Mann's hockey stick disappears – and CRU's Briffa helps make the MWP live again by pointing out bias in the data

Shock, awe. Untruncated and unspliced data used in a new paper from Briffa and Melvin at UEA restores the Medieval Warm Period while at the same time disappears Mann’s hockey stick. Here’s figure 5 that tells the story:

Figure 5. Temperature reconstructions created using the 650-tree (‘alltrw’ data) TRW chronology (a) and the 130 tree (‘S88G1112’ data) MXD chronology (b). Chronologies were created using two RCS curves and were regressed against the Bottenviken mean May–August monthly temperature over the period 1860 to 2006. The shaded areas show two standard errors (see SI15, available online, for details) plotted either side of the mean where standard errors were scaled to fit the temperature reconstruction. The TRW and MXD temperature reconstructions of (a) and (b) are compared in (c) after they were normalised over the common period 600 to 2008 and smoothed with a 10 year spline. The lower two panels compare the reconstructions using the TRW chronology (d) and MXD chronology (e) with the mean of May to August monthly temperature from Bottenviken over the period 1860 to 2006.

Look at graph 5c, and you’ll see 20th century warmth matches peaks either side of the year 1000, and that for the TRW chronology 20th century warmth is less than the spike around 1750. This puts 20th century (up to 2006 actually) warmth in the category of just another blip. There’s no obvious hockey stick, and the MWP returns, though approximately equal to 20th century warmth rather than being warmer.

Whoo boy, I suspect this paper will be called in the Mann -vs- Steyn trial (if it ever makes it that far; the judge may throw it out because the legal pleading makes a false claim by Mann). What is most curious here is that it was Briffa (in the Climategate emails) who was arguing that some claims about his post 1960 MXD series data as used in other papers might not be valid. It set the stage for “Mikes Nature trick” and “hide the decline“. Steve McIntyre wrote about it all the way back in 2005:

Post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD series are deleted from the IPCC TAR multiproxy spaghetti graph. These values trend downward in the original citation (Briffa [2000], see Figure 5), where post-1960 values are shown. The effect of deleting the post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD series is to make the reconstructions more “similar”. The truncation is not documented in IPCC TAR.

I have to wonder if this is some sort of attempt to “come clean” on the issue. Mann must be furious at the timing. There’s no hint of a hockey stick, and no need to splice on the instrumental surface temperature record or play “hide the decline” tricks with this data.

Bishop Hill writes:

Well, well, well.

In its previous incarnation, without a MWP, the series was used in:

  • MBH98
  • MBH99
  • Rutherford et al 05
  • Jones 98
  • Crowley 00
  • Briffa 00
  • Esper 02
  • Mann, Jones 03
  • Moberg
  • Osborn, Briffa 06
  • D’Arrigo et al 06

It rather puts all that previous work in perspective, since this new paper has identified and corrected the biases. It should be noted though that tree ring paleoclimatology is an inexact science, and as we’ve seen, even a single tree can go a long way to distorting the output. On the plus side, it is good to see that this paper defines and corrects biases present in the MXD and TRW series of the Tornetraesk tree ring chronology dataset. This is a positive step forward. I suspect there will be a flurry of papers trying to counter this to save Mann’s Hockey Stick.

From the journal Holocene:

Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data

Thomas M Melvin University of East Anglia, UK

Håkan Grudd Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Keith R Briffa University of East Anglia, UK

Abstract

We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.

Here’s the money quote from the paper:

If the good fit between these tree-growth and temperature data is reflected at the longer timescales indicated by the smoothed chronologies (Figures 5c and S20d, available online), we can infer the existence of generally warm summers in the 10th and 11th centuries, similar to the level of those in the 20th century.

Conclusions

• The RCS method generates long-timescale variance from

the absolute values of measurements but it is important to

test that data from different sources are compatible in

order to avoid systematic bias in chronologies.

• It was found in the Torneträsk region of Sweden that there were systematic differences in the density measurements from different analytical procedures and laboratory conditions and that an RCS chronology created from a simple combination of these MXD data contained systematic bias.

• Both the known systematic variation of measurement values (both TRW and MXD) by ring age and the varying effect of common forcing on tree growth over time must

be taken into account when assessing the need to adjust subpopulations of tree-growth measurements for use with RCS.

• It was necessary to rescale the ‘update’ density measurements from Torneträsk to match the earlier measurements over their common period, after accounting for ring-age decay, in order to remove this systematic bias.

• The use of two RCS curves, separately processing fastand slow-growing trees, has reduced the effect of modern sample bias which appears to have produced some artificial inflation of chronology values in the late 20th century in previously published Torneträsk TRW chronologies.

• A ‘signal-free’ implementation of a multiple RCS approach to remove the tree age-related trends, while retaining trends associated with climate, has produced

new 1500-year long MXD and TRW chronologies which show similar evidence of long-timescale changes over

their full length.

• The new chronologies presented here provide mutually consistent evidence, contradicting a previously published conclusion (Grudd, 2008), that medieval summers (between 900 and 1100 ce) were much warmer than those

in the 20th century.

• The method described here to test for and remove systematic bias from RCS chronologies is recommended for further studies where it is necessary to identify and mitigate systematic bias in RCS chronologies composed of nonhomogeneous samples.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
483 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 28, 2012 11:21 am

Not only has the Hockey stick disappeared, but so have the Grand Solar Minima and Maxima correlations…

AlanG
October 28, 2012 11:26 am

But. But. If I want my trees to grow more I water them. Why this dendrothermometry?

theduke
October 28, 2012 11:28 am

I can hear Rosanne Rosannadanna now: “Never mind.”

Jimbo
October 28, 2012 11:31 am
Harold Ambler
October 28, 2012 11:32 am

Color me happy.

Crispin in Kuala-Lumpur
October 28, 2012 11:37 am

@Leif
Well spotted.

October 28, 2012 11:37 am

What a news!

October 28, 2012 11:39 am

What’s the betting that this paper will make it on to the forthcoming BBC Radio thing on Climategate?

October 28, 2012 11:41 am

The warm is turning.

Kevin Kilty
October 28, 2012 11:42 am

Picking a nit…”throw” it out, not “through” it out.
[Already fixed. — mod.]

October 28, 2012 11:43 am

If you Halloween was incomplete without some Climate Science Comedy treats…
see “Penn Pied Piper Plays Laureate” for a satirical look at current events….
WARNING…do to the banal nature of current culture, this satire contains gratuitous
use of double-entendre and was processed by equipment previoulsy used on NUTS.
Trick or Treat here…. http://fauxscienceslayer.com/pdf/Penn_Pied_Piper.pdf

son of mulder
October 28, 2012 11:45 am

I still have no faith in tree rings as a proxy for global temperature. I think it’s a waste of money that could be better spent on real science. What sort of denier or sceptic does that make me?

October 28, 2012 11:51 am

Leif, Maunder started at 1645. Graph (b) has 1645 4C colder than now.
Admittedly the cold started around 1600, warmed a bit and then made a big dip back to 8C. But it was cold. Very cold.

MangoChutney
October 28, 2012 11:54 am

Are trees good thermometers?
I’m not so sure, so this paper could merely be another attempt to have trees accepted as a good proxy for historical temperatures – how long will it take for Mann to spot the “fatal flaw” in this paper?
I’d be really interested to know who reviewed this paper.
Also, this paper doesn’t make it into AR5, does it?

October 28, 2012 11:55 am

Think there’s a chance that the authors are irritated at the glowing attention that Mann and Hansen preen over for publishing nonsense and this is a passive aggressive way of shutting them up and getting back to reality?

October 28, 2012 11:55 am

Could it be, reading between the lines, that Dr. M. Mann may be becoming too much of an embarrassment for the ‘team’?

Erik Christensen
October 28, 2012 11:56 am

Hockey Stick, return to sender:
Hit Me With My Hockey Stick
Hit me, hit me, hit me
Hit me slowly, hit me quick
Hit me, hit me, hit me

October 28, 2012 11:57 am

One more nail in the “Treemometer” coffin. I’d say this calls for a little drinkeepoo… (Waiter!)

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 12:02 pm

Ah…Isn’t this just a temperature reconstruction from one area,,,Northern Sweden? I don’t necessarily see any contradiction whatsoever with the work of Mann et al., which showed that although many individual regions experienced similar warmth to modern warmth sometime in some broadly-defined “Medieval Warm Period”, the warmest times were asynchronous in different regions and, hence, when you looked globally the warmth was not as great as the late 20th century warmth which was not asynchronous.
It helps to understand carefully what someone’s work actually said before jumping to the conclusion that a new piece of work contradicts it!
REPLY: Oh, please. You really are a myopic sorts aren’t you? By your logic then we should ignore Yamal, and the infamous YAD061 sample becuase it is too local. That seemed fine for these scientists purposes before.
The truth is that Mann’s hockey stick is a fabrication, he’s “embellished” it, just like he did his Noble Prize claims, and there are other papers that confirm that the MWP is as warm or warmer than today, such as
Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/
Esper et al in the Journal of Global and Planetary Change
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/yet-another-paper-demonstrates-warmer-temperatures-1000-years-ago-and-even-2000-years-ago/
But you’ll poo poo those too. because that’s what you do as a defender of the faith….a faith that is now dying a slow sure death. Go ahead spin furiously, because nobody but the faithful believes in the embellished dendro claims of the team anymore.- Anthony

Pamela Gray
October 28, 2012 12:03 pm

Most major-journal papers worth their self-imposed sense of integrity would thank contributing sources used in the development and conclusion of the study. So. I would ask, is WUWT properly thanked at the end? I was just a low-life freshman researcher but had the honest integrity to include my gratitude in the area of Auditory Brainstem Response research. As you get older or well-known, does this obligation become unnecessary? I think not. Briffa owes a debt of gratitude to WUWT. I wonder if he has the honest type of integrity necessary to do the right thing. And to do it here.
Come on Briffa, what say you?

Pamela Gray
October 28, 2012 12:07 pm

By the way, my research thesis, published and archived in the Oregon State University library, includes such thanks but when my paper was published in a major journal, the citation of the debt I owed was removed by the higher-up laboratory powers-that-be I worked for before it got published. So apparently, my observation about when your lose your honest integrity appears to be valid.

October 28, 2012 12:08 pm

Is the house of cards falling? All those papers that referenced old “data”. My MY.

bee bop
October 28, 2012 12:09 pm

We are talking about Sweden, right?

Bloke down the pub
October 28, 2012 12:10 pm

Now Keith, isn’t that a weight off your chest?

Peter Miller
October 28, 2012 12:10 pm

Not a great day for ‘climate science’, as practiced by Mann, Hansen and others.
But perhaps a good day for those few who practice real climate science.
More important is this: it may be the start of a long ovedue process of ‘climate science’ becoming honest under the relentless pressure of sceptics exposing the distorted data and manipulated conclusions of the high priests of the CAGW cult.

October 28, 2012 12:12 pm

The famous Mann-ufactured AGW-promoting “Hockey Stick” is dead! Long live the King of global hoaxes!

Gunga Din
October 28, 2012 12:13 pm

Hey, Mikey! Your bus is here!
(Now all we need is a certain password.)
PS to Briffa, Thanks for being honest about what you see. The repercussions will pass. What you see in the mirror won’t.

RockyRoad
October 28, 2012 12:15 pm

son of mulder says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:45 am

I still have no faith in tree rings as a proxy for global temperature. I think it’s a waste of money that could be better spent on real science. What sort of denier or sceptic does that make me?

Logical.

October 28, 2012 12:16 pm

sunshinehours1 says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:51 am
Leif, Maunder started at 1645. Graph (b) has 1645 4C colder than now.
One should look at graph (c), not the individual years. And some people would say that now is the warmest on record in spite of solar activity being the lowest in a hundred years. But, for true believers, cheery picking always works their way. One way out is to claim that tree-ring data is nonsense, but that also makes nonsense that there was a ‘decline’ to hide.

D Böehm
October 28, 2012 12:23 pm

joelshore says:
“I don’t necessarily see any contradiction whatsoever with the work of Mann et al., which showed that although many individual regions experienced similar warmth to modern warmth sometime in some broadly-defined “Medieval Warm Period”, the warmest times were asynchronous in different regions and, hence, when you looked globally the warmth was not as great as the late 20th century warmth which was not asynchronous.”
Wrong. As we can see in this overlay of Antarctic, Greenland, and Arctic ice cores, global temperatures were synchronous — which includes the MWP.
There is always regional variability, which makes for easy [and wrong] cherry-picking. But globally temperatures are synchronous in both hemispheres, as the ice core records make clear.

RockyRoad
October 28, 2012 12:26 pm

joeldshore says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:02 pm

It helps to understand carefully what someone’s work actually said before jumping to the conclusion that a new piece of work contradicts it!

You wouldn’t contradict Mann’s work if a hundred… nay, a thousand pieces of work contradicts it, joel. Some people are just stuck.
But then, Mann has every reason to be honest, doesn’t he? Or are you missing the gist of Mann’s suit against Steyn?
Stay stuck if you want while the rest of the world moves on.

J Martin
October 28, 2012 12:26 pm

Leif Svalgaard said on October 28, 2012 at 11:21 am “Not only has the Hockey stick disappeared, but so have the Grand Solar Minima and Maxima correlations…”
A step in the right direction nonetheless. Just watch the solar min’s and max’s reappear when it starts to get very cold. Ten years ? Will Briffa have retired by then ? In which case someone else will do it.
Wanted. A new H Lamb, for a post not yet on the job market, but surely will be once global warming turns out to be sustained serious cooling.

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 12:31 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:21 am
Not only has the Hockey stick disappeared, but so have the Grand Solar Minima and Maxima correlations…

Not at all Leif, everything fits nicely. My Solar derived proxy for ocean heat content is right on target:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/phil-jones-we-dont-know-what-natural-variability-is-doing/

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 12:34 pm

Naturally , the paper is too late for inclusion in AR5e ,
Where we will be treated to several hockeysticks I have no doubt.

October 28, 2012 12:35 pm

The hockey stick is dead! Long live the king of global hoaxes!

Pamela Gray
October 28, 2012 12:35 pm

Leif, your logic is such ear candy. If tree-ring data is good, it shouldn’t deviate, if it is bad, it doesn’t matter. Priceless.

Edim
October 28, 2012 12:37 pm

“Not only has the Hockey stick disappeared, but so have the Grand Solar Minima and Maxima correlations…”
I see correlations.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png

AlexS
October 28, 2012 12:40 pm

And the warmists and the so called “skeptics” discuss one more time an unreliable, localized temperature proxy…

Alexej Buergin
October 28, 2012 12:45 pm

Et tu, Briffa.
But that would compare the IPCC to Caesar, who was a great man.

richardscourtney
October 28, 2012 12:46 pm

son of mulder
At October 28, 2012 at 11:45 am you ask:

I still have no faith in tree rings as a proxy for global temperature. I think it’s a waste of money that could be better spent on real science. What sort of denier or sceptic does that make me?

A compatriot with me.
Richard

Graeme M
October 28, 2012 12:50 pm

“I don’t necessarily see any contradiction whatsoever with the work of Mann et al., which showed that although many individual regions experienced similar warmth to modern warmth sometime in some broadly-defined “Medieval Warm Period”, the warmest times were asynchronous in different regions and, hence, when you looked globally the warmth was not as great as the late 20th century warmth which was not asynchronous.”
Is this true, that 20th C warming is not asynchronous? I have seen the plots of global anomalies, but not the actual local records for the various continents etc. I DO know there is much controversy over local records, eg the Australian and NZ temp records for the past 100 years. I have done wolfram alpha plots o actual temp records for many countries and find very few cases of upwards trends but I have no idea how accurate those plots are.

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 12:54 pm

richardscourtney says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:46 pm
son of mulder
At October 28, 2012 at 11:45 am you ask:
“I still have no faith in tree rings as a proxy for global temperature. I think it’s a waste of money that could be better spent on real science. What sort of denier or sceptic does that make me?”
A compatriot with me.
Richard

I think there may be a link of sorts between temperature and tree ring width, mostly mediated by changes in rainfall and the temperature dependency of co2.
So, pretty tenuous. I trust Loehle’s non-tree-ring temperature proxy more.

October 28, 2012 12:56 pm

Edim says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:37 pm
I see correlations.
Of course you do. True believers always do. For them, everything fits nicely, no matter what the data says.

October 28, 2012 12:57 pm

tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm (Edit)
Naturally , the paper is too late for inclusion in AR5e ,
Where we will be treated to several hockeysticks I have no doubt.
######################
tallbloke why do you spread this nonsense without even checking. The Melvin paper is cited in the Second Order Draft. The only deadline that really matters is the “accepted” deadline which doesnt happen until 2013. The most recent deadline merely stated that the papers had to be submitted.
Sheesh. Does anybody here check facts.

