Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

He - Double Hockey Sticks

Recs

4

November 28, 2009 – Comments (7)

David in Qatar told me that Realclimate.org was a politically corrupted website and I should disregard anything I read there.

I failed...

and then I learned about the many matching hockey stick graphs based on data collected from many different and independent sources. It seemed more like a discussion of the relevant science and less like a political agenda than Davids posts.

Here, try it out for yourself.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/#more-1184 

7 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 28, 2009 at 10:42 PM, whereaminow (21.88) wrote:

Yet another Upside Down Mann out 

Science published today yet-another-Mann-et-al-reconstruction:

Michael E. Mann, Zhihua Zhang, Scott Rutherford, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Drew Shindell, Caspar Ammann, Greg Faluvegi, and Fenbiao N: Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly, Science 326 (5957), 1256. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1177303]. 

Seems to me that Mann has re-discovered the Medieval Warm Period.

I had a quick look at the paper, SI, and the code. What seems to be done this time is that the proxy network of Mann et al (2008) is processed with a slightly modified screening of Mann et al (2008), and then the reconstruction is done with a slightly modified RegEM CFR of Mann et al (2007)! Now to answer the question that seems to be on everyone's lips: yes, Tiljander series are still used as inverted. This can be seen from the positive screening correlation values reported in the file 1209proxynames.xls. In fact, going quickly through the screening code, it seemed to me that they have really "moved on" from the screening employed in Mann et al (2008): only "two-sided test" is used!

%------------------------------------------------------------------
%% below is for selecting full/screened/1856-1925 screened/1926-1995 screened proxy-network
%% replacing "abs(z(4,i))>=0.165"/"abs(z(5,i))>=0.513" in line 75/84 with the followings for your expected proxy-network
%% abs(z(4,i))>=0 / abs(z(5,i))>=0 (full proxy-network)
%% abs(z(4,i))>=0.162 / abs(z(5,i))>=0.496 (screening over 1850-1995)
%% abs(z(6,i))>=0.195 / abs(z(7,i))>=0.602 (screening over 1896-1995)
%--

This means that if a proxy has a strong inverted correlation to the (two-pick?) local temperature, it gets picked - no matter what the physical interpretation is! Since RegEM doesn't care about the sign, it is now really so that the sign does not matter to them anymore. Anything goes!

I'm speechless.

Report this comment
#2) On November 28, 2009 at 10:45 PM, fmahnke (90.19) wrote:

Hey devo,

I'm not a global a climate expert and really don't have a fact or fiction based opinion on the issue, but I do have a question.

Seems  that it is now fairly well established that many of the scientist and advocates have gone to  great lengths  to supress conflicting data on this issue, 

Legislative "solutions" to this issue have some serious economic consequences . So my questions is ????

Why do you think people seem so intent on concealing certain info on this topic,  Seems to me that these types of actions are inconsistnet with the fundamental tenants of scientific research,

 

Report this comment
#3) On November 28, 2009 at 10:45 PM, whereaminow (21.88) wrote:

The Hockey Stick was never accurate - and CRU knew it.

The infamous "hockey stick" temperature graph purporting to show a runaway acceleration in global temperatures beginning in 1850 was never accurate--and the Climatic Research Unit knew it wasn't accurate when they published it.

This is the only reasonable conclusion from an analysis of another data set, sent in 1999 by Tim Osborne to Michael Mann, and copied to Phil Jones and Keith Briffa, the director and associate director of the CRU.

The "hockey stick" graph (above), which appeared on the cover of the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999, is now known to have its basis in this e-mail (File 0942777075.txt) from Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes:

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers

Phil

But what most readers do not generally appreciate is that, one month earlier, Dr. Tim Osborn, also of the CRU, sent an e-mail to Michael Mann (File 0939154709.txt) containing two columns of data from his study of tree-ring densities. That e-mail begins thus:

Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have.  The data are attached to this e-mail.  They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use.  I haven't put a 40-yr smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure the same filter was used for all curves.

After the last paragraph, his data set appears. Associated with each year is a quantity called a temperature anomaly, which was the difference between the average temperature in that year from a baseline average of temperatures in the period 1961-1990. Note carefully the emphasized line about stopping the series in 1960.

Report this comment
#4) On November 28, 2009 at 10:47 PM, whereaminow (21.88) wrote:

By the way, a non-temperature signal relates to temperature readings in the proxy data that doesn't conform with what is expected, however since they didn't have anything in the proxy data that conformed after 1960 they just left it out! Problem solved!

That's science?  Yeah, ok.

This is going to be a great week.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#5) On November 28, 2009 at 10:55 PM, topsecret09 (36.97) wrote:

  Whats up ? ......    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Report this comment
#6) On November 29, 2009 at 12:49 AM, whereaminow (21.88) wrote:

Here are the Hockey Stick comparisons that are supposed to be in comment #1

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#7) On November 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Teacherman1 (56.25) wrote:

Foolanthropy on.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement