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.
G Karst says: “Mann made warming”.
That really says it all.
ferdberple says:
March 3, 2013 at 8:44 am
“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”
I would like to make a slight addition:
end of poverty = bad for government control
no end of poverty = good for government control
The majority of people need to understand that the government has a vested interest in keeping them poor (relative to each nation of course). Using climate change scare tactics to convince the average person to back carbon trading is just the latest scheme in accomplishing more control.
Actually Oreskes is the bigger clown here, she claims climatologists are intimidated into modifying their results.
Now this time she claims it due to those mean sceptics bullying the wee babies, but if they were so susceptible to intimidation? Who but a “Team Member” would know.
Now as an insider, why would she smear the ethics, integrity and credibility of her team members?
Does she have past experience to go on?
Nice own goal though.
Andy Wilkins says:
March 3, 2013 at 1:39 pm
As some commenters have already said (but I feel needs repeating and shoving in the warmists faces at any given opportunity):
Real-world CO2 emissions have gone way past Hansen’s Scenario A projections/predictions, so real-world temps should be matching or higher than the Scenario A temps. But they haven’t, they’re nowhere near it. So Hansen was wrong in a major way, Mann’s chatting sh*t, and Naomi’s a clown.
Or have I got it wrong? Am I missing something? (a genuine question – if I need to be corrected, tell me)
______________________
Exactly as I see it. Another commenter at Climate Audit (ZT) asked Steve McIntyre the same question yesterday. Steve says he covered the subject in detail on his blog a few years ago.
Not having been a regular reader of CA, I put in my two bits. http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/#comment-402697
Kurt in Switzerland
Think about what Mann and Oreskes are doing in their AGU presentations. They are implying that the IPCC is listening to and accepting some of what ‘skeptics’ are saying. Both of them find that possibility disturbing.
It looks to me like Mann and Oreskes are redoubling their efforts on CAGW to nip in the bud what they think is a dangerous skeptical infiltration into the climate science community.
They see a skeptic behind every bush. Looks like paranoia.
John
A.D. Everard says:
March 3, 2013 at 12:15 pm
“The truth is kicking their a$$e$ and they can’t escape it.”
_________________________
You know that, we know that and often, even they know that.
Do the “low- information” voters know that? Would it matter if they did?
Who decides policy for the US?
Sure enough, we are making a bit of a difference, but overall, we amount to bugs on their windshield and a flat tire on a dually in their convoy.
—————————————-
“…over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.
But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.
– Barack Obama, POTUS, 2013 State Of The Union Address
—————————————–
– 23 Feb., 2013… US Congress renews $12 Billion tax credit for Wind Energy
– 9 January, 2013… Georgia Power shutting 15 Power plants due to EPA
etc, etc, etc
This fellow really needs to be fired. How can the University possibly keep him employed as a scientist?? Penn State University I believe?
@Mosher , why aren’t you contributing to this thread ??? Your faith/expertise is needed, I can’t understand you silence !!
Naomi Oreskes: “Mr Mann, we need warp speed propaganda right now or we’re all dead.”
Mann: “Captain, the models are running hot. The propaganda canna go to warp…”
Naomi Oreskes: “Our funding is in jeopardy and Obama might approve Keystone”
Mann: “Aye captain, its worse than we thought, Al Gore is dead”
Al Gore: “I’m not dead yet, it’s just a flesh wound”
It is disturbing to imagine this man teaching young students at an university.
@Mosher, you did weight in eloquently on the side of ethical behavior at climateaudit.org, kudos for that !!
Its equally disturbing that the AGU invites him to speak.
Eliza@3:30 and Manfred @4:19, you clearly don’t live in the US. Prof. Mann is a decent honest fellow by the standards of Penn State. Google Jerry Sandusky – Penn State to read about a major national scandal and how the Penn adminstration dealt with a genuine felon.
Here is another trick which shows ice data to 2010 only LOL
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2010.png
There’s a nutty post tonight by Mann on his Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist
Among other things he totally misses (or ignores) the actual main points made by Steve McIntyre’s article while elaborating in irrelevant detail on the publication history of his Mann and Kump (2008) book. He also fails to grasp that WUWT has re-posted SM’s actual article, with Steve’s name at top as author, so when Mann says that Anthony is “parroting” SM it is simply another failed attempt at a silly smear.
