M&M - one of the most important papers published in recent years
Steve Schulin
Financial Review. Here are some excerpts I thought some folks here would
find interesting:
* " ... it is clear that the McIntyre and McKitrick paper is set to
become one of the most important that has been published in recent
years. Apart from the light that it throws on the climate debate, the
paper raises profound issues to do with the integrity of scientific
publication, how data which underpins published papers should be
archived and made available, and whether science advice given to
governments on policy matters should be rigorously audited."
* "... unlike Mann, Bradley and Hughes for their 1998 paper, McIntyre
and McKitrick have made full disclosure of all the assumptions made and
techniques used in their manipulation of the data, have posted the data
they used on a freely-accessible website, and have invited other
scientists to comment on or check their conclusions."
* "Mann, Bradley and Hughes used complex statistical averaging methods
to combine no fewer than 112 such proxy records into an inferred climate
curve for 1400-1902. Controversially, for the period between 1902 and
1980 they then spliced on an averaged curve of actual thermometer
temperature measurements. The result was a combined curve which showed
little evidence of either the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice
Age and a dramatic upturn to higher temperatures after 1900 and
continuing to 1980. Thus was born the famous 'hockey stick curve' of
recent climate change. Though it was immediately adopted as the received
truth by global warming lobbyists, many scientists were sharply critical
of the conclusions of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. Critics pointed out that
the graph was based on datasets which were heavily manipulated
statistically and, in combining at the year 1902 two datasets of
different derivation, Mann, Bradley and Hughes had transgressed good
statistical practice."
* "In an initial response, Mann has asserted that the dataset which he
provided McIntyre and McKitrick is not the same dataset he used in his
Nature paper, and anyway contains errors. Such a response does not
inspire confidence in Mann's other work, and, anyway, McIntyre and
McKitrick used for their analysis a recompiled, accurate dataset. It
will obviously be some time before the argument is concluded and the
dust settles."
* "Australia should consider following Denmark's example and set up a
science audit unit to verify the soundness of advice the federal
government receives. Such an audit unit can be funded with the money
saved by closing down the Australian Greenhouse Office."
[Source: Bob Carter (prof geology, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James
Cook U), "Global Warming May Turn Out To Be Just Hot Air", Australian
Financial Review, November 3, 2003, p. 71]
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>Paleoclimate researcher Bob Carter has an op ed in today's Australian
>Financial Review. Here are some excerpts I thought some folks here would
>find interesting:
>
Well, at least you now know how you'll respond to the paper,
Steve. Mr. Carter has told you what to think. He hasn't said much else
of value, however.
Titan Point
Unfortunately, it is the authority of science that is under attack. What
will the editors of Nature do if M&M's analysis proves persuasive?
James Acker
: Paleoclimate researcher Bob Carter has an op ed in today's Australian
: find interesting:
[deleted]
: * "Mann, Bradley and Hughes used complex statistical averaging methods
: to combine no fewer than 112 such proxy records into an inferred climate
: curve for 1400-1902. Controversially, for the period between 1902 and
: 1980 they then spliced on an averaged curve of actual thermometer
: temperature measurements. The result was a combined curve which showed
: little evidence of either the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice
: Age and a dramatic upturn to higher temperatures after 1900 and
: continuing to 1980. Thus was born the famous 'hockey stick curve' of
: recent climate change. Though it was immediately adopted as the received
: truth by global warming lobbyists, many scientists were sharply critical
: of the conclusions of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. Critics pointed out that
: the graph was based on datasets which were heavily manipulated
: statistically and, in combining at the year 1902 two datasets of
: different derivation, Mann, Bradley and Hughes had transgressed good
: statistical practice."
Did Crowley and Lowery (2000), "How Warm was the Medieval
Warm Period", Ambio 29, 51-54, and Jones, P.D., K.R. Briffa, T.P., Barnett
and S.F.B. Tett, 1998: "High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last
millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General
Circulation Model control run temperatures", The Holocene, 8, 455-471,
also transgress good statistical practice? If so, that's a lot of
scientists transgressing good statistical practice!
