legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal.”
Hahaha, I used to read non-“peer reviewed” articles all the time – I received about 10-15 lb./month free via the Post Office – and obviously still do, if you call publishing your work on the Internet to the whole freaking world not peer reviewed. Certain ones were always better than what the Journals put out, not to mention the Textbooks, and they always had to heel to what works where the rubber meets the road in the real world. I couldn’t just go around telling people to lower their carbon footprint and everything would be ok.
“I agree this might blow over, but the folks in DC, such as McCain and Lieberman, who are fighting to represent what the legitimate scientific community has to say, need to be prepared….”
I was on Sen. Bill Bradley’s site a while back when he declared the AGW debate over because Joe Lieberman had just said so. So as long as we were dealing with irrelevancies, I reminded him of the time I was guarding him when he was playing at Princeton, forced him into a wild hook shot, and they had to take him out of the game….well it wasn’t quite like that, it was near the end of the game and they were killing us, but Bradley and Lieberman have sure done got rightly “stuffed” concerning this AGW hoax.