Mike’s AGU Trick
By Steve McIntyre
There has been considerable recent discussion of the fact that observations have been running cooler than models – see, for example, Lucia’s discussion of IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 9.8 (see here). However, Michael Mann at AGU took an entirely different line. Mann asserted that observations were running as hot or hotter than models. Mann’s assertion was taken even further by Naomi Oreskes, who asserted that climate models were under-estimating relative to observations. Oreskes squarely placed the blame for the supposed underestimates on climate skeptics.
In today’s post, I’ll look closely at the illustration in Mann’s AGU presentation, an illustration that gave an entirely different impression than the figure in the IPCC draft report. The reason for the difference can be traced to what I’ve termed here as “Mike’s AGU Trick”.
The IPCC AR5 SOD Graphic
An excerpt from IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 9.8 is shown below, clearly showing that the multimodel ensemble (red) is running noticeably hotter than observations (black). In my opinion, the difference is not merely “noticeable” but “statistically significant”, but that’s a story for a different day.
Figure 1. Excerpt from IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 9.8, comparing model ensemble to observations.
Mann’s AGU Presentation
However, Mann at AGU asserted that observations were running as hot or hotter than models. Mann’s model comparandum was Hansen’s Scenario B, which is widely regarded as the most reasonable scenario to use to interpret Hansen’s “forecast” – see past CA points on this issue.
Figure 2. Mann’s AGU slide comparing observations to Hansen’s 1988 Scenario B projection.
I took the photo with a new phone, with which I was then unfamiliar and unfortunately can only provide a muddy zoom on the graphic. Despite the muddiness, you can see that observations (red) appear to cohere with Hansen’s 1988 forecast (blue). In the loop below, I’ve overplotted data for models and observations to show more clearly what was shown to the AGU audience. (There was a bit of detective work in figuring this out – see below.) Click on the figure below for a loop illustrating the components of the zoomed figure). (Note: see below for Mann’s use of his AGU Trick to hide the divergence in a presentation a few months earlier at Rutgers).
Figure 3. Blowup of Mann’s slide comparing Hansen’s Scenario B to observations. Blue – Hansen’s Scenario B; red – “observations”.
Mann’s AGU slide obviously has a completely different rhetorical impression than the IPCC graphic. Whereas the discrepancy between observations and models was immediately noticeable in the IPCC graphic, Mann’s AGU graphic showed no such discrepancy. There were two reasons for the difference, the combination of which I’ll call “Mike’s AGU Trick” and will analyse below.
==============================================================
Read the full post here: http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/
Reading the comments is also entertaining, particularly in watching Nick Stokes trying to defend the Mann, while McIntyre wipes the floor with his argument.
This has to be illegal somehow. Lord Monckton should look into this!
All Ph.D. candidates who seek a career in research should be required to attain at least a Master’s level amount of coursework in statistics. Even better, should be required to hold a BS in statistics. I have two masters degrees and was not required to take a statistics math course in either one. So I crashed a master’s level math course at Oregon State University in statistics with the professor’s invitation of course (and thank you by the way for allowing me to sit in on your class). Got no grade for it. Took all the tests anyway. Did all the required coursework. Got an A but it never appeared on my transcripts because it was not on the “Education” menu. Even better, I didn’t have to pay for it. Good thing. I was dirt poor and already had a full course load.
So why would this little no-account, bottom rung on the ladder, pee-on take it upon herself to gain a level of understanding of statistics so that she can report data to parents that is valid and reliable, but the idiot Ph.D. mann apparently thinks he can attempt to influence governments with “air-brushed” statistics that clearly are not valid or reliable? Have Ph.D. dissertation committees become that bad at weeding out this kind of riff raff?
If one uses adjusted data and compares it to speculative ‘models’, you can can demonstrate just about anything. But it means absolutely nothing.
Pamela Gray @ur momisugly March 3, 2013 at 8:12 am
“Have Ph.D. dissertation committees become that bad at weeding out this kind of riff raff?”
Surely you are not suggesting this is another incarnation of “pal review”!
Bob Tisdale says:
March 3, 2013 at 7:59 am
Somehow a good portion of the public finds Michael Mann and his cronies to be credible.
=============
Mann and Co have taken advantage of some twisted reasoning that comes out of applying political correctness to the environmental movement.
Most people would agree that:
fossil fuels = air pollution = bad
Political Correctness prevents critical examination of the above equation.
Therefore, once you consider history:
fossil fuels = low cost production = end to poverty
From this we get,
end of poverty = low cost production = air pollution = bad
Therefore
end of poverty = bad
Conclusion:
no end of poverty = no air pollution = good
Kurt in Switzerland says:
March 3, 2013 at 8:11 am
I wonder what Hansen, Pierrehumbert and Muller will say about Mann’s presentation. Remember Muller lambasted Mann for pasting actual temperatures onto proxy reconstructions. Orestes is a cheerleader for the cause and thus provides essentially only comic relief.
________________
Many agree with your assessment.
Muller stands alone in that group and shows signs of coming awake. The rest… the word ‘maddening’ comes to mind, or ‘sickening’, when one considers how much press they are given with so little questioning or afterthought.
Pamela Gray says:
March 3, 2013 at 8:12 am
“So why would this little no-account, bottom rung on the ladder, pee-on take it upon herself to gain a level of understanding of statistics so that she can report data to parents that is valid and reliable, but the idiot Ph.D. mann apparently thinks he can attempt to influence governments with “air-brushed” statistics that clearly are not valid or reliable? Have Ph.D. dissertation committees become that bad at weeding out this kind of riff raff?”