October 28, 2012 12:59 pm

Steven Mosher says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:57 pm
tallbloke why do you spread this nonsense without even checking.
TB always spreads nonsense, to wit his comments upthread. Best thing is to just ignore it.

stephen richards
October 28, 2012 1:00 pm

I seem to remember way back that Steve Mc detected a certain reticense in Briffa at some point. Sort of, like Briffa was embarrassed by Mann and was looking for a way out.

October 28, 2012 1:04 pm

Leif,
Not sure if you are a reviewer or not but the SOD has some nice work on MWP/LIA and solar forcing studies. of course for those who think their science is settled ( the sun dunnit ) the actual science may not be of interest. hehe.

Dajake
October 28, 2012 1:06 pm

I thought it was decided that all warming was global and all cooling was regional.

October 28, 2012 1:08 pm

Steven Mosher says:
October 28, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Not sure if you are a reviewer or not but the SOD
I’m not. I only try to make sure that the solar data is correct [hard enough with people wanting to cherry pick old, obsolete, invalid ‘data’]. Actual science usually is of minor interest compared to the ’cause’, whatever that might be.

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 1:10 pm

D Boehm says:

Wrong. As we can see in this overlay of Antarctic, Greenland, and Arctic ice cores, the MWP was globally synchronous.

Ah…As near as I can tell (because you have presented a graph with no context and even no labels on the axes), what you are showing is a graph over the last 100,000 years. If you can pick out something that happened 1000 years ago on such a graph, you have better eyes than I.
Anthony says:

Oh, please. You really are a myopic sorts aren’t you? By your logic then we should ignore Yamal, and the infamous YAD061 sample becuase it is too local. That seemed fine for these scientists purposes before.

I didn’t say this sample can be ignored. I just said it alone does not a global or hemispheric reconstruction make. Neither does Yamal. Can you show me where anyone has claimed it does?
Look, I don’t claim to know for sure whether the modern Northern hemispheric temperatures are definitely warmer than they were during the MWP or not. Most full hemispheric reconstructions have found they are; a few, such as those other two you mentioned, have apparently found the MWP temperature comparable. And, unlike many around here, I let science, rather than my own preconceptions, drive the conclusions.
However, citing a paper regarding a temperature record at one location as if it contradicts work regarding the entire hemispheric temperature record is just wrong, pure and simple. And, defending it while claiming that some respected scientist’s work is a “fabrication” is just the pot calling the kettle…

Mike
October 28, 2012 1:13 pm

The prospect of going to jail for those deliberately corrupting science is going to do a lot of good for those that have adhered to the scientific method. Unsettled science is real again.

James Evans
October 28, 2012 1:16 pm

Mosher:
“Does anybody here check facts.”
Yes. You’re annoyingly full of yourself. Fact.

October 28, 2012 1:16 pm

Leif: “One should look at graph (c), not the individual years.”
Ok.
From 1550 to 1750 the vast majority of the temperatures are below 10C. From 1400 to 1550 temperature straddle 10.
Until I see the data I would suggest a .5C drop after 1550 that lasted for 200 years. I am not a believer in tree rings, but think .5C lower sustained over 200 years is not trivial.
That would be the modern equivalent of dropping from 1998 temperatures to 1970s temperatures (the coming ice age time).

Pamela Gray
October 28, 2012 1:16 pm

Steven, you just charged yourself by your own words. Yes, there are people here who check their facts.

Taphonomic
October 28, 2012 1:20 pm

Doe this mean that the National Research Council should/will revisit their conclusion: “Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium”???

October 28, 2012 1:20 pm

Leif, is there a good solar UV proxy graph or data for the same period?
Mosher (the sun dunnit ) do you have any good proxies for cloudiness/surface sunshine/aerosols for that period? There a number of recent papers talking about 2W/sq-m more sunshine reaching the earth from 1980 on because of cleaner air with some drop as China strated to burn huge amounts of coal.

Darren Potter
October 28, 2012 1:20 pm

WUWT: “The truth is that Mann’s hockey stick is a fabrication, he’s ’embellished’ it, just like he did his Noble Prize claims,”
Careful Anthony, lest ye be subject to the wrath of Mann…
😉

u.k.(us)
October 28, 2012 1:22 pm

Steven Mosher says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:57 pm
“Sheesh. Does anybody here check facts.”
—————————–
I know it was rhetorical, but all the same.

Joe
October 28, 2012 1:23 pm

I’m still open to convincing on the value of tree-ring proxies, but don’t forget that even instrumental measurements are really proxies in the strict sense. What they actually measure is the expansion or electrical effects of temperature.
The only difference really is in the control we have over other factors that might affect the readings as we build and calibrate the instruments and filter the output. With tree rings we have no control over other factors when they were “built”. Whether or not we can calibrate or filter for them is, to my mind, still a very open question – to simply say “we can’t” is no better than saying that “the science is settled”.
From the abstract it appears that this is the question that Melvin and Briffa are approaching, and doing so without applying preconceptions to the results (or they would have found another stick in the locker room). Whether or not it ultimately withstands the (no doubt harsh) scrutiny it will receive from certain quarters, it may well mark a turning point back towards real scientific enquiry within the field.
For that, at least, this work should be commended.

October 28, 2012 1:25 pm

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

October 28, 2012 1:37 pm

Svald says “…. Actual science usually is of minor interest compared to the ’cause’, whatever that might be.”
Right on, Svald! And I support the “cause” of identifying all the-junk-science for the junk that it is!

D Böehm
October 28, 2012 1:39 pm

joelshore says:
“unlike many around here, I let science, rather than my own preconceptions, drive the conclusions.”
BWA-A-A-A-A-HA-HA-HA-HA-A-A-A!!
‘Mr Contradiction’ infuses everything with leftist politics. His science is cherry-picked to conform to his far left world view.
Here is another chart showing the excellent temperature correlation between hemispheres. And another. And another. And another. And just for fun, here’s a chart showing a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature.
But going by past experience, Mr Contradiction will claim that all these charts are wrong. It’s his MO.

davidmhoffer
October 28, 2012 1:43 pm

joeldshore;
I didn’t say this sample can be ignored. I just said it alone does not a global or hemispheric reconstruction make. Neither does Yamal. Can you show me where anyone has claimed it does?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Although ostensibly representative of northern Eurasian summer conditions, these data were later scaled using simple linear regression against a mean NH land series to provide estimates of summer temperature over the past 2 kyr (Briffa et al., 2004).”
IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch6 P471

October 28, 2012 1:44 pm

Steven Mosher says: October 28, 2012 at 1:04 pm
………..
Hi Steven
I wouldn’t discard the solar, not as yet (see vukcevic page 6) than take a look at
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22423/1/97-0910.pdf
page 9:The total CAM (core angular momentum) results from the summation of the individual cylinders with a maximum at a 15-year lead with respect to LOD …… (note the -65-year periodicity).
and the latitude-time data plot from the table (page 26) of the above
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/OJV.htm
then see vukcevic page 6 again.

October 28, 2012 1:48 pm

sunshinehours1 says:
October 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Until I see the data I would suggest a .5C drop after 1550 that lasted for 200 years. I am not a believer in tree rings, but think .5C lower sustained over 200 years is not trivial.
Perhaps not, but solar activity does not follow curve (c): http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Briffa.png The green curve is solar activity deduced from cosmic ray proxies of the solar magnetic field as carried out to the Earth by the solar wind.

Edim
October 28, 2012 1:56 pm

“Of course you do. True believers always do. For them, everything fits nicely, no matter what the data says.”
What doesn’t fit? Which data disagrees?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
Considering there must be other, non-solar factors, the correlation between colder periods and periods of weak solar activity (minima) is significant and not controversial.

Laurie
October 28, 2012 1:58 pm

It’s obvious that Big Oil has gotten to Briffa!
/sarc

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 1:58 pm

D Boehm says:

Here is another chart showing the excellent temperature correlation between hemispheres. And another. And another. And another. And just for fun, here’s a chart showing a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Great. Why don’t you come back when you have something relevant to the discussion to actually contribute. (Hint: You may want to re-read what I originally wrote.)

Werner Brozek
October 28, 2012 2:00 pm

“Ball indicates there is a list of likely suspects, insiders, who may well have been the whistle blower and points a finger at Keith Briffa, one of the climate scientists who appeared to be a war with those running the show at the Climate Research Unit.”
For the rest of the article, see:
http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2009/12/23/climategate-hacker-probably-whistleblower/

Tom in Worcester
October 28, 2012 2:04 pm

James Evans says:
October 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Mosher:
“Does anybody here check facts.”
Yes. You’re annoyingly full of yourself. Fact.
===========================================
LOL I always thought that you need put it in CAPS to make it true. FACT.

Dan in Nevada
October 28, 2012 2:04 pm

Question for anybody that might know: Has the data necessary for replication been provided?
Aside from the question as to whether or not trees make good thermometers, the sticking point has, to me, always been the deliberate concealment of data and methodology that appears to undergird modern ‘climate science’. Any time Steve M. has been able to actually get his hands on raw data, he conclusively shows that the published results are utter crap. Any time Anthony is able to compare raw measured temperature data against the ‘adjusted’ published results, he conclusively shows the published results are utter crap. And so on, and so on, and scoobie doobie doo……
To rephrase my question, is this real science?

davidmhoffer
October 28, 2012 2:05 pm

My usual reservations about using trees as a proxy for temps aside, I just can’t help but get the feeling that Briffa is trying to come in from the cold. The CG2 emails revealed a VERY adversarial relationship between Jones/Briffa and Mann in the late 90’s, with one email from Jones saying to Mann that Briffa had with held “d*mning” criticism of Mann’s hockey stick. As late as 2006, there was even an email from Briffa to colleagues asking them not to let Mann “bully” them.
At some point in the timeline, that adversarial relationship stopped. Suddenly they closed ranks. Why? The CG2 emails even reveal Jones and Mann conspiring to get each other nominated for various awards. After warning Mann that he and Briffa think Mann’s work is bunk, suddenly they’re pals and Mann’s work is golden? Jones even admits that instead of disputing Mann’s work, he has instead adopted Mann’s “trick” to “hide the decline”.
One can’t help but get the impression that Briffa’s plea to others not to let themselves be bullied by Mann was not only ineffective, but that he wound up succumbing to the bullying himself. After all, Phil Jones was Briffa’s boss at the time (still is?) and given the sudden uber cozy relationship between his boss and Mann… did Briffa give in? And why this paper now? Keep in mind that it flies in the face Jones work as well given that he’s now essentially correlated his work with Mann’s.
The ClimateGate releases were inside jobs.
Things that make you go….hmmm.

Eliza
October 28, 2012 2:05 pm

Me thinks this is partly a “way out” for Briffa, so at least in future he is considered “partly” honest at least….Mann’s case will be destroyed by Steyn and a pandoras box will open..

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 2:09 pm

davidmhoffer says:

“Although ostensibly representative of northern Eurasian summer conditions, these data were later scaled using simple linear regression against a mean NH land series to provide estimates of summer temperature over the past 2 kyr (Briffa et al., 2004).”
IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch6 P471

Look at the sentence before that:

Briffa (2000) produced an extended history of interannual tree ring growth incorporating records from sites across northern Fennoscandia and northern Siberia, using a statistical technique to construct the tree ring chronologies that is capable of preserving multi-centennial time scale variability.

So no, that was not just Yamal being used to provide estimates for the Northern hemisphere…That was data from sites spread over northern Europe and Asia. And, the wording in the IPCC report (and, I might imagine in the paper if one looked it up, which I haven’t) implies that some circumspection is required in believing that even data from that larger region is really representative of NH summer temperatures.

Jan P Perlwitz
October 28, 2012 2:10 pm

Anthony Watts wrote:

Look at graph 5c, and you’ll see 20th century warmth matches peaks either side of the year 1000, and that for the TRW chronology 20th century warmth is less than the spike around 1750. This puts 20th century (up to 2006 actually) warmth in the category of just another blip. There’s hockey stick, and the MWP returns, though approximately equal to 20th century warmth rather than being warmer.

Mr. Watts, while you are presenting this new study by Melvin et al. as something that provides results which allegedly refute Mann’s hockey stick you do not tell your audience here that the temperature reconstruction shown in the graph, explicitly mentioned by you here, in the Melvin et al paper is done only for a region of Northern Scandinavia, unlike the temperature reconstruction in Mann et al., (1999), doi: 10.1029/1999GL900070, which was a reconstruction of the Northern Hemispheric temperature. You are not presenting the results of the Melvin et al. paper correctly and you are jumping to conclusions, which are not supported by the new Melvin et al. paper.
The Hockey Stick in Mann et al., (1999) does not preclude the possibility of the existence of a Medieval Warm Period, anyway. The shape of the Hockey stick in this paper is characterized by a long-term cooling trend from warmer Medieval times up to the end of the 19th century, which is followed by a sharp upward movement in the temperature in the 20th century (see Figure 3 in Mann et al., 1999). The Hockey stick in this paper doesn’t even preclude the possibility of a Medieval Warm Period with about equal temperatures as in the 20th century, since the 20th century average temperature still lies within the upper half of the error band of Mann’s Hockey Stick in the part of the reconstruction that covers the Medieval times.

October 28, 2012 2:10 pm

Steven Mosher says: October 28, 2012 at 1:04 pm
……
re: my comment above, see also vukcevic page 7, Fig. 12 : direct Arctic atmospheric pressure response no delay and http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/OJV.htm

John Trigge (in Oz)
October 28, 2012 2:11 pm

Does anyone other than me also see the large number of rapid temperature rises that are similar to the late 20th century rises attributed to CO2?

ColdOldMan
October 28, 2012 2:11 pm

joeldshore says: October 28, 2012 at 1:10 pm

However, citing a paper regarding a temperature record at one location as if it contradicts work regarding the entire hemispheric temperature record is just wrong, pure and simple.

Here are a few more from around the world. These should keep you happy for a while.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.html

October 28, 2012 2:24 pm

I actually have always thought that Briffa, and to a substantial extent Jones as well, have felt quite uncomfortable being considered members of “the hockey team” and having a lot of pressure not to speak their doubts and to toe the party line. There are a few comments in the climategate papers (and elsewhere) that have suggested annoyance at having their “scientific opinion” co-opted by some sort of group effort to defend Mann at all costs because the hockey stick was “the” official empirical basis of CAGW. They’ve also had a lot of pressure on them not to express their own doubts in public.
Yes, David, precisely the letters you refer to more exactly. Also wasn’t there a story about being on a talk show and having their “scientific opinion” defined by the talk show host, where any contrary evidence or guarded observations were edited out? This has been simmering for a LONG time.
Note well that Jones and Briffa’s early climate reconstructions clearly showed the MWP and were far less “hockey stick”-like than Mann’s. Then there was the climategate 1 communication from (was it Bradley?) stating quite clearly that the goal was to “erase the MWP” and the LIA, as with them in place no rational person could be brought to the requisite state of panic — it’s getting as warm as it was 1000 years ago WITHOUT anthropogenic CO_2 — so what’s the beef?
Good heavens. We could actually regress to where climate science is actually science again.
rgb

October 28, 2012 2:24 pm

Edim says:
October 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Considering there must be other, non-solar factors, the correlation between colder periods and periods of weak solar activity (minima) is significant and not controversial.
The sunspot number you show is very controversial, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future.pdf and http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
And the correlation is contradicted by the Figure in the article of this thread:
http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Briffa.png The green curve is solar activity deduced from cosmic ray proxies of the solar magnetic field as carried out to the Earth by the solar wind.

aquix
October 28, 2012 2:33 pm

My friends, I say it again. I believe briffa is FOIA.
Been a fun week reading all the comments 😀

Sundance
October 28, 2012 2:35 pm

Now I’m in real catch 22 trouble because no matter which dendro reconstruction I accept I will accused of being a denier by the the authors of the other dendro reconstruction.

October 28, 2012 2:38 pm

My personal opinion not worth much and based upon nothing other than I have grown a few things, is that tree-ring proxies are indicative of little other than hoe felicitous the local conditions were to the welfare of that particular stand of trees.
As for this study being local to Scandinavia all I know is that climatic, seasonal conditions, year on year are pretty similar from Siberia to the West coast of Ireland with Scandinavia & Siberia bearing the brunt of the low temperatures in winter but having pretty similar summers all over the area. It’s mild & temperate. And I’d say if that’s true of today there is no reason why it won’t be true of the past.
Certainly you can’t accept this as being a reconstruction for the whole of the Northern hemisphere but the more studies like this that can be done honestly perhaps the alarmists will stop trying to dismiss the MWP as fiction.
I welcome that Briffa has done this work though never thought I’d see the day.

philincalifornia
October 28, 2012 2:38 pm

Taking this at face value, what’s going on around 1760-ish ??

GlynnMhor
October 28, 2012 2:39 pm

Trees grow according to whichever environmental parameter is the limiting one. If there’s enough water, sunlight, and nutrients, then temperature may be the limiting factor, but if (for example) water is scarcer than normal and thus limits growth, the validity of the tree growth as a temperature proxy is going to fail.

