UPDATE: 12:55PM Dr. Mann ducks a TV station reporter who requested an interview afterwards, see below.
Steve McIntyre recently published a new graph on his website Climate Audit.
Alerted to the fact that Dr. Mann would be speaking at the OC Water Summit, I was asked to submit a question, but I could not make it there in time given the short notice. A suitable proxy, our friend Roger Sowell, was kind enough to attend and ask a question. Here’s what I sent him in way of a primer, I don’t know the actual question he asked, but we hope to have a video presentation later as I was told it was recorded.
Figure 1. Yamal Chronologies. Green – from Hantemirov _liv.rwl dataset; red- from Briffa et al 2008.
How interesting it is that the Hantemirov data in green, diverges from the CRU 2008 “Hockey Team” data in red. This is due to a larger data sample. One tree core, YAD061 is responsible for most of the difference, when a small set of tree core data is used.
This graph demonstrates how trees simply don’t show a hockey stick shape when all of the data is used.
In MBH98, your paper Dr. Mann, has a similar problem to the Briffa data. Your solution was to not use tree core data after 1960 and to splice on the instrumental temperature record to in effect “hide the decline” of the trees after 1960.
How do you respond to the charge that the tree ring data was cherry picked to show a desired result, and that Mr. McIntyre has falsified your work by showing that the premise of a hockey stick falls apart when all of the data is used?
===========================================================
Roger Sowell was in the audience this morning (thank you for responding on short notice). I received this answer via text from Roger Sowell, to a question he asked:
He responded that it was Bradley as coauthor, and his (MBH98) work did not use the Briffa data.
Said the decline or divergence is well known but not understood, so is being studied.
Basically dodged the question; called it “specious”.
He said the warming is real and he addressed all this in his book.
It was hoped that Steve McIntyre would have provided a question for submission, but there was no email response from him in time.
Roger Sowell has done some excellent work in climate skepticism, I urge readers to read his recent presentation, here’s the primer:
The following is the presentation I made on April 17, 2012, to the Southern California Section of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), at their monthly dinner meeting held at Long Beach, California. The title for the presentation is “What if the Warmists are Wrong? Is Catastrophic Cooling Coming? Implications.” My heartfelt thanks to Mr. Alan Benson, chair of the Southern California Section, for the invitation to speak. I also appreciate those who attended, and especially for their questions. As always, it is an honor to address AIChE members.
The presentation was approximately one hour, followed by another hour of questions and answers. The presentation is in three parts, as suggested by the title: 1) Are the Warmists Wrong? 2) Is Catastrophic Cooling Coming? and 3) Implications.
Background: this topic could easily require a week to present the many aspects and interesting details. With a mere hour at my disposal, this presentation necessarily hits only the major points. My purpose here, firstly, was to inform the audience of what has transpired in the climate science arena in part 1, primarily as to the quality of the data and the climate models. It is important to note the scarcity of agreement between the model projections and actual data. Secondly, my purpose was to present the case for imminent global cooling in part 2. Thirdly, my purpose was to describe a few of the many and serious implications for imminent global cooling in part 3, tying this in to what engineers can expect. Engineers are problem-solvers, and this presents a great many problems to solve. I also described a few of the legal ramifications of imminent global cooling.
Full presentation here, well worth bookmarking.
============================================================
UPDATE: 11:40AM I’m told via telephone that a local TV station is going to be interviewing Dr. Mann, and also Mr. Sowell due to his question. He promises more details later. Stay tuned.
UPDATE2 11:55PM: I wrote to Roger Sowell, after getting the above message, he reports Mann ducked the interview with KOCE-TV, the PBS station in Southern California. When Mann can’t even appear on warm-friendly PBS, you know he’s on the run.
On Friday, May 18, 2012, Anthony wrote:
Dear Roger,Thank you most sincerely for taking time out of your busy schedule to do this, I am in your debt. Anthony,
He replied:
My pleasure. This has been noteworthy.