Here's what the IPCC (well, I know it's them, but still) say
about Jones et al. (1998), with context provided:
"Mann et al. (1999) concluded that the 1990s were likely to
have been the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the past
millennium for at least the Northern Hemisphere. Jones et al. (1998)
came to a similar conclusion from largely independent data and an
entirely independent methodology. Crowley and Lowery (2000) reached
the similar conclusion that medieval temperatures were no warmer than
mid-20th century temperatures."
It's funny how all these critics forget that Mann et al. are
not the only research group doing this type of research. It's also
funny how they aren't trying to criticize the work of these other
groups. It's funny how the work of these other groups is entirely
consistent with Mann et al's. research and data.
It sure would be funny if one of these editorialists tried
to explain why they can't mention any other research papers that
have reached the same conclusions as Mann et al.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Iain Murray tried to.
"Mann also asserts that many other paleoclimatoligists hve been able to
replicate his results closely. But this response does not address the
question whether those experts uncovered the same errors in the data that
M&M, coming to the issue fresh, were able to find."
But Murray doesn't address whether or not the data "errors"
that Mickey-Mick "found" in an improperly formulated dataset were actually
present in the original data. The response to Mickey-Mick by the Mann
group indicates that Mickey-Mick did not follow proper statistical
procedures in their re-analysis. The result of that would be:
Mickey-Mick are wrong. And all of the editorial writers that have
been writing about how great Mickey-Mick's paper is are wrong, too.
Jim Acker
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
"Since we are assured that an all-wise Creator has observed the
most exact proportions, of number, weight, and measure, in the
make of all things, the most likely way therefore, to get any
insight into the nature of those parts of the creation, which
come within our observation, must in all reason be to number,
weigh, and measure." - Stephen Hales
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
I don't recall reading that Jones et al 1998 article, so, at least for
now, I'm going to have to rely on later Jones et al authors', and
others', discussions of it in assessing your quite strident comments.
Soon and Baliunas mention several aspects of the Jones et al 1998 paper
which are not incompatible with the TAR statement you quote, but which
are quite incompatible with your apparent conclusion. Jones et al 1998
found a Little Ice Age, apparently beyond Europe, S&B say. Jones et al
1998 also concluded that the data were insufficient to rule out an MWP.
Jones et al 1998 also found the 20th century warming to be bunched in
the earlier years. That's no hockey stick, babe.
>
> It sure would be funny if one of these editorialists tried
> to explain why they can't mention any other research papers that
> have reached the same conclusions as Mann et al.
>
> Oh yeah, I forgot. Iain Murray tried to.
>
> "Mann also asserts that many other paleoclimatoligists hve been able to
> replicate his results closely. But this response does not address the
> question whether those experts uncovered the same errors in the data that
> M&M, coming to the issue fresh, were able to find."
>
> But Murray doesn't address whether or not the data "errors"
> that Mickey-Mick "found" in an improperly formulated dataset were actually
> present in the original data. ...
Murray appears to be (mistakenly) taking mann at his word about the
others "replicating" his work. Nobody has used the same particular
combination of data and methods which Mann et al 1998 describe.
> ... The response to Mickey-Mick by the Mann
Lloyd Parker
years old?
Steve Schulin
lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote, in part:
> What will biologists and geologists do if the earth turns out to be
> just 6000 [or 13,000 or so] years old?
Evolve?
Alastair McDonald
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-14E...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
I must say that is more than you seem to be able to do.
Cheers, Alastair.
James Acker
: James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
This baloney about Mann et al. eliminating the MWP and
LIA has got to STOP! If you want to see the data, here's the
fricking data plotted all together:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann2003b.html
Look at the big bottom figure.
Now that you've looked at it, answer me this. Amalgamate
the various plots in your mind. How do temperatures in the period
1000-1400 compare to temperatures from 1450-1800?
Meaning: if Jones et al. 1998 found a LIA, then it's in
Mann's data too. If they can't rule out a MWP, then it can't be
ruled out from Mann et al.'s data analysis, either. And note that
I've posted URLs to other publications from Mann's Web site here that show
regional data plots, which demonstrate significantly greater high and
low temperature excursions during the warm and cold periods, particularly
in EUROPE and England. So, as I've said before, the global analysis
of data reduces the amplitude of regional temperature variability.