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 2:46 pm

ColdOldMan say:

Here are a few more from around the world. These should keep you happy for a while.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.html

And, this addresses the issue of the synchronicity of the warm events in different locations during the broadly-defined several hundred year period called the Medieval Warm Period how exactly? Let’s take two of the data points from that map: Look at this one http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Rolland-2009.html showing it warm between about 1200 and the late 1300s but cold in the 1100s and about average before that. And, then there’s this one http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Grudd-2008.html showing it warm from ~900-1100 and then on the cold side side of average from about 1100 to 1400. That rather nicely illustrates exactly the point that Mann et al. were making: that the warm events tended to be asyncronis at different locations.
It also rather nicely illustrates how that site doesn’t bother to address the real scientific questions and hopes that people who want to believe what they are peddling won’t notice!

October 28, 2012 2:56 pm

I believe it is unfair to cast a stone to Briffa, Jones was his boss and it would have been very difficult for him to go against him and his colleagues, it would have been a social suicide, everybody cannot be Svensmark who passed through very tough time and resisted. The most important point is that he eventually wrote this paper and that the tide seems to change.

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 3:05 pm

D Boehm says:

Here is another chart showing the excellent temperature correlation between hemispheres. And another. And another. And another. And just for fun, here’s a chart showing a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature.
But going by past experience, Mr Contradiction will claim that all these charts are wrong. It’s his MO.

No…I will just point out that they are irrelevant given that the point-of-discussion is the synchronicity of warm events within the Northern Hemisphere on centennial time scales.

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 3:09 pm

zootcadillac says:

Certainly you can’t accept this as being a reconstruction for the whole of the Northern hemisphere but the more studies like this that can be done honestly perhaps the alarmists will stop trying to dismiss the MWP as fiction.

When you talk about “alarmists […] trying to dismiss the MWP as fiction” are you talking about, for example, when Mann et al. said in their original 1000-year reconstruction paper (1999) that

Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the
millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age sensu lato.

Or are you talking about something else? I agree that there seems to be an issue with fiction here.

Dan in Nevada
October 28, 2012 3:26 pm

John Trigge (in Oz) October 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm says:
“Does anyone other than me also see the large number of rapid temperature rises that are similar to the late 20th century rises attributed to CO2?”
To me, MXD from ~1000 to ~1100 looks a lot like ~1900 to ~2000 if you’re looking at both trends and actual temperatures. If the past can predict the future, what happens after ~1100 doesn’t bode well for humanity, other than putting CAGW to rest once and for all.

October 28, 2012 3:29 pm

Timing of 4 paleo papers suspicious to even the non-cynical.
In the month of October 2102 three papers published showing adverse results versus the AR3 and AR4 endorsed Hockey Stick papers by Mann.

Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/
Esper et al in the Journal of Global and Planetary Change. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/yet-another-paper-demonstrates-warmer-temperatures-1000-years-ago-and-even-2000-years-ago/
‘Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data’ by Thomas M Melvin, Håkan Grudd and Keith R Briffa in the the journal ‘Holocene’ http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/

The deadline for submission of papers for potential inclusion to AR5 was July 31 2012.
I assume they were not in the FOD or the SOD? If so is it because they were too late? Is there anecdotal evidence by those involved in authoring the papers of any unusual delays or unusual processes imposed by the journals wrt the reviews and acceptance of those papers that caused them to miss the AR5 deadline for paper submittal?
I contrast the above questions with the CA post on the problematic and unusual circumstances involved in the IPCC keeping the research of Gergis et al (that has results favorable to the results of Mann’s hockey stick papers which AR3 and AR4 endorsed) alive even though there is prima fascia evidence that it missed the July 31 deadline. http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/22/ipcc-check-kites-gergis/#more-17121
John

TBear
October 28, 2012 3:31 pm

Mann is suing for defamation.
Not sure the judge will care very much that Briffa, etc (or anyone else, for that matter) arrive at a different interpretation of the ancient temperature record.
Two scientists, two different results. So what?
The issue in the Mann case is the allegation of scientific fraud. NRO and Mark Steyn look more like the ones who have made a mistake here, especially by challenging Mann to sue. That little add-on was an unnecessary and potentially expensive indulgence.

richardscourtney
October 28, 2012 3:34 pm

GlynnMhor:
At October 28, 2012 at 2:39 pm you say

Trees grow according to whichever environmental parameter is the limiting one. If there’s enough water, sunlight, and nutrients, then temperature may be the limiting factor, but if (for example) water is scarcer than normal and thus limits growth, the validity of the tree growth as a temperature proxy is going to fail.

Yes. But that assumes the limiting factor is a constant throughout the life of the tree. For example, growth or death (with falling) of a nearby tree may alter available sunlight.
And, importantly, in the cases where temperature is the limiting factor then the tree only indicates temperature in the growing season. Altered autumn and winter temperatures will not be indicated.
Most important of all is the inability of selection to provide a valid calibration sample: Lucia gives an excellent explanation of this for non-statisticians at
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/
Richard

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 3:46 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Edim says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:37 pm
I see correlations.
Of course you do. True believers always do. For them, everything fits nicely, no matter what the data says.

Is that what the proxy data says after Mann has fiddled with it, or what the solar data says after you’ve fiddled with it Leif?
As I’ve told you before, so long as you don’t manage to iron the solar data completely flat, my model can cope with whatever watered down TSI changes you manage to convince the solar community with.

KnR
October 28, 2012 3:54 pm

How long before Briffa has to deny his heretical ways , Mann nether forgives for forgets any member if ‘the Team ‘ crosses him they better watch out.

October 28, 2012 3:58 pm

tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Is that what the solar data says after you’ve fiddled with it Leif?
It is Steinhilber’s reconstruction http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Briffa.png
And the treemometer data must be correct as they ‘fit nicely’ with your model, right?
my model can cope with whatever watered down TSI changes you manage to convince the solar community with.
Reminds me of Dikpati’s remark after Hathaway told her that the data she used [supplied by Hathaway] was faulty: “it doesn’t matter, my result is robust and is correct even if based on faulty, out-of-date data”. You two would get along nicely.

KnR
October 28, 2012 3:59 pm

TBear says:
‘Two scientists, two different results.’
That is actual part of defence , that Manns claims are up for ligament challenged and therefore it is reasonable to suggest he was wrong given there are conflicting views from the ‘experts ‘
Mann’s ego has never allowed that to be the case in the past, he regards himself to be a god like figure incapable of being wrong and and therefore from being fairly challenged.

October 28, 2012 4:10 pm

Tree growing season in a large part of England (the CET area) wasn’t much ‘fun’ for the last 350 years
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET(MJJA).htm

October 28, 2012 4:13 pm

CET tree growing season link
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET(MJJA).htm

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 4:18 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:58 pm
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Is that what the solar data says after you’ve fiddled with it Leif?
It is Steinhilber’s reconstruction http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Briffa.png
And the treemometer data must be correct as they ‘fit nicely’ with your model, right?

Steinhilber’s TSI fit’s quite well with Mann08 if you treat it in the same way as I do with my solar proxy for ocean heat content, as lgl demonstrated recently.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/steinhilber-tsi-mann08-temp.png

Bill Illis
October 28, 2012 4:20 pm

The difference in this study is that they just presented the data.
They did not “mine” the data for hockey sticks as almost all the other tree-ring/proxy reconstructions do.
As in throw data out if it does not have a hockey stick and even accentuate data if it does have a hockey stick (bristle-cone pines for example).
As in cut the data off and append a completely different series to it (adjusted temperatures).
This is a world of difference that has nothing to do with location but deals with methodology.
Even in the latest FOI releases related to the withdrawn Gergis paper, (see Climate Audit today) the authors note they did not want to use Mann’s method of using undetrended temperature to proxy correlations because this tends to construct “hockey sticks”.

davidmhoffer
October 28, 2012 4:21 pm

joeldshore;
So no, that was not just Yamal being used to provide estimates for the Northern hemisphere…That was data from sites spread over northern Europe and Asia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Joel, your orginal assertion reads as follows:
“I didn’t say this sample can be ignored. I just said it alone does not a global or hemispheric reconstruction make. Neither does Yamal. Can you show me where anyone has claimed it does?”
Your question as worded doesn’t refer to Yamal, it refers to “this sample”.

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 4:22 pm
commieBob
October 28, 2012 4:24 pm

joeldshore says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Ah…Isn’t this just a temperature reconstruction from one area …

Congratulations, you’re absolutely correct. It doesn’t prove much though. According to the historical record, the MWP and LIA happened at roughly the same time in Europe and China but the dramatic, history changing, decades long, epochs of warm and cold temperature happened at different times. In Europe the 1300s brought cold and famine. In China, Japan and Korea, the really bad stuff didn’t happen until the 1600s.
It blows my mind that so many people pay so much attention to Mann and Briffa. There is a huge number of studies that contradict Mann. http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/description.php
I was a CAGW believer until they tried to erase the MWP. So, you can credit Mann with creating at least one skeptic.

October 28, 2012 4:36 pm

tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Steinhilber’s TSI fit’s quite well with Mann08 if you treat it in the same way as I do with my solar proxy for ocean heat content
As you say, fiddle the right way and you can make anything fit.
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm
By The way Leif, have you seen Steinhilber’s latest paper?
Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.

Ian Innes
October 28, 2012 4:42 pm

Better one sinner repenteth!
I am very curious as to the timing of the release of this paper (obviously Mann wasn’t informed and this wasn’t done overnight0. I wonder what has been going on behind the scenes. As alluded to above, is Biffra trying to absolve himself or perhaps distance himself from the propaganda that has passed for scientific comment or was the poor man just led a merry dance by Mann et al?
Although it is very personnally satisfying to see one of the “opposition” distance themselves from the “Hockey Team” I doubt we will see the politicians or the BBC suddenly say “OK thats it no more windmills, were gonna cut your taxes and green surcharges”, they have far too much invested in this scare.
Until, ideally, one of the “opposition” stands up and publicly recants in a very noticable way it will be keep calm, wear you sunblock and buy a set of big wellie boots coz the ice caps are still metling, and carry on.

climatereason
Editor
October 28, 2012 4:49 pm

Tree rings have been over hyped as a conveyor of anything more than a rough guide to age and precipitation. What does a single study from one region showing a summer only signal prove? There were many hot summers even during parts of the lia. It was the cold winters that really dragged the overall temperatures down and tree rings couldn’t show that even if they were any sort of guide to summer temperatures.
Having said that there were around forty years at the start of the 18th century that seem broadly comparable to the modern day according to observational and crop records with very warm summers although still colder than now winters on the whole
Tonyb

climatereason
Editor
October 28, 2012 4:52 pm

Vuk
Your tree growing season link doesn’t work. Or were you testing us? Do I get a prize?
Tonyb

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 4:56 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Steinhilber’s TSI fit’s quite well with Mann08 if you treat it in the same way as I do with my solar proxy for ocean heat content
As you say, fiddle the right way and you can make anything fit.

Wiggle matching is such fun. The calibrations are starting to look good too.
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm
By The way Leif, have you seen Steinhilber’s latest paper?
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/
Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.

Well naturally, there is a status quo to defend after all. Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?

climatereason
Editor
October 28, 2012 4:58 pm
Bart
October 28, 2012 5:03 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm
“True believers always do. For them, everything fits nicely, no matter what the data says.”
And, similarly for True Disbelievers.
The amplitude modulation of temperatures is still incredibly obvious. Physician, heal thyself.

October 28, 2012 5:17 pm

climatereason says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Tree rings have been over hyped as a conveyor of anything more than a rough guide to age and precipitation. What does a single study from one region showing a summer only signal prove?
According to tallbloke the treemometer data ‘fit nicely’ with solar activity, so prove that the treemometer data are GOOD 🙂

October 28, 2012 5:19 pm

tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?
Why don’t you ask them?

October 28, 2012 5:21 pm

Bart says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:03 pm
The amplitude modulation of temperatures is still incredibly obvious
So you are saying that the treemometer data are incredibly good?

climatereason
Editor
October 28, 2012 5:25 pm

Leigh
We all have our own beliefs based on the knowledge we have accumulated. The other TB has his opinion and I have mine.
Sometime in the last twenty years tree rings were somehow elevated from a reasonable guide to dating and a less reliable guide to general precipitation and became supposedly highly accurate tree nometers. Perhaps the elevation to a precise science was done by mann and the ipcc perhaps it happended coincidentally. Whatever the background I don’t buy the supposed accuracy of the results
Tonyb

climatereason
Editor
October 28, 2012 5:26 pm

Leif
Sorry, my kindle transposed your name to ‘Leigh’. It’s a good name though, perhaps you’d consider changing?
Tonyb

October 28, 2012 5:33 pm

tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
“Well naturally, there is a status quo to defend after all. Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?”
I guess it was a journal whose editor thought that Leif Svalgaard is an expert in solar physics and sent the paper to him as a referee. The paper was rejected based on Leif’s biased arguments.
Then the authors sent the paper to another journal and the editor did not thought that Leif was an expert in the topic. And the paper was accepted without problems.
Numerous papers are coming out on this topic. I hope that Anthony realizes that Leif mislead him, and that planetary harmonics is key to understand both solar dynamics and climate change, as my papers strongly suggested.
By the way, a correlation between planetary harmonics and Steinhilber’s TSI was first noted in my paper:
Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.
And a possible physical mechanism is here
Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.

October 28, 2012 5:42 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:33 pm
The paper was rejected based on Leif’s biased arguments.
A case of sour grapes?
Regardless of who rejected the paper, there are almost always several referees, especially with high-quality journals.

Terry UK
October 28, 2012 5:43 pm

I’ve sent this to all BBC environmental correspondents. No replies as yet…

markx
October 28, 2012 5:44 pm

joeldshore says: October 28, 2012 at 12:02 pm
“…Isn’t this just a temperature reconstruction from one area,,,Northern Sweden? I don’t necessarily see any contradiction whatsoever with the work of Mann et al….”
If you look at Mann’s worldwide MWP reconstruction publications, you will see that it is (necessarily) based on modelling based on scattered paleoclimate proxies. In fact, in the southern hemisphere he only has about 6 proxies, and most of those were strangely warmer than the modelled surrounds. (see Fig 2, below)
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 5:47 pm

davidmhoffer says:

Your question as worded doesn’t refer to Yamal, it refers to “this sample”.

Well…I guess it is open to interpretation but I meant it to refer to Yamal.
Nonetheless, I don’t think it matters. The IPCC quote refers to Briffa work covering “sites across northern Fennoscandia and northern Siberia”. The current Briffa paper seems to refer only to “the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden”.

What Did I Tell You!?
October 28, 2012 5:50 pm

VERY well put Dan, because the d.e.f.i.n.i.t.i.o.n. of science is that it c.a.n. be r.e.p.l.i.c.a.t.e.d.
Till people are regularly replicating it, IT IS NOT SCIENCE. It never WAS, it NEVER WILL be.
“OK, so you’ve observed something. How do you know it is right? How do you know you observed it correctly? Or wrote it down correctly? Or there wasn’t something else happening that you didn’t notice (like someone bumped the table or something) that messed up your observation? Why, you just do it again. This is the second important part of science: replication. Do it again. If we observe something, and we describe what we did and other people can repeat our experiment and observe the same result, then we can conclude we’ve correctly observed what is true.
This is a big deal and it is the reason why scientists don’t care much about reports of ESP (Extra-Sensory Perception), mind reading and stuff like that. Not because they don’t like the people doing it, not because the people doing it aren’t smart, not because they don’t use big words, but because other people are unable to repeat the experiment and get the same result. It’s that simple. In science, if you can’t replicate it, then you don’t understand it. It isn’t science. Accidents and coincidences happen all the time. Nobel Prize-winner Richard Feynman said science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.
Once we can replicate an observation, we can propose a mechanism in nature that explains the observation (scientists call this kind of proposal a theory), or we can devise a mathematical relationship between parts of nature (a law). For our theory or law to be part of science, it must be able to predict a result of an experiment that has not yet been done. This is the third important part: prediction. If it can do this successfully, then it will be accepted. This is also important. If your explanation only explains what’s already been observed, then that’s OK, but not very convincing. Anyone can come up with an explanation for things they see. The really good ones explain what no one has seen yet.
So, these are three vital parts of science that we are discussing today: observation, replication and prediction.”
From a C.H.I.L.D.R.E.N’S. site on science.
These people who are running this ‘catastrophe! Catastrophe if you don’t invest HERE! and HERE!’ need to be in jail.
http://www.trimberger.org/programs/observe_replicate_predict.htm
This didn’t one day become crime recently, it’s been crime ever since Al Gore and others defied law enforcement to compare their political power
to his.