Dr Mann refused the interview, and according to the reporter, he was extremely rude about it.
My interview went ok, I believe.
Roger
I’ll post that interview if it becomes available online.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phil,
Regarding whether anyone has asked Mann himself what the “instrumental record” comprises of, take a look at MBH 1999. All it says is “raw data.” That is— “Figure 3. Millennial temperature reconstruction. (a) NH reconstruction (solid) and raw dated (dotted) from AD 1000-1998”. Actually, the “raw data” is red colored, not dotted. Anyway, Not what Jones thinks, or the IPCC thinks, or anyone else, has Mann himself explained what this “raw data” is and where it comes from?
@ur momisuglyFollow the Money (May 18, 2012 at 3:14 pm)
I’ll probably get banned for life from WUWT, but here is a reference from Wikipedia.
There are 10 reconstructions and the black line is identified as the “Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v.”
Phil Clarke still can’t believe the math makes hockey sticks, and that those Magically Accurate Treemometers aren’t real heat sensors.
He’s stunned by talk of “light, heat, water, atmospheric composition, parasites, soil texture, pollutant minerals, ***SIXTEEN DIFFERENT NUTRIENT MINERALS*** in proportion”
because as far as he’s concerned,
sin
is sin
and Carbon Sin offends the Magic Angry Gas that builds up all that Magic Infrared in the atmosphere.
That the infrared astronomy field can’t find.
Hey Phil: see that light at the end of the tunnel in all this?
That’s Darwin’s Dogs rear end, and the deposition of your Magic Gas is going to be in the same corner of the internet, he deposited Area 51, Bigfoot, and Elvis@Kmart.
This so needs to be a sticky post as Mann is in a rather sticky situation [grabs popcorn to watch this one grow]
davidmhoffer says: May 18, 2012 at 11:51 am
I would have asked a completely different kind of question. Something like this:
Dr. Mann, suppose you became aware of an impending natural disaster, say something like a volcano erupting in downtown New York City. If the authorities were reluctant to evacuate millions of people on your say so, would you share with them data and scientific analysis that led you to your conclusion, or would you just let those millions of people die?
I agree with David. Imagine you discovered or believe you discovered a complex phenomenon involving multiple scientific disciplines. Further, assume that the phenomenon would harm all mankind. Finally, assume that you believe you have a solution to the impending disaster, but to be effective that solution must be implemented immediately. What would your response be?
(1) Sound the alarm and present all of your data/methods without reservation to the scientific community at large, and ask that community to either confirm or hopefully (who wouldn’t hope the world isn’t headed for disaster?) refute your findings.
(2) Write papers to your aggrandizement; publish them in friendly journals; share data only with sycophants and accept their accolades (thereby making you if not the “Top Dog” at least one of the “Top Dogs”); when some of your data/methods leak to the scientific community, support the suppression of any publication that is critical of you and/or your beliefs; and spend whatever grant money you get on trips to exotic places in part to bask in your new found glory.
(3) Keep quiet, go on a binge, and enjoy life while it lasts.
Of these three options, IMHO Dr. Mann’s behavior clearly most closely matches number two. Thus, independent of whether or not Dr. Mann is a competent scientist, he surely can’t be called a humanitarian.
PS. Although response number one is the obvious choice, given that Dr. Mann didn’t choose number one, I believe the world would be better off if Dr. Mann had opted for number three.
Man, or any of the team for that matter, would be outright fools to ingage in any exchage or debate that would lend credibility or equivelancy to the sckeptics claims. The goal posts are always moving as evidenced by the many heated exchanges by experts on this blog so point and counter points would desolve into meaningless chatter. A debate would absolutely be a loser for the team and they know it very well. Quit asking. It isn’t going to happen.
Jim
Auto says:
May 18, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Auto,
Thanks for the reminder, to vote in ‘Round 2’ of the Aussie AGW oriented “Hey Buddy, Can alarmists change your mind?” poll!