So: there was never an elimination of the MWP and LIA by Mann et al.
or any other group. They demonstrated that the global temperature
variability is smaller than the regional temperature variability during
these periods (probably due in part to non-synchronization of cold
and warm periods during the 1000-1400 and 1450-1800 periods, i.e.,
during the 12th century, it might have been warm in the Northern
Hemisphere and cold in the Southern Hemisphere, which averages out
to much less variability).
And if the research of these other groups is accurate, then it
would appear that Mann et al.'s is probably accurate, too.
Regarding your last statement, Jones et al. 1998 do not appear
to append the instrumental record to their data as Mann does. So their
plot would not show the full range of 20th century warming.
[small deletion]
:> "Mann also asserts that many other paleoclimatoligists hve been able to
:> replicate his results closely. But this response does not address the
:> question whether those experts uncovered the same errors in the data that
:> M&M, coming to the issue fresh, were able to find."
:>
:> But Murray doesn't address whether or not the data "errors"
:> that Mickey-Mick "found" in an improperly formulated dataset were actually
:> present in the original data. ...
: Murray appears to be (mistakenly) taking mann at his word about the
: others "replicating" his work. Nobody has used the same particular
: combination of data and methods which Mann et al 1998 describe.
Nobody wants to "replicate" Mann's work. They want to do their
own work and see if their independent research is consistent or
inconsistent with Mann's work. That's what Crowley and Lowery (2000)
and Jones et al. 1998 did. Because the results are so similar,
the Mann et al. research is supported, not refuted.
Does that make sense to you? Have you looked at the figure
provided? Would you say that the results shown in the figure from
different research groups support Mann's results, or not?
:> ... The response to Mickey-Mick by the Mann
:> group indicates that Mickey-Mick did not follow proper statistical
:> procedures in their re-analysis. The result of that would be:
:> Mickey-Mick are wrong. And all of the editorial writers that have
:> been writing about how great Mickey-Mick's paper is are wrong, too.
Jim Acker
Ian St. John
Not so that you would notice.,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-21.htm
I can see no such 'warming plateau' in the Jones et al trace. They may have
studied the MW regional warming in a different paper.
> apparently beyond Europe, S&B say. Jones et al
> 1998 also concluded that the data were insufficient to rule out an MWP.
> Jones et al 1998 also found the 20th century warming to be bunched in
> the earlier years. That's no hockey stick, babe.
This seems to be pure bluster. The Mann and Jones 2003 paper clearly
indicates that Jones is not 'onside' with any such claim of a global MWP.
ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/mannjones03.pdf
"The reconstruction is consistent with previous reconstructions (and model
simulations [e.g., Mann, 2002]) of NH mean temperatures over the past
millennium within estimated uncertainties The amplitude of variability is
notably less than that implied in some reconstructions emphasizing only the
mid-latitude continental regions and the summer season [Esper et al., 2002],
underscoring the importance of taking into account seasonal and spatial
sampling in comparisons of alternative reconstructions.
> >
> > It sure would be funny if one of these editorialists tried
> > to explain why they can't mention any other research papers that
> > have reached the same conclusions as Mann et al.
> >
> > Oh yeah, I forgot. Iain Murray tried to.
> >
> > "Mann also asserts that many other paleoclimatoligists hve been able to
> > replicate his results closely. But this response does not address the
> > question whether those experts uncovered the same errors in the data
that
> > M&M, coming to the issue fresh, were able to find."
> >
> > But Murray doesn't address whether or not the data "errors"
> > that Mickey-Mick "found" in an improperly formulated dataset were
actually
> > present in the original data. ...
>
> Murray appears to be (mistakenly) taking mann at his word about the
> others "replicating" his work. Nobody has used the same particular
> combination of data and methods which Mann et al 1998 describe.
That is the necessary nature of cross checking. You cannot use the SAME data
and methods to determine anything but simple mathematics mistakes.
Methodology and rigor along with the justification for conclusions are much
more important. Similar studies by alternative authors giving essentially
the same results is much more important than looking at the math since
simple math errors would have been picked up quickly.
Josh Halpern
James Acker wrote:
SNIP.....
> Oh yeah, I forgot. Iain Murray tried to.
>
>"Mann also asserts that many other paleoclimatoligists hve been able to
>replicate his results closely. But this response does not address the
>question whether those experts uncovered the same errors in the data that
>M&M, coming to the issue fresh, were able to find."