D Böehm
October 28, 2012 5:51 pm

joelshore says:
“…the point-of-discussion is the synchronicity of warm events within the Northern Hemisphere on centennial time scales.”
Not really. The point of discussion is your false claim that the MWP was not a global phenomenon. I and others have shown you that it was. The 2nd Law does not allow a major region to remain so anomalously cold or hot for hundreds of years as you sem to believe. The same goes for the LIA, which Mann ±90% erased.
Anyway, thanks for your assertion. I back my comments by posating empirical evidence, and lots of it. You just assert your opinion, or link to other model-based opinions. And do I have to point out once again that the planet does not agree with your “carbon” scare?

Jean Parisot
October 28, 2012 5:53 pm

son of mulder
At October 28, 2012 at 11:45 am you ask:
I still have no faith in tree rings as a proxy for global temperature. I think it’s a waste of money that could be better spent on real science. What sort of denier or sceptic does that make me?
Empirical scum!

October 28, 2012 5:56 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:42 pm
“Regardless of who rejected the paper, there are almost always several referees, especially with high-quality journals.”
Leif, if an editor send this type of papers to you, that means that the editor himself is biased on the topic. So, also the other referees were poor scientists unfamiliar and possible hostile on this topic.
By the way, my two accepted papers were refereed by 4 people plus the editor and everybody agreed that the papers had to be published and were free of errors.

markx
October 28, 2012 6:01 pm

More on Briffa – perhaps a decent chap, perhaps just trying to walk that fine line (maybe he just got swamped by the system):
From climategate emails:
cc: ???@unixg.ubc.ca (Steve Calvert), ???@ocean.seos.uvic.ca
date: Thu Aug 5 12:07:07 1999
from: Keith Briffa
subject: Re: Skeptics
to: Tom Pedersen , ???@climate1.geo.umass.edu
Temperature reconstructions based on ring density have an opposite bias – reduced density in recent years that may similarly be expressed to different degrees depending on the method of data processing and which would in any case suppress evidence of recent warming. This may or may not be associated directly with the effects of CO2 or other fertilization.
Our density reconstructions still show the 20th century to be anomalously warm in a several hundred year context , and perhaps much longer one.
The problem here is a genuine paucity of long series and statistical problems in processing and calibrating such data.
We need to and are, doing much more work to explore these……
I for one still believe that we are seeing the manifestation of greenhouse warming but I know the evidence presented to date leaves many questions still unanswered .
I too believe that solar variability is a potential forcing factor that has likely contributed to the variability of 19th and 20th century observations .
The extent of the effect surely requires much more model-based research.
Simply correlating Hoyt’s series against observations or reconstructed temperatures does not get us far.
I also believe we have major uncertainty surrounding global or hemispheric estimates of centennial or millennial reconstructions , and real problems with spacial patterns on long timescales.
Saying this does not make me an outlaw in the palaeo family – I hope! – just someone anxious to maintain our objectivity.
We should all resist the attempts of those who try to push us into the pro or anti greenhouse camps.
I think Hoyt’s comments betray someone who is perhaps lacking the degree of objectivity I had previously thought him to have.

October 28, 2012 6:04 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:56 pm
So, also the other referees were poor scientists unfamiliar and possible hostile on this topic.
I know that your definition of a poor scientist is one that is not enthusiastic about your papers…
By the way, my two accepted papers were refereed by 4 people plus the editor and everybody agreed that the papers had to be published and were free of errors.
If you try hard enough and long enough you eventually find a journal that will take your stuff.

October 28, 2012 6:06 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:56 pm
By the way, my two accepted papers were refereed by 4 people plus the editor and everybody agreed that the papers had to be published and were free of errors.
How many referees and editors were there on all yours papers that were rejected?

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 6:19 pm

D Boehm says:

joelshore says:
“…the point-of-discussion is the synchronicity of warm events within the Northern Hemisphere on centennial time scales.”
Not really. The point of discussion is your false claim that the MWP was not a global phenomenon.

Well then, I am sure you will have no trouble whatsoever pointing to the post where I made that assertion? Here’s a couple that might help you: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1126559 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1126537 …Or maybe not!

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 6:24 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:

By the way, my two accepted papers were refereed by 4 people plus the editor and everybody agreed that the papers had to be published and were free of errors.

That’s pretty impressive. Do they give a money-back guarantee? In the journals that I have published in or refereed for, there are no guarantees given or expected from referees as to whether the papers are free of errors. Certainly, the journals ask one to assess validity as best as one can and to find errors as well as one can but they certainly don’t expect referees to determine definitively if the paper is error-free.

wayne
October 28, 2012 6:31 pm

OMG!!
Leif: “I only try to make sure that the solar data is correct”
Says it all..

Bill Yarber
October 28, 2012 6:36 pm

Figure 5c shows a spike in approx 1750, which is reported to be the coldest part of the LIA. Historical records from England suggest they were skating on the Thames during many winters from early 1700’s to 1830.
So why the spike then? What am I missing?

D Böehm
October 28, 2012 6:40 pm

joelshore,
You are an apologist for Michael Mann. But if your position now is that there was a global MWP and a global LIA, post it here.

S. Geiger
October 28, 2012 6:45 pm

Dr. Svalgaard – I have no idea which of you two represent more of the ‘mainstream’ in your area of expertise, however, the argument of “which journal published your paper” is on pretty thin ice in these circles. I know its way OT (and likely over all of our heads), but these types of arguments should consist of facts and dialog, not mere argument by journal association.

davidmhoffer
October 28, 2012 6:56 pm

joeldshore;
Nonetheless, I don’t think it matters. The IPCC quote refers to Briffa work covering “sites across northern Fennoscandia and northern Siberia”. The current Briffa paper seems to refer only to “the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suppose we’re splitting hairs at this point. My understanding is that this data series is a subset of the ones you refer to, which in turn were cited by the IPCC as a proxy for NH temps, just as I pointed out. Now when we consider the larger data set being referenced by the IPCC, in the context of this paper, that statement by the IPCC becomes highly questionable on several grounds.
1. This work shows that the techniques employed in Briffa 2002 and 2004 need to be corrected across the board. In other words, if this paper is correct, then all the other data series in the Fennoscandia and northern Siberia series also need to be corrected. Which in turn means that they will no longer be correlated to the temperature record for the NH and so the IPCC conclusion must be discarded. Or….
2. If none of the other data series need to be corrected (only this one) the effect would be that the Fennoscandia series with the corrected data would no longer correlate to northern Siberia, meaning that the two areas are not sychronised. Since their being synchronised was a large part of the argument that they represented NH temps, this IPCC conclusion would have to be discarded in this case also.
Either way, Briffa et al 2012 pretty much falsifies 2002, 2004, and the IPCC conclusion.

October 28, 2012 6:56 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Why don’t you ask them?
===========
Surely suggesting a scientist’s paper has “been rejected by other journals” is not something nice to say, especially if it may not be true. So why say it if you did not know it for a fact at the time?
If you have played fast and lose with the facts in this case, why should anyone expect that you would not do the same in other cases? How do we know that you will not simply be talking through your hat?

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 6:57 pm

D Boehm says:

You are an apologist for Michael Mann. But if your position now is that there was a global MWP and a global LIA, post it here.

As I’ve pointed out ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1126559 ), that is the position of Mann, at least as of his 1999 paper…and I don’t have any reason to believe that he has changed it.
However, it was also his opinion that the Northern hemisphere warmth overall was not as great as in current times and, as I have explained, this seems to be not so much based on any claim that there weren’t areas…maybe even lots of areas…that saw warmth comparable to current warmth sometime during the several hundred year period broadly defined as the MWP. Rather, it is because the warmth in these different regions was not synchronous, which means that when you average over the whole hemisphere, you get a broad, diffuse bump rather than the more dramatic spike we get over the past several decades when most places have warmed with a large degree of synchronicity. This lack of synchronicity was in fact well illustrated by looking at two examples of evidences for the MWP that ColdOldMan linked to: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1126537
That is the very site that claims to be refuting Mann’s claim and yet it gives support for Mann’s argument…Go figure!

kuhnkat
October 28, 2012 7:01 pm

Leif Svalgaard opines,
“But, for true believers, cheery picking always works their way. One way out is to claim that tree-ring data is nonsense, but that also makes nonsense that there was a ‘decline’ to hide.”
Sorry Leif, it wasn’t us who created a dendro series that had a decline that had to be hidden so the series could be used in alarmist literature. Steve, Anthony and others simply pointed out this sad happenstance. There was a decline in THEIR series and they hid it. Are you becoming a DENIER??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

October 28, 2012 7:02 pm

S. Geiger says:
October 28, 2012 at 6:45 pm
but these types of arguments should consist of facts and dialog, not mere argument by journal association
Few facts and even less dialog have been brought to bear on this [and would have been OT anyway], but the journal issue is important as different journals have different ‘impact factors’ [often related to the quality of their peer-review process – although some will consider peer-review as mere gate keeping], so authors often ‘walk down the list’ until a friendly journal is found. Of course, in this agenda driven discussion, reason falls by the wayside and discussion eventually degenerates into ad-hom attacks, to wit the various remarks about persons’ expertise and bias, etc.

John
October 28, 2012 7:02 pm

This is excellent new research. Keep in mind that this new work reflects a temperature record for Northern Sweden. Clearly these findings have implications for the results of Mann and Bradley and colleagues, when substituted for the Tornetrask data Mann now uses (as well as fixing the other issues, as Steve McIntyre has so ceaselessly and painstakingly pointed out).
But I wouldn’t go as far as Leif Svalgaard and throw out the solar grand minimum and grand maximum calculations, at least not yet. Because the solar correlations are for temperatures worldwide, not just in Northern Sweden, it seems to me.

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 7:06 pm

davidmhoffer says:

Now when we consider the larger data set being referenced by the IPCC, in the context of this paper, that statement by the IPCC becomes highly questionable on several grounds.

Either way, Briffa et al 2012 pretty much falsifies 2002, 2004, and the IPCC conclusion.

I think that you are making a lot of assumptions here in regards to how significant the Briffa 2012 result turns out to be. At best, it raise some questions about that earlier work; it does not falsify it.
Also, when you refer to the “IPCC conclusion”, you are referring, as near as I can tell, to one sentence of the IPCC report, which reports what Briffa et al. did but does not seem to offer a strong opinion one way or the other as to whether Briffa et al. are likely correct in their notion that this region can tell us a lot about the whole Northern hemisphere temperature record.

October 28, 2012 7:06 pm

ferd berple says:
October 28, 2012 at 6:56 pm
How do we know that you will not simply be talking through your hat?
Because I simply do not do that. A Danish proverb says that “a thief thinks everybody steals”. Perhaps that is applicable to your suggestion.

What Did I Tell You!?
October 28, 2012 7:10 pm

joeldshore says:
October 28, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Nicola Scafetta says:
By the way, my two accepted papers were refereed by 4 people plus the editor and everybody agreed that the papers had to be published and were free of errors.
That’s pretty impressive. Do they give a money-back guarantee? In the journals that I have published in or refereed for, there are no guarantees given or expected from referees as to whether the papers are free of errors. Certainly, the journals ask one to assess validity as best as one can and to find errors as well as one can but they certainly don’t expect referees to determine definitively if the paper is error-free.
– – – – –
That’s EXACTLY what they are supposed to be expected to determine. Many fields have revision rates one FIFTH that of the climatology religion.
The religion where physicists claim they can’t think of a way to check rise of gas-relevant spectra (heat) in the atmosphere. Thay dont no no waye two.
You’re an intellectual invalid who claims on an international forum for atmospheric and earth based electromagnetic energy,
you don’t believe there’s a way for mankind to check whether there is a rise in gas-specific spectra of LIGHT
in the atmosphere.

What Did I Tell You!?
October 28, 2012 7:12 pm

And that therefore we must assume there IS, and use a fabrication called ‘precautionary principle’ to dismantle civilization’s infrastructure. No matter what the cost. Because if we don’t install Al Gore’s policies in spite of the election, we could all die.

TimTheToolMan
October 28, 2012 7:13 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says: assorted stuff implying Melvin is not useful whereas Mann is useful.
Come on Jan, neither is representative of global temperatures. Or even Northern Hemisphere temperatures for that matter. Whats the point of saying one is better than the other, especially when the one you prefer was authored by a man who is known to be biased towards confirming AGW.
The Melvin study is another piece in the puzzle. Nothing more. There was a time when AGW believers would argue there were no conflicting papers to AGW but you dont hear that as often anymore do you.

October 28, 2012 7:14 pm

kuhnkat says:
October 28, 2012 at 7:01 pm
There was a decline in THEIR series and they hid it.
The data shown in the paper under discussion does not show a decline, so I don’t know what your point is, if any.
John says:
October 28, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Because the solar correlations are for temperatures worldwide, not just in Northern Sweden, it seems to me.
Yet, people take the temperatures presented for Northern Sweden as confirmation of the global MWP/LIA…

What Did I Tell You!?
October 28, 2012 7:18 pm

Thank yew perfesser borehole, for that scintillating outlook on sientz and sients refurEEying.

Chuck Nolan
October 28, 2012 7:21 pm

theduke says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:28 am
I can hear Rosanne Rosannadanna now: “Never mind.”
———-
I think that was Emily sombody. Gilda would get on the news with Chevy or Jane and go on a rant then the host would correct her misunderstanding and she’d it.
Can’t remember her last name though and maybe I’m wrong about the whole thing.
Been a long long time.
cn

D Böehm
October 28, 2012 7:32 pm

joelshore says:
“That is the very site that claims to be refuting Mann’s claim and yet it gives support for Mann’s argument…”
Well, the interactive chart certainly doesn’t give very much support to Mann’s position. Most of the items show a global MWP. Not all, but most. I’ve posted that chart at least a half dozen times, and commentators generally agree that it shows a global MWP. It just so happens that you and Mann are not part of the MWP consensus. ☺
But then, you never were part of the true CAGW consensus.

What Did I Tell You!?
October 28, 2012 7:41 pm

joeldshore says:
October 28, 2012 at 2:46 pm
“It also rather nicely illustrates how that site doesn’t bother to address the real scientific questions and hopes that people who want to believe what they are peddling won’t notice! ”
What your very words illustrate is you take seriously the work of a man who thought he invented a whole field of math along with his colleagues, incorporating statistics so poorly written they were giving up hockey sticks to his colleagues, to people on the internet, and the man who wrote them claims we need to know there could be a catastrophe but that his work’s private so we’ll never know for sure because he might need to make use of that intellectual property in some way of his own, down the road.
What your words illustrate is that you believe there is no way to check for magical properties of a gas in the atmosphere – whether it follows the hockey stuhtistic analysis.
What your words illustrate is that you believe there might be some legitimacy to an operation wherein physicists repeatedly cry in public that they don’t think there’s a way to check for infrared spectra associated with a gas in the atmosphere.
What your words illustrate is you’re a pseudo-science hick.
Posing.
On the internet no less.
Not just in some university somewhere.

October 28, 2012 7:43 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 6:06 pm
“How many referees and editors were there on all yours papers that were rejected?”
Technically speaking, my accepted papers were never rejected. Also if a previous version might have been rejected by a journal, the accepted version has always been a revision.
See, Leif, your way of reasoning, which is filled of logical fallacies, demonstrates only your personal deep rancor toward everybody with whom you disagree. Essentially, you do not have scientific arguments, and use defamation and insinuations. Do not worry, more and more people are realizing who you really are.

October 28, 2012 7:51 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 28, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Technically speaking, my accepted papers were never rejected. Also if a previous version might have been rejected by a journal, the accepted version has always been a revision.
So papers were rejected by one journal and after revision and submission to a lesser journal were finally accepted. How many referees and editors had rejected the papers the first time around?
Do not worry, more and more people are realizing who you really are.
And helped to that realization by a benevolent Scafetta telling them what to realize…

What Did I Tell You!?
October 28, 2012 7:55 pm

You carbon dioxide zombies all sound the same. Like tobacco executives.
“Please raise your right hand….proceed.”
“I buhleev thair is uh.. MAGICAL GAS that… CAINT HAVE IT’S SPECTRAL PROFILE in thuh.. AT-MUS’-FEAR checked, and that the MAGICAL GAS might only be LOOKABLE AT with uh… HOCKIE STICK statistic that MAKES HOCKEY STICKS but is REAL MATH.”

RoHa
October 28, 2012 8:05 pm

Time for a bit of discussion of these two. (Reported by Hockey Schtick.)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL053265.shtml
How may low-cloud radiative properties simulated in the current climate influence low-cloud feedbacks under global warming?
” it is suggested that the strength of the tropical low-cloud feedback predicted by the IPSL-CM5A model in climate projections might be overestimated by about fifty percent. ” (Abstract)
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.html
Atmospheric impacts on climatic variability of surface incident solar radiation
A new paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds from direct measurements that there was a significant increase in solar radiation at the surface of the Northern Hemisphere from 1982 to 2008.
“A new paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds from direct measurements that there was a significant increase in solar radiation at the surface of the Northern Hemisphere from 1982 to 2008. ” (Hockey schtick – http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au)

October 28, 2012 8:25 pm

joeldshore “than the more dramatic spike we get over the past several decades when most places have warmed with a large degree of synchronicity.”
Except for the 30% of the world that has cooled. And the large number of airports etc whose only warming is UHI.
Remember, the post 1980 warming may all be about clean air legislation removing a large amount of SO2 from the atmosphere.
However, since proxies are not thermometers and thermometers are not proxies, why not compare proxies to proxies?
Looking at the modern proxy record in the above graph, 1934, 1960 and 1980 are as warm as 2002 and all are a lot warmer than 1998.
1934ish in the graphs appears to be the warmest year in both proxies. By far.
Do you agree?