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/survey/
MtK
Mann may be auditioning for the next Snow White and the Seven Dwarves movie; playing the roles of both Dopey and Grumpy. 😉
You’re conflating Briffa and Mann, although they did similar things.
You can leave YAD061 in, there’s no reason to take it out. You just shouldn’t give it a very high weight without justification. If all 10 of the cores used were given equal weight, there would be no HS from Briffa’s Yamal data.
Smokey says:
May 18, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Phil Clarke says:
May 18, 2012 at 2:43 pm
““Perhaps Steve could be interviewed… to explain himself?”
Smokey’s response:
Phil, you devious conniver, you left Steve McIntyre’s response off of your cut ‘n’ paste. McIntyre replied to Hantemirov:….
Phil Clarke, you are being deliberately deceptive, as anyone can see who reads the comments following the one you posted. There is even a serious question whether that comment came from Dr Hantemirov.”
Smokey,
Very Nice! You caught him in a deliberate deceit by omission, trapping him like a repugnant fly transparently displayed in amber for all to examine at their leisure. Nice!!!
MtK
Reed Coray says:
May 18, 2012 at 5:41 pm
“I agree with David. Imagine you discovered or believe you discovered a complex phenomenon involving multiple scientific disciplines. Further, assume that the phenomenon would harm all mankind. Finally, assume that you believe you have a solution to the impending disaster, but to be effective that solution must be implemented immediately. What would your response be?”
Your first error is the statement “assume the phenomenon would harm all mankind.” That is not the case. Your second error is the statement “you have a solution to the impending disaster”. There is no proof of an impending disaster let alone a proven solution. It is all model based with too much gigo. In addition the recommended “solution” will not change anything but will instead destroy civilization as we know it.
Now, suppose you knew the Sun was going to swell to a red giant, engulf Earth and destroy it completely. Suppose your solution to this disaster is for mankind to leave this Planet and colonize someplace safe. Suppose you knew this would take thousands of years to implement. When would your response be to this?
Phil says:
May 18, 2012 at 4:48 pm
@Follow the Money (May 18, 2012 at 3:14 pm)
I’ll probably get banned for life from WUWT, but here is a reference from Wikipedia.
There are 10 reconstructions and the black line is identified as the “Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nice try at a re-direct Phil.
Here’s a link to the actual reconstruction and the actual trick that we’re actually talking about:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/11/the-maestro-of-mystery/
The subterfuge is clearly evident. The proxy reconstructions are clearly truncated at the point where the instrument record begins. It appears to the casual observer that the proxy data and the instrumental record agree. They do not. The proxy data declines in opposition to the instrumental record, and that is why it was truncated at the point of decline, so that nobody would see that the trees do NOT mirror the temperature record after all, except for one short time period. If they cannot mirror the temperature for decades at a time during the temperature record, there is clearly no reason to consider them accurate for the other 900 years of the reconstruction.
….and Phil,
Mann can maintain that this isn’t grafting of the instrumental record onto proxy data all he wants, anyone who takes the time to look at those graphs and read the analysis can easily see that he ic correct. What he did was SO much worse…
I had heard Mann was selected to lead the charge against “Deniers” and other denizens of pure scientific thought.
Apparently they didn’t select someone with sufficient backbone. That decline is certainly difficult to hide.
As a matter of interest, what is being measured in the red/green graph? The ordinate needs a label if us non-dendroscientists are to make any sense of it.
Tom of Florida
I think we’re on the same side. I believe (as I think you do) that (a) a little bit of global warming will not harm mankind, (b) there is no impending disaster, and (c) the solution proposed by CAGW proponents to reduce carbon emissions back to some level in the past will cause more harm than good.