>
> But Murray doesn't address whether or not the data "errors"
>that Mickey-Mick "found" in an improperly formulated dataset were actually
>present in the original data. The response to Mickey-Mick by the Mann
>group indicates that Mickey-Mick did not follow proper statistical
>procedures in their re-analysis. The result of that would be:
>Mickey-Mick are wrong. And all of the editorial writers that have
>been writing about how great Mickey-Mick's paper is are wrong, too.
>
>
Think Mann is getting pissed off enough to hire a lawyer?
josh halpern
Steve Schulin
"Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote, in part:
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote...
> > James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote...
> > > Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> > > : Paleoclimate researcher Bob Carter has an op ed in today's Australian
> > > : Financial Review. Here are some excerpts I thought some folks here
> > > : would find interesting:
> > >
> > > [deleted]
> > >
> > > : * "Mann, Bradley and Hughes used complex statistical averaging methods
> > > : to combine no fewer than 112 such proxy records into an inferred
> > > : climate curve for 1400-1902. Controversially, for ... 1902 [-]
> > > : 1980 they then spliced on an averaged curve of actual thermometer
> > > : temperature measurements. The result was a combined curve which showed
> > > : little evidence of either the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice
> > > : Age and a dramatic upturn to higher temperatures after 1900 and
> > > : continuing to 1980. Thus was born the famous 'hockey stick curve'
> > > : ... Though it was immediately adopted as the received
> > > : truth by global warming lobbyists, many scientists were sharply
>
> > > : critical of the conclusions of [MBH]. Critics pointed out that
LOL - one graph and Ian's ready to move on. Why, Ian, should your
opinion on a paper you give no evidence of ever having read, be taken as
reason to contradict someone who apparently has read the paper?
>
> > apparently beyond Europe, S&B say. Jones et al
> > 1998 also concluded that the data were insufficient to rule out an MWP.
> > Jones et al 1998 also found the 20th century warming to be bunched in
> > the earlier years. That's no hockey stick, babe.
>
> This seems to be pure bluster. The Mann and Jones 2003 paper clearly
> indicates that Jones is not 'onside' with any such claim of a global MWP.
> ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/mannjones03.pdf
> "The reconstruction is consistent with previous reconstructions (and model
> simulations [e.g., Mann, 2002]) of NH mean temperatures over the past
> millennium within estimated uncertainties The amplitude of variability is
> notably less than that implied in some reconstructions emphasizing only the
> mid-latitude continental regions and the summer season [Esper et al., 2002],
> underscoring the importance of taking into account seasonal and spatial
> sampling in comparisons of alternative reconstructions.
We were discussing the Jones et al 1998 paper, Ian. Does the quote you
here provide somehow relate to that which you characterize as pure
bluster?
> > > It sure would be funny if one of these editorialists tried
> > > to explain why they can't mention any other research papers that
> > > have reached the same conclusions as Mann et al.
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, I forgot. Iain Murray tried to.
> > >
> > > "Mann also asserts that many other paleoclimatoligists hve been able to
> > > replicate his results closely. But this response does not address the
> > > question whether those experts uncovered the same errors in the data
> that
> > > M&M, coming to the issue fresh, were able to find."
> > >
> > > But Murray doesn't address whether or not the data "errors"
> > > that Mickey-Mick "found" in an improperly formulated dataset were
> actually
> > > present in the original data. ...
> >
> > Murray appears to be (mistakenly) taking mann at his word about the
> > others "replicating" his work. Nobody has used the same particular
> > combination of data and methods which Mann et al 1998 describe.
>
> That is the necessary nature of cross checking. You cannot use the SAME data
> and methods to determine anything but simple mathematics mistakes...
Does dropping the first two years from chin04 series qualify as math
mistake to you? M&M's effort to replicate Mann et al 1998 identified
this occurrance. Mann et al ought to explain it. At best, I see no
reason to presume it was a math error.
> Methodology and rigor along with the justification for conclusions are much
> more important. ...
If you don't think replicability is a fundamental quality that defines
science, I'm happy to disagree with you.
> ... Similar studies by alternative authors giving essentially
> the same results is much more important than looking at the math since
> simple math errors would have been picked up quickly.
Is the use of JJA instead of annual data in two series a math error?