October 28, 2012 8:34 pm
October 28, 2012 8:44 pm

sunshinehours1 says:
October 28, 2012 at 8:34 pm
1934ish is really 1936 now that I’ve looked at it closer.
Perhaps you are overlooking 2003 or so…

MikeN
October 28, 2012 8:56 pm

The existence of a Medieval Warm Period makes warming more likely. Mann has said that the localized MWP meant that their was a negative modulating effect in the tropics, which was LaNina like, and suggested similar thing in response to global warming. When asked if this meant climate models vastly overstate warming, he said ‘I agree with that.’ Having a global Medieval Warm Period frees Mann from having to support the idea that climate models vastly overstate warming.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 28, 2012 9:08 pm

Please, could someone tell me which TSI values should be used? WoodForTrees uses “PMOD composite TSI monthly average”:
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1979/mean:13/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/mean:13/normalise
If the cycles of that are supposed to somehow match the cycles in temperature, I sure don’t see it.
NOAA provides three different updating sets:

1.) Composite Total Solar Irradiance database 1978-present, compiled by C. Frohlich and J. Lean
2.) ACRIM Composite TSI Time Series 1978-present, compiled by R. Willson
3.) SORCE (Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment) 2003-present, compiled by G. Rottman

The Frohlich and Lean version incorporates the ACRIM data. The World Radiation Center is referenced, the start years match, leading me to believe this might be the “PMOD composite” WFT uses. The “readme” at the address given by WFT also references Frohlich and Lean.
However, with further looking, I find the F&L database accessible from NOAA has nothing newer than 2003.
NOAA says to check the ACRIM site for up-to-date info, where I can’t find anything newer than November 2011.
And I can’t find the file WFT says it uses where it said it got it from. And March 2011 is the newest data WFT has.
On the WUWT Solar Reference page, SOURCE is referenced (with the erroneous extra “U”), but that dataset only goes from 2003. Although I could try my luck with their annual Historical TSI Reconstruction which starts at 1610. (Does the xxxx.5 indicate it’s the center of that year, or it goes from July that year to end of June next year, or what?)
Dr. Svalgaard provides a link to the PMOD data, but that file is no longer there. This file looks like the most current one, ends at July 3, 2012.
(Note to Leif: PMOD link on your Download data page has an extra slash on the end.)
So which TSI values should be used, and where do I get them?

Dan in Nevada
October 28, 2012 9:49 pm

Leif and Nicola,
How old are you guys anyway? Except for the big words, I’d guess maybe three. I’m totally aware that you both out-doctorate someone like me, but you’re not giving ‘credentialism’ a good name. I look to people of your caliber to shine some light on what is often a murky subject. Today you disappoint.

October 28, 2012 10:39 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 28, 2012 at 9:08 pm
So which TSI values should be used, and where do I get them?
Last year it was finally officially realized that PMOD has uncorrected degradation so that the values have an artificial downward trend and that there is no observational evidence that the minima are different: Slides 31 and 33 of http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf “Observed data do not support a measureable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008”
Something I have shown some time ago, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf which the observers have finally agreed to.
If you want my best guess [based on the reconstructed sunspot number] you can get it here:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Guess.xls
The values for the Maunder Minimum are, of course, pure speculation.

October 28, 2012 10:52 pm

fact alert.
this paper has little bearing on manns work.
its a seasonal recon.
its a local recon.
for folks who follow rcs and modern tree bias its an important piece.
a number of studies should recalc their results.
the mwp will still be unclear

October 28, 2012 10:55 pm

Leif: “Perhaps you are overlooking 2003 or so…”
If it was 2003, they wouldn’t have cut the top of the graph off. Therefore, logically it has to be 1936.

October 28, 2012 10:56 pm

Mosher: “its a seasonal recon”
Do trees grow much in the winter?

Sunspot
October 28, 2012 10:59 pm

Vukcevic is the only one that got anywhere near predicting SC24’s max before it started. The other so called experts failed miserably. To me, anyone that charts the history of a SC and then predicts what next month’s SSN will be, will get a job at the weather bureau. Just like any other Joe Blow.

October 28, 2012 10:59 pm

Dan in Nevada says:
October 28, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Today you disappoint
Sadly true. Even responding to Nicola drags one down. But try to ignore the silly accusations and characterizations, perhaps there is something of value left when you strip off the noise.

October 28, 2012 11:06 pm

sunshinehours1 says:
October 28, 2012 at 10:55 pm
If it was 2003, they wouldn’t have cut the top of the graph off. Therefore, logically it has to be 1936.
I fail to see the ‘logic’. The top is cut off, so you can’t tell if it was 1936 or 2003.

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 11:37 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/
Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?
Why don’t you ask them?

Because I’m asking you, to find out if you are being truthful. Further evasiveness won’t look good for you. You claimed their paper was rejected by other journals, as a way of attacking them. Which journals?
Astronomy and Astrophysics isn’t such a bad journal to be publishing in anyway. At least they haven’t locked the paper behind a paywall, so anyone can download it and decide for themselves how good it is by clicking the link on my blog.

October 28, 2012 11:40 pm

I see that the fake skeptics here didnt have the sense to check the ar5 deadlines. I see that nobody suggested fact chking tallbloke.
let me help you with retorts. you can always try manns tactic and attack the messenger
you can say it doesnt matter.
you can use any manner of tactics you picked up from mann and jones.

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 11:41 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:17 pm
According to tallbloke the treemometer data ‘fit nicely’ with solar activity, so prove that the treemometer data are GOOD 🙂

This is what I said about treemometers:
“I think there may be a link of sorts between temperature and tree ring width, mostly mediated by changes in rainfall and the temperature dependency of co2.
So, pretty tenuous. I trust Loehle’s non-tree-ring temperature proxy more.”

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 11:44 pm

Steven Mosher says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:40 pm
I see that the fake skeptics here didnt have the sense to check the ar5 deadlines. I see that nobody suggested fact chking tallbloke.

Submitting before the deadline didn’t work out for Gergis et al though. Doesn’t the paper have to be ‘accepted’ by the Journal before the deadline too?

October 28, 2012 11:50 pm

tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Because I’m asking you, to find out if you are being truthful.
That should be your default assumption. The Danish proverb “a thief thinks everybody steals” comes to mind…

October 28, 2012 11:52 pm

tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:41 pm
This is what I said about treemometers: […] So, pretty tenuous.
Yet you claim that they ‘fit nicely’ with your model. Nice confirmation bias there, or perhaps just ‘forked tongue’.

October 29, 2012 12:00 am

sunshinehours1 says: ”Admittedly the cold started around 1600, warmed a bit and then made a big dip back to 8C. But it was cold. Very cold”
At what month and date the cold started in 1600? .What brand of thermometers did you use at that time? Do you have data for every day and.month for Australia, New Zealand, Antarctic; it was 170years before James Cook discovered those lands – how did you get there before him – or maybe those lands are not on your planet…? How about the daily temp of Pacific; Pacific is as large as all the dry land on the planet, is it in your calculation? How about learning some reality about the past phony GLOBAL warmings – because they were NEVER global.!!!
http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/

Mooloo
October 29, 2012 12:17 am

Mann has said that the localized MWP meant that their was a negative modulating effect in the tropics, which was LaNina like, and suggested similar thing in response to global warming.
That’s some powerful handwavium he’s got there. Rather like Trenberth’s heat locked up in the oceans; and the magic effect of aerosols; and the way polar amplification is not going to affect Antarctica as much after all, and …
It’s all post hoc ergo propter hoc of the worst sort. “Just so” reasoning that would be laughed at if an undergraduate produced it, but is apparently de rigueur in the world of climate science.
The simplest explanation, which Mann will never admit, is that the MWP wasn’t localised at all.

October 29, 2012 12:17 am

Leif Svalgaard says: ”The Danish proverb “a thief thinks everybody steals” comes to mind”
Is that why tallbloke thinks that everybody lies?…

Roger
October 29, 2012 12:18 am

I recall Briffa saying at the height of the Yamal Hoo Ha that he was still working on a “robust’ methodology and that ” time would tell” whether he was right or not (something like that).
Strikes me as an honest bloke trying to get it right.

tallbloke
October 29, 2012 12:24 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:33 pm
By the way, a correlation between planetary harmonics and Steinhilber’s TSI was first noted in my paper:
Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.
Hi Nicola, it’s an excellent paper and I’m really delighted you got it got published in such a prestigious Journal as JASTP.
Just for the record, outside the literature, the correlation between planetary harmonics and Steinhilber’s TSI was first noted at the talkshop in July last year by Tim Channon in this comment,
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/tallbloke-and-tim-channon-a-cycles-analysis-approach-to-predicting-solar-activity/#comment-5019 when he published this plot of his model using planetary harmonic frequencies: http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/sbf-tsi-a.png
He then confirmed it was linked to the Sun’s motion at the talkshop in July 2011
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/the-luxembourg-effect/
The key frequencies were found by Bart in his maximum entropy method study of the spectra of sunspot numbers, when he created a model of solar activity here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/bart-modeling-the-historical-sunspot-record-from-planetary-periods/
Which I then followed up with my analysis of these key planetary frequencies in August 2011 here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/
I appreciate you linking to my blog in two of your previous non-journal-submitted publications and I’m grateful that you have acknowledged our contribution to this field of study.
Cheers
TB

October 29, 2012 12:28 am

richardscourtney says: ” For example, growth or death (with falling) of a nearby tree may alter available sunlight.”
And if it doesn’t, can the tree in your backyard tell about the temp on Midway / Pacific? Two trees 10feet apart, have different tree rings, 2] Agronomist and lumberjack can tell you that: the thickness of the rings on an individual tree depend on 101 different effects. Agronomist and lumberjacks work for leaving / climatologist use tree-rings; because they con for leaving
The trees are lying Richo, same like you. The ”tree-rings theory” should be shoved up the Mann’s ring!!!

October 29, 2012 12:30 am

Once more
CET- tree growing season (May-August)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-MJJA.htm

tallbloke
October 29, 2012 12:35 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:50 pm
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Because I’m asking you, to find out if you are being truthful.
That should be your default assumption. The Danish proverb “a thief thinks everybody steals” comes to mind…

Leif, you made an assertion about the paper written by these scientists
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/
You said:
“Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.”
I think it’s in your own interests to substantiate your comment, because otherwise, it makes you look like you’re just slandering Abreu and Steinhilber et al on the basis of nothing at all except your own prejudice against the field of study they have written the paper around.
So, before I ask Abreu and Steinhilber if there is any truth in your comment, which journals rejected their paper that you know of? If you don’t know of any, and you were just making it up, now is the time to say so.

MattA
October 29, 2012 12:40 am

Maybe all this shows is that trees are horrible thermometers 🙂

Espen
October 29, 2012 12:41 am

I notice that the reconstruction takes a big dip in the last half of the 16th century. That fits very well with historic records for Europe, where 1540 was possibly the warmest summer of the millennium – warmer than CAGW poster child 2003 – but where the last decades of that century had severely cold weather.

October 29, 2012 12:49 am

tallbloke says:
October 29, 2012 at 12:35 am
If you don’t know of any, and you were just making it up, now is the time to say so.
Talking about slander….

P. Solar
October 29, 2012 12:52 am

“Look at graph 5c, and you’ll see 20th century warmth matches peaks either side of the year 1000”
You don’t need to go back 1000y, Just look at late 19th c. Just as warm as present.
This warm period was suppressed by Hadley “bias corrections” which removed two thirds of the inconvenient downward trend.
This plot shows Met Office Hadely adjustments remove about 0.3 C from the downward trend between 1860 and 1920.
http://i44.tinypic.com/149o081.png
Also note the 0.1 C offset in the AMO plot which aligns the two data sets thereafter. This again points out a glitch in the “bias corrections” . This was the point at which Hadley changes from one correction adjustment to another.
All these “corrections” are largely guesswork in terms of duration, timing and magnitude of the effects. Hadley’s John Kennedy agreed that they were based on hypothesis. He explains the adjustments of this period here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2/#comment-186646

tallbloke
October 29, 2012 1:01 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:52 pm
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:41 pm
This is what I said about treemometers: […] So, pretty tenuous.
Yet you claim that they ‘fit nicely’ with your model. Nice confirmation bias there, or perhaps just ‘forked tongue’.

My model is calibrated nicely against thermometer measured SST’s back to 1850, not tree rings.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/sst-model1.png
Before then, there is little to go on apart from the proxy reconstructions. Of which Mann’s reconstruction is but one. As I pointed out, lgl’s use of the same method I developed for using TSI or SSN as a proxy for ocean heat content also fits Steinhilber’s TSI reconstruction quite well to the Mann08 temperature reconstruction.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/steinhilber-tsi-mann08-temp.png

P. Solar
October 29, 2012 1:15 am

P. Solar says: “You don’t need to go back 1000y, Just look at late 19th c. Just as warm as present. ”
oops, I misread the dates, peak that was as warm as current period was late 18th c. , not late 19th (which was close but less warm than today.)

tallbloke
October 29, 2012 1:21 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 29, 2012 at 12:49 am
tallbloke says:
October 29, 2012 at 12:35 am
If you don’t know of any, and you were just making it up, now is the time to say so.
Talking about slander….

Talk about BS. See the use of the conditional in my statement there Leif? So, you are unable or unwilling to back up your slanderous accusation with any checkable facts. No matter, I’ll ask Abreu and Steinhilber, and then we’ll find out the truth about your comment on their paper: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/ When you said:
“after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.”
Whatever the truth of the matter, Astronomy and Astrophysics is a pretty big and important journal, so if ‘Nature’ or ‘Science’s editors did reject it without review, with or without your knowledge, it doesn’t matter much. Science moves on, with or without reviewers such as yourself. Most of the people here have seen just how biased the journals you review for are anyway.
Nature didn’t publish any solar papers for five years between 2005-2010.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/sun-rediscovered-by-nature/

Jimbo
October 29, 2012 1:31 am

joeldshore,
browse through some of these references to papers showing the Medieval Warm Period in many parts of the southern hemisphere such as Antarctica, southern Africa, South America, Australia, New Zealand.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Here is a handy map
http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html

Wellington
October 29, 2012 1:51 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Why don’t you ask them?

Since you chose to bring it up why not ask you?

Jack
October 29, 2012 2:12 am

More and more it’s looking like Briffa was the leak behind the Climategate emails. Probably he didn’t like being bullied by Mann and is now geting his revenge, aka playing the long game.

M Courtney
October 29, 2012 2:14 am

Trees as thermometers still seem to be worthless, in my opinion. If temperature limits growth then it may tell you something but it’s impossible to tell if that’s true.
Additional soil nutrients may alter the limiting factor.
Any study that doesn’t understand ursine foecal behaviours in arboreal environments lacks a certain common sense.
More interesting is that we have here another slpit between the UK and US wings of the climate Team.

Jan P Perlwitz
October 29, 2012 2:17 am

TimTheToolMan wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1126841
in reply to my comment in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1126477

Jan P Perlwitz says: assorted stuff implying Melvin is not useful whereas Mann is useful.

I didn’t say or imply anything like what you assert here. You are reading something into my comment that isn’t in there.

Come on Jan, neither is representative of global temperatures. Or even Northern Hemisphere temperatures for that matter. Whats the point of saying one is better than the other, especially when the one you prefer was authored by a man who is known to be biased towards confirming AGW.

What is the point of a straw man argument? You aren’t replying here to anything I said. You are replying to something else.
Besides that, pointing to an alleged bias of Mann as an argument against the Mann et al., (1999) study, is a logical fallacy. It’s an ad hominem argument. You can’t logically or empirically refute the results of a scientific study, of any scientific study, by applying ad hominem arguments against the authors of the study.

The Melvin study is another piece in the puzzle. Nothing more. There was a time when AGW believers would argue there were no conflicting papers to AGW but you dont hear that as often anymore do you.

To the contrary. Sets of statements that are generally accepted among climate scientists today, with the exception of a small minority, as a valid explanation regarding the diagnostic and the attribution of the global warming that is happening, were much more controversial in the field, let’s say 20 years ago, since there has been an accumulation of more and more scientific evidence in support of those statements over the time period from back then to today.

Josualdo
October 29, 2012 2:47 am

AlanG says: October 28, 2012 at 11:26 am
But. But. If I want my trees to grow more I water them. Why this dendrothermometry?