However,you said that my “…first error is the statement “assume the phenomenon would harm all mankind“. How can an assumption be an error? A conclusion can be an error; but the only way an assumption can be an error is if it is internally inconsistent with other assumptions. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think my assumptions are internally inconsistent. I was trying to show why independent of Dr. Mann’s scientific abilities, his behavior was and is in opposition to man’s best interests.
To answer your question, if the “sun’s swelling to a red giant” will occur in a time interval short compared to our ability to leave this Planet and colonize someplace safe, I’d enjoy life to the fullest while it lasted. If we have time to leave this Planet and colonize someplace safe but we don’t have any time to waste, then I’d say we shoulld make the attempt. If we have a billion years before the Sun becomes a red giant, then at this time I wouldn’t spend any extra effort to decide how to address the problem. I’d wait at least 500 million years before giving the matter much thought.
Dr. Mann has done a lot of great work, and has advanced the field of paleoclimatology even since he was a recent post-doc.
But he’s not a politician, he’s a computer geek. Being vilified by people who don’t like the science for political reasons was never in his job description. I wouldn’t expect or tolerate being hounded at Disneyland either.
He has however, contributed much to the field, and he is a hero of the climate wars for the science team.
You have got to be kidding? I’d buy the computer geek thing if he ever actually demonstrated an understanding of them, but even there his competence is arguably non-existent. Mann has done more damage to science than any hack in recent memory. He is, at best, a physics school dropout.
Mark
Read Roger Sowell’s presentation, excellent work. Then tried to leave a comment but his Captcha just does not let you in even if you type it right. He leaves no email either so there is no way to contact him.
Seth;
Seth says:
May 18, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Dr. Mann has done a lot of great work, and has advanced the field of paleoclimatology even since he was a recent post-doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then I shall put to you the same question that I put to DR_UK who also spoke in Dr Mann’s defence. DR_UK hasn’t responded, maybe you are made of sterner stuff.
If you were a scientist who, in the course of your research, became aware of an impending natural disaster, only days away, that would kill millions of people, would you disclose your data and methods to the public in order to convince them to take action?
This is just sad. If any of you truly have a scientific case against Dr. Mann’s work, submit original research to a journal.
otter17 says:
May 18, 2012 at 9:30 pm
This is just sad. If any of you truly have a scientific case against Dr. Mann’s work, submit original research to a journal.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’ve made that silly argument in several threads and been mocked for it repeatedly. Science doesn’t have to appear in a journal to be credible (just ask the patent office) and appearing in a journal doesn’t make something credible science either. Can you come up with some new material?
But while we’re at it, since you so adamantly defend Dr Mann’s science, could you please answer the question that I put to both Seth and DR_UK with no response from either at this point?
If you were a scientist who, in the course of your research, became aware of an impending natural disaster, only days away, that would kill millions of people, would you disclose your data and methods to the public in order to convince them to take action?
To DMHoffer:
I read your post to Phil. I read the Climate Audit postings linked and related. Here’s my problem. McIntyre assumes Mann means thermometer records when Mann supplies the term “instrumental record.” in M1998. In 1999, Mann uses term “raw data.” It seems everyone thinks Mann is less than straight when he says a “thermometer record” is NOT grafted. Well, maybe his “raw data” is not a “thermometer record” at all. My question, Has anyone inquired what Mann means by “instrumental record” and “raw data.” Whose data? What source? Who compiled it?
And if not “thermometers” alone, what is the instrumental source for the “instrumental record” and “raw data?”
What’s truely sad is that fact that the well documented, despicable behavior on the part of Mann and others has led to internet blogs being more credible than certain peer reviewed journals.
otter17 says:
May 18, 2012 at 9:30 pm
This is just sad. If any of you truly have a scientific case against Dr. Mann’s work, submit original research to a journal.
=================================================================
And if there is no scientific case against him, why did he duck the interview?
Why stipulate that no one who disagreed with could be on the panel?
When was the last time he was in a debate?
How’s Tuvula doing?