Re: CRU email: "...some of the series that make up the Chinese record are dubious or obscure , but the same is true of other records Mann and Jones have used..."
b*o*n*z*o
"Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
news:heetm...@news7.newsguy.com...
> tunderbar wrote:
>> From: "Michael E. Mann" <ma...@virginia.edu>
>> To: Keith Briffa <k.br...@uea.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.j...@uea.ac.uk>,
>> "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbra...@geo.umass.edu>
>> Subject: Re: ice cores/China series (FYI)
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:06:25 -0400
>> Cc: ma...@virginia.edu
>>
>> Thanks Keith,
>> I just read your email after reading the others. We actually
>> eliminate records with
>> negative correlations (this is mentioned breifly in the GRL
>> article,), and we investigated
>> a variety of weighting schemes to assure the basic robustness of
>> the composite--but I
>> certainly endorse your broader point here. Many of these records
>> have some significant
>> uncertainties or possible sources of bias, and this isn't the place
>> to get into that. The
>> uncertainties get at this, at some level, and other places (e.g.
>> the Reviews of Geophysics
>> paper Phil and I are drafting) will provide an opportunity to
>> discuss these kinds of issues
>> in more detail--we will certainly be seeking advice (either
>> officially or unofficially)
>> from each of you once we have finalized the draft of that...
>> Now back to my honeymoon...
>> mike
>> At 02:38 PM 6/24/2003 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:
>>
>> To keep you informed , here is a reply to Tom Wigley re his
>> request to "deal with Ray's
>> Comments" re the China series in EOS piece
>> Tom
>> Tim has just told me of your message expressing concern about the
>> China series , and
>> your statement of the necessity to "deal with Ray's comment" and
>> add in the "small
>> adjustment to the Figure Caption". .
>> We (I and Tim) decided to get this off as soon as possible to
>> Ellen (AGU) , as we had
>> been asked to do (and as requested by Ellen). Hence it went off
>> earlier today (and
>> before your message arrived). Mike was aware of Ray's comment and
>> was happy to leave any
>> amendment to the text "until the proof stage" .
>> In my opinion it is not practical (or desirable) to try to
>> "qualify " any one record in
>> this limited format. It was a majority decision to leave the Mann
>> and Jones 2000-year
>> series in the Figure 1 (as it was to remove the Briffa and Osborn
>> tree-ring based one) ,
>> and the details of the logic used to derive the Mann and Jones
>> series is to be found in
>> the (cited) text of their paper. Signing on to this letter , in
>> my mind. implies
>> agreement with the text and not individual endorsement of all
>> curves by each author. I
>> too have expressed my concern to Phil (and Ray) over the logic
>> that you leave all series
>> you want in but just weight them according to some (sometimes
>> low) correlation (in this
>> case based on decadal values). I also believe some of the series
>> that make up the
>> Chinese record are dubious or obscure , but the same is true of
>> other records Mann and
>> Jones have used (e.g. how do you handle a series in New Zealand
>> that has a -0.25
>> correlation?) . Further serious problems are still (see my and
>> Tim's Science comment on
>> the Mann 1999 paper) lurking with the correction applied to the
>> Western US tree-ring PC
>> amplitude series used (and shown in Figure 2). There are problems
>> (and limitations )
>> with ALL series used. At this stage , singling out individual
>> records for added (and
>> unavoidably cursory added description) is not practical. We were
>> told to cut the text
>> and References significantly - and further cuts are implied by
>> Ellen's messages to us.
>> If you wish to open this up to general discussion , it may be
>> best to wait 'til the
>> proof stage and then we can all consider the balance of emphasis
>> - but we had also
>> better guard against too "selective" a choice of data to present?
>> If you want to get a
>> somewhat wider discussion of this point going in the meantime ,
>> feel free to forward
>> this to whoever you wish along with your disagreement , while we
>> wait on the response
>> from AGU.