Well, there you are.

richardscourtney
October 29, 2012 2:54 am

Jan P Perlw1tz:
At October 29, 2012 at 2:17 am you assert

To the contrary. Sets of statements that are generally accepted among climate scientists today, with the exception of a small minority, as a valid explanation regarding the diagnostic and the attribution of the global warming that is happening, were much more controversial in the field, let’s say 20 years ago, since there has been an accumulation of more and more scientific evidence in support of those statements over the time period from back then to today.

So what?
What a self-defined group of ‘climate scientists’ think is not the subject under debate.
The issue of this thread concerns what the recent Briffa paper indicates concerning the validity of treemometer studies and what they indicate. At very least the Briffa paper adds to the falsification of the MBH ‘hockey stick’.
And the MBH ‘hockey stick’ was debatable from the start. Indeed, within a week of the publication of MBH98 I was questioning the validity of splicing different data sets (and I then did not know of “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”. Since then the studies of M&M, Wegman and North have all trashed it because MBH used invalid statistical procedures. Briffa’s paper is merely another nail in the coffin of the MBH ‘hockey stick’.
However, the Briffa paper may also be ‘bad science’ because it relies upon treemometers, too. As I said of treemometry in my post at October 28, 2012 at 3:34 pm

that assumes the limiting factor is a constant throughout the life of the tree. For example, growth or death (with falling) of a nearby tree may alter available sunlight.
And, importantly, in the cases where temperature is the limiting factor then the tree only indicates temperature in the growing season. Altered autumn and winter temperatures will not be indicated.
Most important of all is the inability of selection to provide a valid calibration sample: Lucia gives an excellent explanation of this for non-statisticians at
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/

The total data of Briffa’s convenience sample (n.b. not a random sample) may provide an apparent calibration. However, using that appearance as an indication of a calibration period would only be another example of mistaking correlation for causation (which seems to be a favoured error of the self-defined group of ‘climate scientists’).
An important consideration in this thread (and for the Mann trial) is whether use of improper assumptions in statistical analyses of treemometer studies is deliberate ‘bad science’ or is merely incompetence. In either case, as you say, it has been supported by the 75 people whom you have repeatedly claimed are 97% of ‘climate scientists’.
Richard

Simon
October 29, 2012 2:58 am

Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?

cedarhill
October 29, 2012 3:39 am

Inside the mind of the Climate Gang can be torturous at times. However, given what some might call a mountain of evidence, the CG needs to accomplish:
1. avoid being a skeptic ref. the mountain and acknowledge the mountain exists
2. avoid the charge of just simply lying
3. toss a bone to Mann so that he can claim it was the data and if the data is revised, hey! science. obtw, please pay me.
The Mann Method has been disproven for about a decade (ref. McIntrye’s work along with the furious defense by the CG. Evidently, as with all things science, facts do emerge which overwhelm computer models and “adjustments”. Sort of like a slow motion Piltdown Man discovery. Since you cant make facts conform to the model and the model seems to be incapable of conforming to the facts, the answer is obvious. Reestablish yourself as the purveyor of the facts and tweak the models and produce a host of new theories for the opposition to unravel – all the while continually pushing, full bore, your agenda.
In other words, muddy the water. The non-CG folks will go about sifting and filtiering and eventually “clean up” things but the CO2 will conintue to be slayed.
Regarding the libel suit(s) of Mann: The ploy will be to blame the data. He can now attempt to use the latest foray by Briffa, et al, to his benefit. It might be an excuse to withdraw gracefully from the suit(s) or at least change tactics. It might give cover to all including UVa and PennSt.
But it could be this is about self preservation. Hard to tell with the CG.
Still, always view what the CG produces in terms of political spin. The fact folks are still debating the hockey stick, the climate models and we’re still putting up those disasterous chop-o-bird windmills and plotting how to renew energy should have taught lessons to the faithful.

Ryan
October 29, 2012 4:00 am

I doubt this paper will be allowed as part of Steyn’s defence. He needs to show he was not “reckless” based on his knowledge at the time. He can’t rely on anything that he has come to know after his comments were published – the judge could consider that to be merely fortuitous that it happens to align with Steyn’s published comments. He can rely on the work of McIntyre et al. before his comments were published.
However, Briffa is very much part of Team AGW (or was….). So Mann must have known that Briffa was about to publish this paper. He may well have been a reviewer…. I wonder if Mann is now “a cornered animal” and his illogical, childish lashing out at Steyn merely reflects his general emotional state at the present time as his house of cards falls around his ears, exposing his enormous but battered ego to the derision of a wider public.

D Böehm
October 29, 2012 4:10 am

Simon says:
“Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?”
Aside from Perlwitz and his fevered imagination, no.
Where is it?

October 29, 2012 4:12 am

Tallbloke’s site links to the Christansen and Ljungqvist paper: http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
The authors show dozens of little graphs showing the many proxy records over 2000 years. Right at the bottom is one showing a Hockey Stick. “Ah, this one stands out as different,” methinks. “Where is this from?” And then you see the title: Yamal.
If Briffa really wants to come in from the cold, maybe he should issue a statement that the IPCC’s stance on global warming is based upon cherry-picked data. Suggested title: “Top Climate Scientist: ‘Today’s Temperatures Nothing to get Excited About’ “.

son of mulder
October 29, 2012 4:48 am

“Simon says:
October 29, 2012 at 2:58 am
Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?”
It’s not a rise in temperature it’s a rise in a supposed proxy for temperature. Or put another way a variation of “Mike’s Nature Trick” has not been used in this case to “Hide the Rise”.
And also thanks to
“Jean Parisot says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Empirical scum!”
Nice one, I think this could be a major boost to the tee-shirt industry.

TimTheToolMan
October 29, 2012 4:52 am

Jan writes “You can’t logically or empirically refute the results of a scientific study, of any scientific study, by applying ad hominem arguments against the authors of the study.”
I dont need to, McIntyre has done that for me by looking at the actual science. If you understood what Mann has done with the hockey stick reconstructions then you would know what I say is not simply an ad hominem attack but instead an assessment of the motivations behind the “science” which the Melvin paper has now put even further into doubt. I expect that doesn’t sit well with you.
The fact is that papers that dispute past AGW results are coming to light with ever increasing frequency. There was a time when it was an all too common belief today’s warming was unprecedented but now that’s a much less certain proposition.

richardscourtney
October 29, 2012 5:05 am

[ah . . here it is . . mod]

D Böehm :
At October 29, 2012 at 4:10 am you write in reply to Simon

Simon says:

“Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?”

Aside from Perlwitz and his fevered imagination, no.
Where is it?

With respect, you misunderstand Simon’s point because I also noticed the large post-2000 increase in temperature which is in the above graphs of Briffa’s results.
However, as your links show other data sets – including the data Briffa used for his calibration – do NOT indicate such a rise after 2000.
In other words, Briffa’s analysis also has a divergence problem.
Richard

richardscourtney
October 29, 2012 5:08 am

Moderators:
Hmmm. Yet again my post seems to have gone in the ‘bin’: this time as a response to D Böehm.
I am starting to wonder if I have been selected for ‘special treatment.
I would welcome recovery of my post.
Richard
[nope . . there is nothing in the spam bin from you. Nope you have not been selected for “special treatment”. . . mod]

Henry Clark
October 29, 2012 5:27 am

An illustrative comparison of this tree ring reconstruction of temperatures in Sweden to solar activity history, global temperature history by non-tree ring proxies, and arctic temperature history:
Overall it is notably supportive, as long as the sources are primarily not those heavily revised for CAGW-movement convenience:
http://s7.postimage.org/tc7f57vnv/composite2.gif
(click to enlarge and scroll)

Steve Keohane
October 29, 2012 5:40 am

Steven Mosher says:October 28, 2012 at 10:52 pm
fact alert.
this paper has little bearing on manns work.
its a seasonal recon.
its a local recon.

Yamal isn’t a local recon?
Anything growing in Siberia isn’t seasonal?
Good Grief!

Jan P Perlwitz
October 29, 2012 5:56 am

richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127226

So what?
What a self-defined group of ‘climate scientists’ think is not the subject under debate.

A climate scientist is a scientist who does research and publishes in scientific journals on past, present, and future climate of Earth, as a whole or aspects of it. There isn’t a big problem to define what a climate scientist is.
Also, you are not entitled to impose on others here what they are debating and what they aren’t.

and I then did not know of “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”

The alleged “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”, which is nothing more than a talking point, unproven assertions that are disseminated in fake skeptic opinion blogs and similar.

Since then the studies of M&M, Wegman and North have all trashed it because MBH used invalid statistical procedures.

That is your assertion, according to which some studies, the exact references of which you avoid to provide here, would have achieved that.

However, the Briffa paper may also be ‘bad science’ because it relies upon treemometers, too. As I said of treemometry in my post at October 28, 2012 at 3:34 pm
[self quote]
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/

Obviously you have an opinion, which you are trying to back up with a link to an opinion on another opinion blog.

In either case, as you say, it has been supported by the 75 people whom you have repeatedly claimed are 97% of ‘climate scientists’.

And yet another lie by you, Mr. Courtney. I haven’t made such a claim which you are asserting here, certainly not “repeatedly”. Considering your previous lies about what I allegedly said, like in the context of my statements about the fraudulent Oregon Petition, there seems to be a pattern here.

richardscourtney
October 29, 2012 6:10 am

Moderator,
Thankyou for your reply to me at October 29, 2012 at 5:08 am. This is a resend of the post which went somewhere.
Richard
D Böehm :
At October 29, 2012 at 4:10 am you write in reply to Simon

Simon says:

“Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?”

Aside from Perlwitz and his fevered imagination, no.
Where is it?

With respect, you misunderstand Simon’s point because I also noticed the large post-2000 increase in temperature which is in the above graphs of Briffa’s results.
However, as your links show other data sets – including the data Briffa used for his calibration – do NOT indicate such a rise after 2000.
In other words, Briffa’s analysis also has a divergence problem.
Richard

Pamela Gray
October 29, 2012 6:10 am

Jan, the only thing you have are warm temperatures in some places that have been warm enough to give a global average that is warmer when compared to some other period. We also have temperatures that are colder than that same comparison period. But of course, these are hidden in the global average. If there ever was a statistic that hides something we should know, it is the global average. But it is a useful statistic if you want to use it for some other purpose than explaining Earth’s temperatures. AGWers use the global average for some other purpose me thinks.
You don’t have a lot. You do not have correlation. You do not have causation. You do not have models that are predictive. You have not ruled out natural intrinsic ENSO factors, along with ENSO variations in oceanic temperatures, clouds and pressure system spin offs. ENSO factors do not swing like a pendulum, something many climate scientists are now beginning to realize.
What you do have is the same sorry set of statistics re-read over and over again. That kind of scientific reporting does not a case make.

Jan P Perlwitz
October 29, 2012 6:11 am

D Böehm wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127277

“Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?”
Aside from Perlwitz and his fevered imagination, no.

Is this comment by “D. Böehm” supposed to refer to an actual statement by me? Or is he just making something up?

October 29, 2012 6:14 am

tallbloke says:
October 29, 2012 at 1:21 am
So, you are unable or unwilling to back up your slanderous accusation with any checkable facts.
First, this was no slanderous accusation, just a statement of fact, and your fact checking as Mosh points out does not have a good track record. Second, as you well know, the review process is confidential and reviewers are not allowed to divulge details.
No matter, I’ll ask Abreu and Steinhilber
You could also ask them to publish [e.g. on your blog] the [many and detailed] reviews of their paper. Personally, I publish the reviews of my own papers, accepted or not. This allows people to judge the review process.

D Böehm
October 29, 2012 6:21 am

Jan Perlwitz,
From numerous comments I assume you believe that global warming is continuing. Correct me if I am wrong. And my apologies to Simon for misreading his comment, and thanks to Richard Courtney for pointing it out.

richardscourtney
October 29, 2012 6:53 am

Jan P Perlw1tz
This is a response to your pathetic post at October 29, 2012 at 5:56 am.
It says to me

you are not entitled to impose on others here what they are debating and what they aren’t.

Quite correct, only Anthony can do that, and he chose the subject of this thread; not me and not you. I pointed out that your comment was an irrelevant distraction from the thread.
You follow that with this

The alleged “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”, which is nothing more than a talking point, unproven assertions that are disseminated in fake skeptic opinion blogs and similar.

The only person you may be fooling with that nonsense is yourself.
Not content with that nonsense, you quote my accurate and precise statement which said

Since then the studies of M&M, Wegman and North have all trashed it because MBH used invalid statistical procedures.

And you say

That is your assertion, according to which some studies, the exact references of which you avoid to provide here, would have achieved that.

No! Unfounded assertions are your habit and not mine. My statement is merely a mention of documented historical fact. If you truly are as ignorant as you claim to be then read the relevant peer-reviewed papers. It is not my duty to do the homework required to overcome your self-imposed ignorance.
I referred to basic statistical procedural flaw with treemometry and linked to an explanation of it for non-statisticians from Lucia.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/
And your reply to that says in total

Obviously you have an opinion, which you are trying to back up with a link to an opinion on another opinion blog.

No, I have a conclusion – not an opinion – based on the studies of professional statisticians published for your benefit in peer-reviewed literature. And that is why I said

Since then the studies of M&M, Wegman and North have all trashed it because MBH used invalid statistical procedures.

Obviously you have a prejudice which prevents you accepting the truth.
You follow that a set of blatantly deliberate falsehoods.
I wrote and you quoted my writing

In either case, as you say, it has been supported by the 75 people whom you have repeatedly claimed are 97% of ‘climate scientists’.

then you write this blatant and clearly deliberate set of falsehoods

And yet another l1e by you, Mr. Courtney. I haven’t made such a claim which you are asserting here, certainly not “repeatedly”. Considering your previous lies about what I allegedly said, like in the context of my statements about the fraudulent Oregon Petition, there seems to be a pattern here.

I have NOT made any “l1e” but you have made a series of l1es including the clearly deliberate set of falsehoods I quote here. The pertinent thread is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/27/weekend-open-thread-3/
Your support of the Oreskes paper together with your lies about the Oregon Petition, about me, and about what I said of your comments are there for all to read. And people can also see how in that thread I and others refuted your l1es, others supported my factual statements, and nobody supported anything you said.
There is a “pattern here”. Everybody can see it. And it is time you stopped doing it.
It seems you really are a piece of work.
Richard

Jimbo
October 29, 2012 7:07 am

Here’s another paper from March 2012 using Ikaite proxy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/22/more-evidence-the-medieval-warm-period-was-global/

Luke
October 29, 2012 7:08 am

@Wellington
Since you chose to bring it up why not ask you?
Maybe he’s said all he can. If he was a reviewer for a journal that rejected, it’s possible that reviewer policy doesn’t allow him to say, or he may be getting a source in trouble by saying which one (it’s possible that the association with a particular reviewer might make it obvious.) I don’t know the answer, but not revealing sources or which Journals have rejected it is not an admission of not knowing, nor is it slander.
Even in absence of specific knowledge, you are talking about a field where Leif publishes and is influential. He has more than a rough idea of where the paper fits in the submission hierarchy for this type of paper. If he sees a paper published in lesser journal than would be expected for the conclusions and authors of said paper, there is a very logical reason to assume that it had been passed over one or more times.

Bill Illis
October 29, 2012 7:11 am

I sometimes wonder why people continue defending the hockey stick. It is really a waste of time and effort and one could be putting their resources into something more productive.

Jan P Perlwitz
October 29, 2012 7:28 am

“D Böehm” wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127388

From numerous comments I assume you believe that global warming is continuing. Correct me if I am wrong.

No, you are not wrong with respect to that. I’m very convinced that the physical process of global warming is continuing, which appears as a statistically significant increase of the global surface and tropospheric temperature anomaly over a time scale of about 20 years and longer and also as trends in other climate variables (e.g., global ocean heat content increase, Arctic and Antarctic ice decrease, mountain glacier decrease on average and others), and I don’t see any scientific evidence according to which this trend has been broken, recently.
However, this doesn’t mean this trend must be statistically detectable on any arbitrarily short time scale, like 10 years, or 5 months, or 2 days. It doesn’t mean the surface or tropospheric temperature anomaly must linearly increase from one year to the next, or be larger each five years than the previous five years. It doesn’t mean that there can’t be any natural variability that appears as wobbles in the temperature record (or in other climate variables), masking the multi-decadal temperature trend over a time scale shorter than 20 years with the effect that the longer term trend is not statistically detectable in the time series, if one chooses the time period only short enough.

October 29, 2012 7:41 am

Leif: “I fail to see the ‘logic’. The top is cut off, so you can’t tell if it was 1936 or 2003.”
1) I’m suggesting they cut off the graph so you “can’t tell if it was 1936 or 2003”.
2) If tree rings made good thermometers, they would not be affected by UHI leaving the 1930s as the warmest decade.

Jimbo
October 29, 2012 7:49 am

It’s good to see that Michael Mann’s bio at Penn State has been corrected.
“co-awarded” now reads “contributed… to the award”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331829/mikes-nobel-trick-mark-steyn
Now he should consider correcting his Brothers Grimm style Hockey Stick.

October 29, 2012 7:51 am

sunshinehours1 says:
October 29, 2012 at 7:41 am
Leif: “I fail to see the ‘logic’. The top is cut off, so you can’t tell if it was 1936 or 2003.”
1) I’m suggesting they cut off the graph so you “can’t tell if it was 1936 or 2003″.

“A thief thinks everybody steals”

October 29, 2012 7:55 am

tallbloke says:
October 29, 2012 at 12:24 am
Hi Roger,
it is important to clarify some issue here.
About Tim Channon’s graph. It shows that Steinhilber’s TSI has a quasi millennial oscillation and a bisecular one. This result is not really surprising nor new. Steinhilber’s TSI is based on typical nucleotide records. These oscillations were noted far before Steinhilber. For example Bond et al 2001 on Science.
The novelty of my paper
Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.
is not to have found a quasi-millennial oscillation in the solar record and the other oscillations, which was already well known, but to have deduced theoretically those oscillations in both phase and timing. In fact, my model is a hindcast of the data, not a simple fitting of the data.
About “key frequencies were found by Bart” etc.. I need to disagree. What happened is that Leif who was chosen as a reviewer of my paper had the “honest” idea to put on WUWT some of the results of my analysis without saying that he got them from my paper.
Several of his comments show that he knew too much about my paper.
For example, he says referring to me:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-706506
(But are you now abandoning your view that the planetary influence is
tidal [spring tides Saturn-Jupiter and perihelion tides from Jupiter]?)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-706594
(Except that Scafetta believes his solar variations have a tidal origin
and is not related to solar velocity.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-706608
(Scafetta believes solar activity is caused by tides)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-706736
(I’ll try to paraphrase what I think you are saying: the planets raise
tides in the sun’s interior. These tides modulate [or even cause] solar
activity. Solar activity thus have cycles driven by the planets.) (please note that this is quite correctly what I say in my papers)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-707053
(Even your own work on tidally induced solar cycles was already done by
Brown 111 years ago.) (note that Leif is explicitly referring
to my own “work” on planetary tides on the sun also if he adds a
ridiculous comment regarding Brown)
Finally, in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-709699
he shows the following figure uploaded to his web-site
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Daily-Sunspot-Number.png
in this figure he repeats my spectral analysis showing that
the Schwabe 11-year sunspot number cycle can be decomposed in three peaks
two of which close to the 9.93-year Jupiter and Saturn spring-tide and
the 11.86-year Jupiter tide. Plus a middle peak close to my 10.9-year,
which is the major finding in paper on which I build my model.
Bart apparently took the idea from Leif’s comments and figures that were taken from my paper.
Note that the behavior of Leif (disseminating in internet my results and ideas taken from my paper that he was refereeing) is a seriously break of the ethical code of the journal.
So, I do not think that my paper was based on ideas took from your web-site in some way. On the contrary, I have indirectly originate some of the ideas published on your web-site, even if you did not knew it.
Note that the first version of my paper was submitted on Dec/22/2010, by the way, and the first referee was not able to find any error. Then the hostile editor started looking for biased reviewers and after that I demonstrated that the second reviewer was an idiot, the editor was forced (also by the manager editor, I think) to reject him and sent the paper to Leif to be sure to get another biased review.

Jan P Perlwitz
October 29, 2012 8:04 am

richardscourtney in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127407,
makes a lot of noise again and also claims:

I have NOT made any “l1e”

We can make it easy, Mr. Courtney, and examine your lies, about which you claim they are none, one by one. Let’s start with the most recent one:
In
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127226
you asserted following about what I allegedly claimed:
In either case, as you say, it has been supported by the 75 people whom you have repeatedly claimed are 97% of ‘climate scientists’.
Please provide the original quotes where I allegedly said such a thing, together with proof of sources. The burden of proof for your assertion is on you, and since you insist you didn’t tell a lie, you should be able to provide the requested. Or you can retract your assertion, apologize, and come up with any excuse for telling a falsehood, like you have been temporarily out of your mind, when you made this assertion, or whatever else you like.

October 29, 2012 8:06 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 29, 2012 at 7:55 am
in this figure he repeats my spectral analysis showing that the Schwabe 11-year sunspot number cycle can be decomposed in three peaks […] which is the major finding in paper on which I build my model
My analysis was based on Vuk’s ideas of the three peaks, long before yours, so your whining is misplaced. Brown already discussed this back in 1900: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf

October 29, 2012 8:41 am

Leif Svalgaard says:October 29, 2012 at 8:06 am
Leif, you have “rediscovered” those ideas and references (including Brown paper) after having read my paper. So, your dishonesty is quite compelling. I just hope that Anthony opens his eyes, and understand who you really are. Also your presentation at AGU was partially inspired by my paper that you have read.
About Brown, he did not find those peaks in the sunspot record. He did not calculate any power spectra of the data. Brown simply “conjectured” that the 11-year solar cycle could be constrained by the Jupiter-Saturn spring tide (9.93 yr) and Jupiter tide (11.86). But he did not go further than that. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1900MNRAS..60..599B
It is my papers that have demonstrated that idea works.
About Vuk’s ideas he was talking about the double cycles (19.86 yr and 23.7 yr). Vuk’s model does not have anything to do with my model, although you thought that it was equivalent to mine. Your arguments are nonsense.

October 29, 2012 8:43 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 29, 2012 at 7:55 am
in this figure he repeats my spectral analysis showing that the Schwabe 11-year sunspot number cycle can be decomposed in three peaks […] which is the major finding in paper on which I build my model
About the ‘three peaks’: here is my analysis of those [from Monday, ‎January ‎26, ‎2009, ‏‎11:17:46 PM] and ‘published’ on a blog the same day http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-SAM.pdf slide 2 discussing Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula’. Perhaps this is where you got the idea from in the first place?

Bart
October 29, 2012 8:49 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 29, 2012 at 7:55 am
“Bart apparently took the idea from Leif’s comments and figures that were taken from my paper.”
No. I independently estimated a power spectral density of the sun spot numbers for myself, and recognized that the four peaks were the result of two peaks being rectified in the measurement. I did do so after Leif challenged me to demonstrate coherence in the data. I was pleased later to find that you and Vukcevic had also previously divined a similar relationship. It is not so obscure, indeed the relationship is readily evident, that multiple researchers would not independently recognize it.
I do not believe that planetary phenomena are behind the cycles. That is merely my opinion, but A) I do not see a plausible mechanism B) it does not explain, for me, the random phase and amplitude variation in the components C) there are so many astronomical frequencies to choose from that being able to find a few which approximately match observations is not exceedingly unlikely, and no more dispositive than the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You may be able to match results over the short term with such a model, but I believe that over time, it will tend to drift off.
I believe that these are merely natural modes of the Sun, which are lightly damped and have effectively random driving forces. Modal decompositions of systems governed by partial differential equations on a bounded domain are old hat. Finite Element Analysis is standard in industry for determining the normal modes of such a system.
BTW, Roger – I did not use a “maximum entropy” spectral estimator. It is the FFT of a windowed autocorrelation estimate. Leif’s direct FFT of the SSN is a different, and markedly inferior, animal. There is a lot more to using the FFT to estimate a power spectral density than simply pushing the data through an FFT.

davidmhoffer
October 29, 2012 9:05 am

Jan Perlw1tz;
over a time scale of about 20 years and longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Phil Jones: 15 years
Ben Santer: 17 years
JanP: 20 years
Seems to be a trend here….

davidmhoffer
October 29, 2012 9:19 am

Jan Perlw1tz;
A climate scientist is a scientist who does research and publishes in scientific journals on past, present, and future climate of Earth, as a whole or aspects of it. There isn’t a big problem to define what a climate scientist is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What’s your point? Using the paper which this thread is the subject of, could you please explain why it is beyond the capabilities of someone outside of climate science to read, understand, and comment fairly upon?

October 29, 2012 9:35 am

Leif Svalgaard says: October 29, 2012 at 8:43 am
Leif, you continue to mislead people. Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula does not have anything to do with my model. It appears similar to you, but it is not. Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula is based on double cycle length. You are not able to understand it, don’t you?
See well the periods in the formula. It uses two harmonics at 19.859 yr and 2*11.862=23.724 yr.
I use three harmonics at 9.3, 10.87 and 11.86 yr. Not two.
The ABS function used by Vuk creates half harmonics and a third harmonic in the middle, but that is not mine 10.87 yr harmonic which has a different origin.
Moreover, Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula is very regular, while mine produces a far more complex patterns. For example Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula does not get the 61 yr cycle and the millennial cycle, which my formula gets.
In your report You have used Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula (without referring to Vuk, by the way) and misunderstood it. In your review you did a mess, Leif. Let us see if you are honest enough to acknowledge it.
Bart says: October 29, 2012 at 8:49 am
Ok Bart, you found something independently.
however, about the other issues you need to read carefully my two papers
Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000648
Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612001034
see my web-site

Jan P Perlwitz
October 29, 2012 9:37 am

davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127554

Phil Jones: 15 years
Ben Santer: 17 years
JanP: 20 years
Seems to be a trend here….

With what exact statements by Jones and Santer are you comparing my statement? Please provide proof of source for the statements of the two, not just assertions from the “skeptic” rumour kitchen.
I say about 20 years, since this has been pretty consistent since the 1970ies. I consider it as very likely that the 20 year trends will still be statistically significant also in three, five or ten years from now, unless there is some strong volcanic explosion that blows a lot of reflecting aerosols in the stratosphere causing a temporary temperature dip, or some other cause the effect of which is explainable within the framework of current knowledge about the climate system, but as event not really predictable.

richardscourtney
October 29, 2012 9:39 am

Perlw1tz:
No! You will NOT manage to derail this thread by flaming me into going over all your misbehaviour on the earlier thread.
Near the end of that thread Sean stated the matter much more politely than I could so I copy his post below.
And this is my last response to you on this thread. Anyway I lack time to correspond with you because I need to do the more pleasant – and more useful – occupation of removing something nasty from the instep of my shoe.
Richard
*****************
Sean says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Jan P Perlw1tz says: I am a troll.
Readers respond: go away troll, you have your own site to bash WUWT and post egregious l1es on, it is not our fault that you have no traffic…
Anthony Watts says: lay off the troll.
Readers wonder: when Jan was born, how many time did the doctor drop him on his head?

October 29, 2012 10:06 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 29, 2012 at 9:35 am
See well the periods in the formula. It uses two harmonics at 19.859 yr and 2*11.862=23.724 yr. I use three harmonics at 9.3, 10.87 and 11.86 yr. Not two.
You trash around. In my 2009 analysis of Vuk’s [two-period] sunspot formula, I pointed out that its power spectrum has three peaks at 9.94, 10.78, and 11.91 years [slide 2]. BTW, your 9.3 should perhaps be 9.99. To remind you, here is my first review of one of your papers: http://www.leif.org/research/Scafetta-Report.pdf
Moreover, Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula is very regular, while mine produces a far more complex patterns. For example Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula does not get the 61 yr cycle
It most certainly does: slide 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf [it is simply a harmonic of the 120-yr modulation] or the table on page 1 of my review.
In your review you did a mess, Leif.
In my review I simply showed that the, by now, well-known three peaks [first pointed out by me in 2009] follow from the 120-yr amplitude modulation of the 11-yr cycle [regardless of Vuk’s formula, which I only used as illustration, having already done the analysis back in 2009]. I wonder if you will ever admit that you got the three-peak idea from me.

davidmhoffer
October 29, 2012 10:24 am

Jan Perlw1tz;
With what exact statements by Jones and Santer are you comparing my statement? Please provide proof of source for the statements of the two, not just assertions from the “skeptic” rumour kitchen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
These comments are common knowledge and have been discussed at length here and in other forums on both sides of the debate.

pochas
October 29, 2012 10:24 am

There are those who envision a transcendent reality (a “gestalt”) that they fantasize could become the actual reality if only certain aspects of our current “actual” reality could be eliminated. Not being equipped with the means of successfully dealing with actually reality, they attempt to materialize the gestalt reality which is often some chimera of Marxism or religious or environmental extremism. And since science is concerned with actual reality, it acts to hinder their desired course of events, hence “post-normal science,” which supposedly can support the desired transformation, but actually degrades our ability to deal with actual reality which is the reality that includes famine, disease, and war.

stephen richards
October 29, 2012 10:29 am

davidmhoffer says:
October 29, 2012 at 9:05 am
Jan Perlw1tz;
over a time scale of about 20 years and longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Phil Jones: 15 years
Ben Santer: 17 years
JanP: 20 years
Seems to be a trend here….
Dead on David. The longer their “pause” continues the longer becomes their cherry picker. They will be saying that 50yrs is too short unless Hansen et al can bend the figures even more than the 3°C they have already achieved.
Piss off Perlwitz.

October 29, 2012 10:38 am

Leif Svalgaard says: October 29, 2012 at 10:06 am
Your review, that you have published clearly confirms what I said above.
“Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula is based on double cycle length. You are not able to understand it, don’t you? See well the periods in the formula. It uses two harmonics at 19.859 yr and 2*11.862=23.724 yr. I use three harmonics at 9.3, 10.87 and 11.86 yr. Not two. The ABS function used by Vuk creates half harmonics and a third harmonic in the middle, but that is not mine 10.87 yr harmonic which has a different origin. Moreover, Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula is very regular, while mine produces a far more complex patterns. For example Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula does not get the 61 yr cycle and the millennial cycle, which my formula gets. In your report You have used Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula (without referring to Vuk, by the way) and misunderstood it. In your review you did a mess, Leif. Let us see if you are honest enough to acknowledge it.”
See Leif, your dishonesty or incompetency is demonstrated by the fact that in your own power spectrum analysis of the sunspot record you found the three peaks that I found in my paper.
If you had repeated the analysis and not found the three peaks, you could correctly argue that you repeated the analysis, did not find the three peaks I was talking about and the paper could not be published.
But what you did was to find my same spectral peaks, and then you said that my paper could not be published. This is dishonesty or incompetency.

joeldshore
October 29, 2012 10:41 am

D Boehm says:

Well, the interactive chart certainly doesn’t give very much support to Mann’s position. Most of the items show a global MWP. Not all, but most. I’ve posted that chart at least a half dozen times, and commentators generally agree that it shows a global MWP. It just so happens that you and Mann are not part of the MWP consensus.

Since noone is disputing if the MWP was global or not, that’s not particularly relevant. What is being disputed is whether or not the warm periods in different locations were synchronous or not. If they were synchronous, then you could get a hemispherical warmth similar to the modern warmth; however, if they were not synchronous, then when you add them all together, you get a broad, diffuse bump that is less warm than the late 20th century.
And, as I pointed out, simply looking at the various charts there indeed shows that the warm periods in different regions were not well-synchronized with each other.
Jimbo says:

joeldshore,
browse through some of these references to papers showing the Medieval Warm Period in many parts of the southern hemisphere such as Antarctica, southern Africa, South America, Australia, New Zealand.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Here is a handy map
http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html

See above. One of the primary examples of poor argumentation is when you create a “strawman” argument of the opposing position. That is exactly what you have done with the issue of the MWP. Hence, all these wonderful papers that CO2science has found are completely irrelevant because the don’t address the actual argument that Mann et al. have made for the MWP warmth being less than the current warmth (on hemispheric or global scales). Instead, they address a “strawman” argument that the MWP was not a global phenomenon.
And, in fact, the data shown at CO2science provide evidence for exactly the reason why the current warmth ends up being less extreme than the modern warmth: For the modern warmth, the warming of different regions is largely in synch. During the MWP, the warming was not generally in-synch: Over the 500 year period from 900 to 1400, lots of regions showed some times when there was significant warmth but the times of significant warmth were often different from region to region.

richardscourtney
October 29, 2012 10:52 am

davidmhoffer :
At October 29, 2012 at 9:05 am you say

Phil Jones: 15 years
Ben Santer: 17 years
JanP: 20 years
Seems to be a trend here….

I disagree about a “trend”. It is consistent.
Each stated period was longer than the time since global warming stopped.
And each period is a demonstration of desperation at the failure of the world to agree with the warmunist world view.
Assuming the AGW-scare is not history by then, if 20 years is reached then anticipate the stated period to be 30 years.
The wheels are coming off the scare. They were loosened by climategate1 and later 2. The bandwagon ground to a halt at Copenhagen in 2009. Governments are abandoning responses to the scare so, for example, ‘renewables’ manufacturers are going out of business and ‘Carbon Trading Exchanges’ are collapsing. And the MSM is starting to notice that global warming stopped 16 years ago; the Daily Mail has published about it, and the BBC is to broadcast a radio program on effects of climategate although the BBC did not report climategate 1 or 2 when they happened.
But many so-called scientists have built careers and reputations by riding the bandwagon. The panic is showing among some. Mann has become insanely litigious. Gleick has turned to deception and data theft. Another makes ridiculous attacks on WUWT threads. etc
No, your numbers are not a trend. They are some of the shouts of desperation by those on the bandwagon who are trying to make it move again when they don’t have any way to re-attach its wheels.
Richard

Jan P Perlwitz
October 29, 2012 10:52 am

davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127647

These comments are common knowledge and have been discussed at length here and in other forums on both sides of the debate.