Many [on this blog and other skeptical sites] agree with my assessment, but alas, too few of the general public (who passively or actively support the “damnation of carbon” and “climate-friendly” initiatives) give much thought to anything behind the façade. These boys must be praying for a steep temperature rise in the next five years.
Kurt in Switzerland
Kurt here in Australia, they think they have it all sewn up, take a hot day desert reading, smear it all over the continent and declare an “Off the Charts; Extreme Australian summer heat” i.e create a myth of steep temperature rise by cherry picking and official collusion, under the approving gaze of the Australian Gillard Government who are taxing the life out of the Australian Economy and borrowing like crazy. The recent reports by their politically appointed Climate Commission, Will Steffen Commisioner and the efforts of Professor Matthew England and Professor David Karoly in support will be lauded as a wake up call as the government needs the money poste haste to waste on helping itself to get re-elected rather than being wiped out.
Take an adjusted (downwards of course) historical temperature record, play down the magical methodology, then shift heat by averaging, next thing take desert day time heat in the Sahara, (you only need one hot site) and smear it over the world instant global warming!. And there is your “convenient heat” along with charts for cherry picked time periods like Mikes AGU trick. When will real scientists stand up to these fraudulent methods. Too many tricks too much distortion, too much propaganda masquerading as science.
@ur momisugly John Whitman says: March 3, 2013 at 11:13 am
“It looks like CAGW folks are starting to cannibalize their own kind.”
Seems to have reached that point. And your choice of the word “cannibalize” couldn’t be more apt given the developmental status of these beings both culturally and as organisms.
Some look to be making the first movements towards positioning themselves as “reasonable” people. Others, either further out on a limb or so consumed by their impulse as to be unable to sniff the wind, are hurling themselves unthinkingly into oblivion. Yet others are trying to re-frame the terms of reference.
We can expect all these things to intensify over the next 18 months, because that is all the time they have.
Further to my last comment,Joanne Nova has a very good post on how the Australian BOM accomplished their media event.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/mystery-black-box-method-used-to-make-all-new-australian-hottest-ever-records/
Seems trickery and media PR for political gain replaces science in Meteorology, sadly!
@ur momisugly Tom in what happened to global warming this week Florida says: March 3, 2013 at 2:20
“end of poverty = bad for government control
no end of poverty = good for government control”
Very true.
It is (or should be) astonishing that such a large section of society seems to have forgotten something that was not a mystery 100 years ago. That the degree to which have a viable standard of living based on their independent efforts and decisions is the degree to which they people do not need to, and will not, look to Authority in the form of Prince or Government to provide it.
Left off above comment:
…And that therefore the degree to which any Government seeks to have structural control over these issues is the degree to which this will always result in those dependent on it remaining dependent, and the requirement to generate conditions that maintain and enhance this as much as possible.
It is inherent to its nature.
[snip]
Time to bail out of the AGU.
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.
=============
So both Mann and Oreskes agree that the climate models are wrong!! Newsflash, sun will rise tomorrow. AGU = modern slang for “dumb as a bag of hammers”
jc says:
March 3, 2013 at 8:35 pm
…And that therefore the degree to which any Government
===========
No parasite ever wishes the host to be cured of the parasite. Unfortunately, not all parasites recognized that in eating too much they risk killing the host. Even if the host survives, if the parasite is too aggressive the host may be so weakened as to die for exterior threats.
The growth of government is a parasite upon the host economy that threatens all that rely on the economy for their survival. No government yet invented has even shown itself able to support “We The People” without a healthy economy. Any government that kills the economy kills the people. As has been shown time and time again throughout history.
This is a very important point often overlooked. No government has ever show itself able to feed and clothe the population of any nation. Food and clothing is the product of the people that build the economy. Food and clothing are not something produced by government. Food and clothing are a products CONSUMED by government in competition with the people. The more the government takes, the higher the costs to “We The People”.
What is truly amazing is that Americans do not appear to understand the importance of their own heritage. They owe their freedom to a small group of patriots 300+ years ago that recognized that government is not the friend of the people. That given half a chance government will enslave the people to the benefit of those in power.
The nation in which millions died to end slavery still sees itself guilt for slavery it did not start. Rather this was inherited from colonial masters. This guilt and the associated political correctness prevents a critical examination of government policy. While the government enslaves the whole nation through debt to the Federal Reserve – a privately held corporation. Without even passing a budget to approve the debt. If you did this in a private corporation you would go to jail. In American, you receive accolades and a pension for life.