===============================================
I believe the words your searching for is “ETHICAL BEHAVIOR”
Something Mann has no clue about…
There is a politically incorrect way to describe the Nobel Peace Prize winner we all know and love.
A Spiv- a purveyor of shoddy and counterfeit goods- a con-artist.
Mike (Mann) if you are reading this, I am calling you a liar. Please feel free to sue.
“Naomi Oreskes is an American science historian, and Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego.”
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes )
It’s good to see that finally the Global Warming Consensus Movement accepts that laypeople, even without any mathematical education, are entitled to partake in the discussion about the allegedly catastrophic CO2 greenhouse effect.
ferdberple says:
March 3, 2013 at 8:44 am
“no end of poverty = no air pollution = good”
A neat summation.
That really is how they think but they suppress the inconvenient truth by asserting that renewable energy can immminently be made more cost effective than continuing fossil fuel use.
Emotions rather than facts are in control and whenever that has happened in human history death and destruction soon follow.
I pray that this time it might be different but am not confident.
At McIntyre’s site (link above), he references Oreskes and Pielke Jr’s article about her. Oreskes published an article in which she argued that “climate scientists” had begun pulling their punches to avoid the criticism of being drama queens. Now that we have McIntyre’s article on Mann, I am thinking that Oreskes had in mind exactly the kind of “tricks” that Mann continues to use. If so, she has joined Lewandowsky in the gutter.
Maybe we could give Mann the nickname “Tricky Mickey”.
The 7 year itch?
I thought academia had enough of Mann made warming. Apparently not. GK
I’m surprised no one has pointed out that comparisons to Hansen’s B scenario are disingenuous – part 2 of Mann’s trick so to speak.
In scenario B, CO2 concentration increased until 2000 then leveled off – this did not happen. Rather, the fair comparison is to scenario A in which CO2 continued increasing at the same rate as before. In fact, what actually transpired was that CO2 increased *faster* after 2000 (until the recession of course).
Ed Reid at 7:32 am. Agree. I have never understood adjustments. In the best case it could mean that additional factors influence the observations. In that case you make the factors explicit in your analysis. This is the common scientific procedure. Altering the observations, usually in a way nobody can check, is data fraud. Perhaps you are too kind.
The larger question is……….Why was Dr. Mann allowed to present ANYTHING? His current literature is so bad, I fear the poor feller has suffered numerous strokes.
Apologies to KiS. I guess I should have read the rest of the comments before posting mine. In my defense, I started it much earlier then had to do something else.
One thing is certain. The “models” did not predict the 17 years of no warming, and they do not include any adjustments to the model which incorporate the non warming.
Double strike for the models.
MattN says:
March 3, 2013 at 7:16 am
I’m glad Mann does not work in pharmaceuticals. With the way he blatantly changes data, he could wind up killing more people than smallpox…
OR Engineering for Cars, planes, trains, bridges, baby strollers. He might be OK in the BOMB design business, they all blow up eventually!
Luther Wu says:
March 3, 2013 at 9:00 am
“Orestes is a cheerleader for the cause and thus provides essentially only comic relief.”
In Greek mythology, Orestes was the son of Clytemnestra and Agamemnon. It seems to me that Oreskes is more of a mythical drama queen than Orestes. 🙂
Bob Tisdale says:
March 3, 2013 at 7:59 am
Somehow a good portion of the public finds Michael Mann and his cronies to be credible.
———————————————-
Most of the population haven’t even heard of them. It’s easy to forget when you spend time on climate blogs that most people don’t.
They’ve never heard of Mann, Hansen, Jones, Briffa etc etc. They’ve heard of Gore because of the extra publicity due to his his former occupation.
Most people eg in the UK hear the drip, drip of climate change mentions in half the output of the BBC. Some, but a smallier proportion, see some of the hysteria in the print media but most flick over such articles.
Most either take no notice of CAGW , assume it’s true because “everyone” says it is but still do little or nothing about it or look at the weather, shrug, and think it’s bollocks. Very few are interested enough to be either raving eco-nuts or read WUWT. or Bishop Hill.
I suspect that the majority of scientists are barely more interested unless it directly affects their field (to the extend of having to include “in relation to climate change” in any grant application).
I suspect that most scientists know so little about climate “science” that they assume it’s run properly and that anyone sceptical is an anti-science crazy.
I suspect that most politicians wouldn’t care less if it a) wasn’t useful to them and b) they weren’t being badgered by NGOs with their snout in the trough and delusions of grandeur.
Part of the problem we have I think is that few people are really that interested unless they have an axe to grind. Of course if companies close through carbon taxes, people go bankrupt or die because of rising fuel bills and especially if the lights go out then maybe there will be an impetus for people to take notice.
Camburn says:
The larger question is……….Why was Dr. Mann allowed to present ANYTHING? His current literature is so bad, I fear the poor feller has suffered numerous strokes.
More professional malfeasance.
To judge by how many of the the hundreds of delegates the attend AGU fall conference Mann managed to “pack” into this small conference room, it looks like not many are listening to him any more.
It seems that AGW scientists not only have tenure of position but also protection from criminal prosecution . The ultimate death knell of a scientist is when no one takes you seriously any more.
The attendance here looks like the funeral service attendance for an old lady with no relatives.
Mindert Eiting @March 3, 2013 at 9:47 am
It seems that the climate science community views itself as the modern day, real world incarnation of Rumpelstiltskin, not only able to spin straw (bad data) into gold (good data), but also able to spin nothing (missing data) into gold (good data) as well. That suggests to me that the current state of climate science is “Grimm”.
“In scenario B, CO2 concentration increased until 2000 then leveled off”
I think that is scenario C.
Can anyone state what each of the scenarios had CO2 levels at for 2012?