I see. You use the fait-accompli fallacy as pretext to chicken out of backing up your innuendo with something that has actual substance.

October 29, 2012 10:55 am

Leif: ““A thief thinks everybody steals””
I don’t cut the top off of my graphs to hide information.
Take a look at graph (b) MXD Chronology. The highest peak since 1700 is one third of the way into the 1900s.
Hiding information is what climate scientists do. They get caught over and over and shamelessly tell the same lies over and over.

October 29, 2012 10:57 am

Back in the 1880s, Wolf calculated the solar cycle period to be 11.295 years based on the 10 cycles he had reconstructed. There is an amusing numerological coincidence pointed out at the time by Charles Harrison: if you insert the periods p, masses m, and distances from the Sun d for the eight planets in the formula P = sum(p*m/d^2)/sum(m/d^2) you also get 11.295 years. Unfortunately the formula fails for the last ~100 years where the solar cycle period has averaged 10.6 years [In my report I point out the change from 11.3 to 10.6].
One can use Kepler’s third law to eliminate either p or d from Harrison’s formula, to make it [d in AU and p in years to get units right]:
P = sum(m/d^(1/2))/sum(m/d^(4/2)) or P = sum(m/p^(1/3))/sum(m/p^(4/3))
One can go one step further:
P = sum(A)/sum(A/p) where A is the angular momentum
One last trick. It can be written 1/P = sum(A/p)/sum(A) or F = sum(A*f)/sum(A) or
frequency of cycle = angular momentum weigthed average frequency of the planets
Numerology is fun!

October 29, 2012 11:06 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 29, 2012 at 10:38 am
See Leif, your dishonesty or incompetency is demonstrated by the fact that in your own power spectrum analysis of the sunspot record you found the three peaks that I found in my paper.
I found the three peaks [and the 61-yr peak] long time before you did and showed that they were simply a consequence of the 120-yr modulation of the 11-yr cycle and did not require any planetary influence. Perhaps you picked the three-peaks idea up from me without attribution.
This is dishonesty or incompetency.
As I recall, I was the third referee called in because the first two had rejected your paper strongly and the editor wanted an additional independent and unbiased opinion. You might show us the reviews by these other referees.

October 29, 2012 11:12 am

sunshinehours1 says:
October 29, 2012 at 10:55 am
I don’t cut the top off of my graphs to hide information
I don’t think they were trying to hide anything [especially not trying to hide the high 2003 peak], but simply used the same scale as in Figures a), b) and c). From c) it is evident that the peak in the 2000s was higher than in the 1930s. As weather is not climate, the value in any given year [e.g. that 2003 was the warmest – or was that 2011?] is not representative of climate and has no particular climate significance.

richardscourtney
October 29, 2012 11:21 am

davidmhoffer:
I know it is difficult, but please try to avoid being baited by the troll.
He is evading your point by claiming he has not heard of the common knowledge which you mention. Upthread he evaded an issue by claiming he is ignorant of the Wegman and North Reports.
The only abilities he has ever demonstrated on WUWT are an inability to answer direct questions and a willingness to claim ignorance as a method to evade questions. Oh, and of course his willingness to hide his l1es behind false accusations of l1es.
He is not worth the bother of somebody such as yourself.
Richard

Edim
October 29, 2012 11:31 am

That’s interesting Leif!

October 29, 2012 11:46 am

Leif: “I don’t think they were trying to hide anything”
I do.
Leif: “From c) it is evident that the peak in the 2000s was higher than in the 1930s.”
Get your eyes checked.

davidmhoffer
October 29, 2012 11:47 am

perlw1tz;
I see. You use the fait-accompli fallacy as pretext to chicken out of backing up your innuendo with something that has actual substance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it means that I’m not going to waste my time grubbing up links to quotes that are well known.
You never answered my question about winters with little or no snow being associated with late spring. Nor did you answer my question regarding what aspect of the paper which this thread is the focus of cannot be understood and analyzed by someone not in climate science.

October 29, 2012 11:58 am

Leif Svalgaard says:October 29, 2012 at 11:06 am
“I found the three peaks [and the 61-yr peak] long time before you”
Leif, you are further claiming that you confirmed my results.
Are you now claiming that the planetary influence on the sun, including the 61 yr cycle, was discovered by you? And that you rejected my paper not because erroneous but because you opposed that “your discovery” could be punished by me?
I thought that you opposed the planetary theory of solar variation because in your opinion no evidences existed!
I believe that also Anthony and everybody else thought that you were opposing the theory.
To Anthony
Anthony, please, note Leif’s metamorphosis. He is trying to become a butterfly!
REPLY: well at least he isn’t making legal threats to journal editors – A

October 29, 2012 12:03 pm

sunshinehours1 says:
October 29, 2012 at 11:46 am
Leif: “From c) it is evident that the peak in the 2000s was higher than in the 1930s.”
Get your eyes checked.

http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Briffa-Detail.png
Enough said!

October 29, 2012 12:09 pm

This is addressed to S & S (Svalgaard and Scafetta)
Vuk’s sunspot formula is a CLASSIC
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
solar science or numerology makes no difference.
S & S take a note
Vuk’s next CLASSIC
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
climate science or numerology makes no difference.
S & S please do go on. LOL.

October 29, 2012 12:09 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 29, 2012 at 11:58 am
I thought that you opposed the planetary theory of solar variation because in your opinion no evidences existed!
I oppose it because your so-called ‘evidence’ is just numerology. The 2nd referee [whom you called an ‘incompetent idiot’] emailed me this:
“Dear Leif,
Congratulations on your very clear demonstration of the numerological origins of Scafetta’s “planetary effects”. It would make a great rebuttal of that paper if it is ultimately made public on some forum.
On the other hand, as I just explained to the Editor, after getting more familiar with Scafetta’s activities in the blogosphere I have now revised my earlier suggestion and I do not think that a refereed journal would be the right place for the paper. The guy simply seems unfit to lead a rational debate; if his paper were published, no matter if it remains uncited or it is rebutted, he would be able to show it up as a refereed publication; he might even demand that a 2nd paper of his be published with his arguments” against the rebuttal etc. So now I would suggest the paper for plain rejection. I gather you would agree with this solution?”
And I’m saying that your claim that I got the three-peak notion from you is false.
P.S. Where are the other reviews?

October 29, 2012 12:12 pm

vukcevic says:
October 29, 2012 at 12:09 pm
S & S please do go on. LOL.
Yes, this is good entertainment.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 29, 2012 12:53 pm

Leif, thanks for the TSI info.
I stuffed it into a new spreadsheet along with the historical reconstruction available on the SORCE data page.
Data prep for matching: Subtract 1/24 (half a month) from your times for start of month, then averaged the years. From SORCE reconstruction, subtract the 0.5 from (half year) from times.
Observations:
Yours has an apparent implicit minimum of approx. 1360.9 W/m².
Yours has at least twice the variability, SORCE shows a peak height of one, yours has a height of two to two and a half. Artifact from smoothing?
Yours tracks SORCE at about 0.2 higher, going backwards until about 1950. Then SORCE takes a great bend downward, opening the gap to about 0.5.
If you’re in to seeing cycles and patterns, the SORCE reconstruction has an approx. 90 year “beat” going by the minimums. By eyeball, 1720 to 1810, 1810 to 1900. If it had not taken the great bend downwards, it might be more obvious if we have passed the end of a cycle around 1990. As it is, such an end cannot be detected.
But with only two, arguably three, “cycles” visible, it seems likely they are an artifact of the program generating the SORCE reconstruction rather than a real pattern.
The great bend downward is questionable, as recent corrections to the SSN have removed the evidence of a recent solar grand maximum (1945-1995) that is apparent from the great bend to present. Since the SSN corrections are recent and the SORCE reconstruction is generated once a year, last time was Jan 19, 2012, perhaps the great bend will be removed in future versions.

Steve Garcia
October 29, 2012 12:53 pm

@AlanG October 28, 2012 at 11:26 am:
“But. But. If I want my trees to grow more I water them. Why this dendrothermometry?”
Exactly. One characteristic cannot be a proxy for two variables. You can try to get either precip or temp – pick one, but you can’t have both (you can’t have your cake and eat it, too). And since both are actually factors – of unknown and varying forcing, relative to one another – I challenge anyone to tell me with a straight face which – rain or temps – determines the TRW or MXD. Of course, they can’t. The entire dendroclimatology thing is a farce (I hate to use the word, but it is true), because they pretend that rainfall is a constant. The discipline (I hate to use the word, because it isn’t disciplined, when looked at this way) HAS to assume rainfall as constant, or else the ‘science’ can’t work. And seen from this perspective it doesn’t.
Since both (and other factors, too) TOGETHER comprise the forcing for TRW and MXD, the graphs tell us about beneficence of the climate, but only as related to what is optimum for tree ring width and density to form/grow in summers – but also without delineating how much of each was acting on the tree growth.
The reason that there ever WAS a divergence problem is because neither TRW or MXD really were ever proxies for temps. With the same temperatures, two data points in time on the same tree can – and will – result in higher TRW or MXD values, if the rainfall is more conducive to growth. When this happens dendroclimatology misses the mark, because rainfall is not taken into account.
Steve Garcia

October 29, 2012 12:54 pm

Leif Svalgaard says: October 29, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Leif, you are further demonstrating that the review process was colored and there was an orchestrated decision.
Well Leif, I have an idea. Why don’t you write a comment on my paper using your critique.
You may coauthor it with your friend who believes that it is robust. He may also add his argument that he could reproduce the 11-year solar cycle and its secular and millennial variation by superposing two harmonics with periods of 12 2/3 year and 14 year. (How can it be possible!)
See, Leif, the second referee initially claimed that my paper had to be published together with his comment disproving it. I said that for me it was ok, I could add a short response. Then the referee saw my response and changed idea.
To Anthony,
Anthony, are you realizing that more and more papers are being published in support of the planetary theory of solar variation by numerous journals? And people like Leif are not able to disprove anything? Just use smearing logic and insinuations?
What else do you want that it is published before you consider at least the possibility that the theory could be correct or at least interesting?

Jan P Perlwitz
October 29, 2012 1:02 pm

davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127757

No it means that I’m not going to waste my time grubbing up links to quotes that are well known.

You are just repeating the fait-accompli fallacy.
There are many things going around in the “skeptic” blogosphere, which are thought among “skeptics” to be “well known”, but which are just total BS or nonsense without any scientific validity, for instance the believe that “global warming stopped”.
There is some lack of honesty on your side, if you make some innuendo with respect to statements by me, but refuse to substantiate and to be specific, and so leaving me without any chance to examine the validity of your hidden argument.
But it’s your choice, of course.

You never answered my question about winters with little or no snow being associated with late spring. Nor did you answer my question regarding what aspect of the paper which this thread is the focus of cannot be understood and analyzed by someone not in climate science.

And why should I have answered those questions? Why would I have the burden to answer some questions you just have made up because you felt like it? That’s how I see these questions. I may be more willing to answer some questions, if those questions are in reference to some statements and argument I actually made.
On a side note: It’s just pathetic how Mr. Coal-Transport-Magazine Editor tries to influence other commenters now, after he has been exposed to have made claims he can’t back up with quotes and proof of source, because his claims are lies. He just could have admitted that he was wrong, when he made those claims.

October 29, 2012 1:08 pm

I don’t know the scientific merit of this paper yet, but at least one true proposition can already be derived from it with very high confidence.
Briffa has deseted the Team

JohnH
October 29, 2012 1:20 pm

Jan Perlwitz says:
” It doesn’t mean that there can’t be any natural variability that appears as wobbles in the temperature record (or in other climate variables), masking the multi-decadal temperature trend over a time scale shorter than 20 years with the effect that the longer term trend is not statistically detectable in the time series, if one chooses the time period only short enough.”
I find this assertion interesting, as it is often claimed that natural variability can mask global warming over short time periods. In this context “natural variability” seems to be a catchphrase for unknown forcings and feedbacks that change global temperature in ways that we can’t predict or quantify. If these unknown factors are masking global warming, then it’s obvious that they must be equal in scale to the warming itself.
Warmists, and the oft-cited list of responses to AGW skeptics, also claim that when all of the natural forcings are considered, their sum is inadequate to explain the observed temperature rise since 1975. How can these same scientists, in the same breath, admit that there are unknowns that are similar in scale and able to offset AGW for an extended time period, and still dismiss the same natural variability as the primary driver in any observed temperature increase?
This is similar to the error they make when they claim that greenhouse gases can produce temperature increases 3-5 times that of the direct radiative effects of doubling CO2 (through the action of non-linear feedbacks), but deny that small changes in insolation can produce effects that are much larger than can predicted from the original forcing.
Climate science, with it’s many interconnections with fields of study such as geology, astronomy. physics, history, archaeology, mathematics and biology, could be the most fascinating area of pure research for brilliant researchers to study. Instead, it’s riddled with small-minded tyrants who love the attention that comes with political activism, and have little to no intellectual curiosity about what all of the loose ends and inconsistencies could tell us. They’ve staked their careers to one issue, and they have nothing to lose at this point by defending it to the last.

October 29, 2012 1:22 pm

Leif Svalgaard says: October 29, 2012 at 12:09 pm
I would like to add an additional comment on the interesting email between Leif and the second reviewer.
Leif was the third reviewer of my paper, who was contacted by the journal AFTER the second reviewer final decision.
The email posted by Leif clarifies the timing of what really happened.
This is what appears to be happened.
1) The second reviewer received my rebuttal and evidently he could not respond.
2) So, he contacted Leif, sending him my paper and asked for suggestions.
3) Leif wrote his report with his critique and send it to the second reviewer. The reviewer responded to Leif by sending him the above email.
4) The reviewer returned his rejection decision to the editor without rebutting my rebuttal, but asking the editor to contact Leif.
5) The editor contacted Leif.
6) Leif submitted his negative report.
So, it appears that it is Leif who is behind the decision of the second referee who was not able to write a proper rebuttal to my paper, so he contacted Leif.
In conclusion, my paper was rejected by Leif. And the editor followed the suggestion of the second referee despite the referee could not rebut my rebuttal.
Which demonstrates the bias of the editor.

October 29, 2012 1:25 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm
there was an orchestrated decision.
Unanimous decision that the paper was junk. A ‘bad egg’ as Easterbunny said.
Why don’t you write a comment on my paper using your critique.
We considered that [I suggested that], but in the end we decided that your paper was not really worth it. See the email upthread.
What else do you want that it is published before you consider at least the possibility that the theory could be correct or at least interesting?
There is no ‘theory’, but a host of equally disparate and mutually conflicting pseudo-scientific hand waves. Not even a communal set of predictions [spaghetti graph] for the 21st century where each proponent gets to plot a curve with a different color. Tallbloke volunteered to make one, but has not done so.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 29, 2012 at 12:53 pm
perhaps the great bend will be removed in future versions
The SORCE reconstruction is based on two assumptions [both likely to be false]:
1) the Group Sunspot Number is correct
2) there is a ‘background’ variation which is equal to the 11-year moving average of the Group Sunspot Number on which TSI rides. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Background-Not.png

October 29, 2012 1:43 pm

Leif Svalgaard says: October 29, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Why don’t you write a comment on my paper using your critique.
We considered that [I suggested that], but in the end we decided that your paper was not really worth it. See the email upthread.
To Anthony.
Anthony, note that Leif is not going to write a proper scientific rebuttal to my papers. So, my papers stand.

Jan P Perlwitz
October 29, 2012 1:47 pm

richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127689

Assuming the AGW-scare is not history by then, if 20 years is reached then anticipate the stated period to be 30 years.

I’m curious what Courtney, Stephen Richards, and their likes are going to say and do, when it is clear after 20 years that I, together with mainstream climate science, have been right and there is still an intact global warming trend in the global temperature anomaly also for periods starting around 1997, when global warming allegedly “stopped”, according to Courtney and likes.
Reasonable folks, who have believed in the “skeptic” meme will probably acknowledge that they got fooled by internal natural variability and scientifically flawed statistical analysis presented to them by “skeptics”. I suspect, though, that the Courtneys and Richards will totally delve into lunacy and conspiracy fantasies then, if they haven’t already done so.
Well, I’m going to tell the crowd here then, regarding the global warming trend, “I told you so!”.

D. J. Hawkins
October 29, 2012 1:52 pm

Bill Yarber says:
October 28, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Figure 5c shows a spike in approx 1750, which is reported to be the coldest part of the