>> Best wishes
>> Keith
>> Professor Keith Briffa,
>> Climatic Research Unit
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>> Phone: +44-1603-593909
>> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>> [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Professor Michael E. Mann
>> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>> University of Virginia
>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> e-mail: ma...@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434)
>> 982-2137
>> [2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>> 2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>
>
> Rejection of bad data again, every scientist's responsibility.
>
> Still waiting on the scandal part. Can't you boys hurry it up?
Wait no more ...
How about this ...
In one e-mail sent to Michael Mann, director of Penn State University's
Earth System Science Center, Raymond Bradley, a climatologist at the
University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, a professor of
dendrochronology at the University of Arizona's Laboratory for Tree-Ring
Research, Jones speaks of the "trick" of filling in gaps of data in order to
hide evidence of temperature decline:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each
series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for
Keith's to hide the decline."
Hide the decline?
"Keith" is Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit, also involved in the
bogus manipulation of data.
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
tunderbar
> "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
>
> news:heetm...@news7.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > tunderbar wrote:
> >> To: Keith Briffa <k.bri...@uea.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jo...@uea.ac.uk>,
> >> "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbrad...@geo.umass.edu>
> >> Subject: Re: ice cores/China series (FYI)
> >> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:06:25 -0400
> >> 982-2137
> >> [2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>
> >> References
>
> >> 1.http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>
> > Rejection of bad data again, every scientist's responsibility.
>
> > Still waiting on the scandal part. Can't you boys hurry it up?
>
> Wait no more ...
>
> How about this ...
>
> In one e-mail sent to Michael Mann, director of Penn State University's
> Earth System Science Center, Raymond Bradley, a climatologist at the
> University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, a professor of
> dendrochronology at the University of Arizona's Laboratory for Tree-Ring
> Research, Jones speaks of the "trick" of filling in gaps of data in order to
> hide evidence of temperature decline:
>
> "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each
> series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for
> Keith's to hide the decline."
>
> Hide the decline?
>
> "Keith" is Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit, also involved in the
> bogus manipulation of data.
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> B0n oz
>
> "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
> US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
> worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
> from natural variation."
> Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Reading thru some of Mann's code, it looks lie he treats some data one
way, other data another way based on the range of years and nothing
else.
In calibrate_correctmxd.pro we see this comment:
; We have previously (calibrate_mxd.pro) calibrated the high-pass
filtered
; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data
(which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to
boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset
against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same
calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.
and this in mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro:
; Tries to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperatures, on a box-by-box basis,
from the
; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as
predictors
; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a
number of
; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different
spatial
; coverage). *BUT* don't do special PCR for the modern period
(post-1976),
; since they won't be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are "manually" removed
because
; they are isolated and away from any trees.
and another:
; Computes EOFs of infilled calibrated MXD gridded dataset.
; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the
decline).
; Do not usually rotate, since this loses the common volcanic and
global
; warming signal, and results in regional-mean series instead.
; Generally use the correlation matrix EOFs.
another one:
;
; Makes a movie of yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but
shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look
closer to
; the real temperatures.
here is a good comment:
; Leading mode is contaminated by decline, so pre-filter it (but not
; the gridded datasets!)
;
lol. decline in temps appears to be a contaminant to Mann.
The real confirmation of all this data maneuvering by Mann will be
when McIntyre puts all this data and code into action and confirms
what Mann is really doing. Keep an eye on the Climate Audit site.
Ouroboros Rex
What you mean is, you want to bitch that people don't discard bad data,
then bitch when they do discard it. lol
>
> The real confirmation of all this data maneuvering by Mann will be
> when McIntyre puts all this data and code into action and confirms
> what Mann is really doing. Keep an eye on the Climate Audit site.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com:80/2009/11/mcimtyre_hadley_comment-11-20-09.png
Mckintyre is now forever exposed as a lying denialist jackass. lol
Day 4 - still zero fraud found. Better step it up!