M&M's effort to replicate Mann et al 1998 identified the treatment of
these two series in a manner inconsistent with the way other series were
handled by Mann et al. Mann et al ought to explain it.
Roger Coppock
>
> Think Mann is getting pissed off enough to hire a lawyer?
>
That is to be hoped for, Josh, with big
dittos for the Computer Climate Modelers,
and the folks at the National Assessment.
A fossil fool would find himself facing
a perjury citation, in addition to his
libel suit, shortly after he took the stand.
The tactics those liars for hire use in
their op-ed pieces would not be tolerated
in an American courtroom.
--
"One who joyfully guards his mind
And fears his own confusion
Can not fall.
He has found his way to peace."
-- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada,"
~5th century BCE
-.-. --.- Roger Coppock (rcop...@adnc.com)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Ian St. John
I'm looking for some evidence that you have at least a 'prima faciae' case.
Apparently not and all you can do is keep it spinning.
>
> >
> > > apparently beyond Europe, S&B say. Jones et al
> > > 1998 also concluded that the data were insufficient to rule out an
MWP.
> > > Jones et al 1998 also found the 20th century warming to be bunched in
> > > the earlier years. That's no hockey stick, babe.
> >
> > This seems to be pure bluster. The Mann and Jones 2003 paper clearly
> > indicates that Jones is not 'onside' with any such claim of a global
MWP.
> > ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/mannjones03.pdf
> > "The reconstruction is consistent with previous reconstructions (and
model
> > simulations [e.g., Mann, 2002]) of NH mean temperatures over the past
> > millennium within estimated uncertainties The amplitude of variability
is
> > notably less than that implied in some reconstructions emphasizing only
the
> > mid-latitude continental regions and the summer season [Esper et al.,
2002],
> > underscoring the importance of taking into account seasonal and spatial
> > sampling in comparisons of alternative reconstructions.
>
> We were discussing the Jones et al 1998 paper, Ian. Does the quote you
> here provide somehow relate to that which you characterize as pure
> bluster?
It doesn't show your claim that Jones found a 'global MWP'. The lack of any
reference to such a phenomenon either means he corrected his paper in light
of further data, or he never made the claim in the first place.
<sniop>
> > > Murray appears to be (mistakenly) taking mann at his word about the
> > > others "replicating" his work. Nobody has used the same particular
> > > combination of data and methods which Mann et al 1998 describe.
> >
> > That is the necessary nature of cross checking. You cannot use the SAME
data
> > and methods to determine anything but simple mathematics mistakes...
>
> Does dropping the first two years from chin04 series qualify as math
> mistake to you?
Only if you can show that the first two years of the chin04 series will make
a serious difference in the output. The techniques Mann used to determine
the prediction level seem quite adequate to the task of weeding out
duplicate or redundant data, and every other similar report took a
*different* data set. Data selection is part and parcel of the analysis.
> M&M's effort to replicate Mann et al 1998 identified
> this occurrance. Mann et al ought to explain it. At best, I see no
> reason to presume it was a math error.
I see no reason to conclude it was an error. I certainly will expect Mann to
give an explanation, but at this point I think it has gone into 'harassment'
rather than critical review.
>
>
> > Methodology and rigor along with the justification for conclusions are
much
> > more important. ...
>
> If you don't think replicability is a fundamental quality that defines
> science, I'm happy to disagree with you.
The accuracy of a study ( math mistakes ) is dealth with in the peer review.
The cross checking using different inputs by different teams is what
provides evidence that the output was not a mistake.
>
> > ... Similar studies by alternative authors giving essentially
> > the same results is much more important than looking at the math since
> > simple math errors would have been picked up quickly.
>
> Is the use of JJA instead of annual data in two series a math error?
> M&M's effort to replicate Mann et al 1998 identified the treatment of
> these two series in a manner inconsistent with the way other series were
> handled by Mann et al. Mann et al ought to explain it.
I think that Mann has explained about all the criticisms as they come. I
have no doubt he will explain it over and over until you and your cohort of
the clueless get it right. Not that this will slow you down from making the
same claims over again.
James Acker
: James Acker wrote:
: SNIP.....
:> Oh yeah, I forgot. Iain Murray tried to.
:>
:>"Mann also asserts that many other paleoclimatoligists hve been able to
:>replicate his results closely. But this response does not address the
:>question whether those experts uncovered the same errors in the data that
:>M&M, coming to the issue fresh, were able to find."
:>
:> But Murray doesn't address whether or not the data "errors"
:>that Mickey-Mick "found" in an improperly formulated dataset were actually
:>present in the original data. The response to Mickey-Mick by the Mann
:>group indicates that Mickey-Mick did not follow proper statistical
:>procedures in their re-analysis. The result of that would be:
:>Mickey-Mick are wrong. And all of the editorial writers that have
:>been writing about how great Mickey-Mick's paper is are wrong, too.
:>
:>
: Think Mann is getting pissed off enough to hire a lawyer?
: josh halpern
Actually, I kinda wish he'd get some advice from Pat
Michaels on the best ways to influence public opinion. After all,
they work at the same place (UVA).
Steve Schulin
Your discombobulation is showing again. My reply to Acker was quite
clear as to what case I was making. Your interesting foray into a
related matter was not central to that case, the prima facie nature of
which you have not contested.
> > > > apparently beyond Europe, S&B say. Jones et al
> > > > 1998 also concluded that the data were insufficient to rule out an
> MWP.
> > > > Jones et al 1998 also found the 20th century warming to be bunched in
> > > > the earlier years. That's no hockey stick, babe.
> > >
> > > This seems to be pure bluster. The Mann and Jones 2003 paper clearly
> > > indicates that Jones is not 'onside' with any such claim of a global
> MWP.
> > > ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/mannjones03.pdf
> > > "The reconstruction is consistent with previous reconstructions (and
> model
> > > simulations [e.g., Mann, 2002]) of NH mean temperatures over the past
> > > millennium within estimated uncertainties The amplitude of variability
> is
> > > notably less than that implied in some reconstructions emphasizing only
> the
> > > mid-latitude continental regions and the summer season [Esper et al.,
> 2002],
> > > underscoring the importance of taking into account seasonal and spatial
> > > sampling in comparisons of alternative reconstructions.
> >
> > We were discussing the Jones et al 1998 paper, Ian. Does the quote you
> > here provide somehow relate to that which you characterize as pure
> > bluster?
>
> It doesn't show your claim that Jones found a 'global MWP'. ...
In fact, it doesn't even mention Jones et al 1998.
> ... The lack of any
> reference to such a phenomenon either means he corrected his paper in light
> of further data, or he never made the claim in the first place.
What a silly thing to say.
>
> <sniop>
> > > > Murray appears to be (mistakenly) taking mann at his word about the
> > > > others "replicating" his work. Nobody has used the same particular
> > > > combination of data and methods which Mann et al 1998 describe.
> > >
> > > That is the necessary nature of cross checking. You cannot use the SAME
> data
> > > and methods to determine anything but simple mathematics mistakes...
> >
> > Does dropping the first two years from chin04 series qualify as math
> > mistake to you?
>
> Only if you can show that the first two years of the chin04 series will make
> a serious difference in the output. ...
I'm happy to disagree with you. The impact of dropping the first two
years from chin04 series is quite independent of the question of whether
its occurrance is reasonably within your description of what can be
determined by using same data and methods.
> ... The techniques Mann used to determine
> the prediction level seem quite adequate to the task of weeding out
> duplicate or redundant data, ...
Are you blathering again?
> ... and every other similar report took a
> *different* data set. ...
I agree.
> ... Data selection is part and parcel of the analysis.
Another thing about Mann et al 1998 that M&M point out is that there are
5 time series which are listed as being included in the analysis, but
they don't appear to have actually been included. I've mentioned them
before here: fran003, ital015, ital015x, spai026 and spai047. This
occurrance ought to be explained by Mann et al.
>
> > M&M's effort to replicate Mann et al 1998 identified
> > this occurrance. Mann et al ought to explain it. At best, I see no
> > reason to presume it was a math error.
>
> I see no reason to conclude it was an error. ...
I agree. And I'm very glad you express it this way, because it is
incompatible with your previously expressed notion that "You cannot use
the SAME data and methods to determine anything but simple mathematics
mistakes."
> ... I certainly will expect Mann to
> give an explanation, but at this point I think it has gone into 'harassment'
> rather than critical review.
Mann has been treated better than he's behaved. I look forward to the
day, if such a day ever comes, when he addresses the matters of
replicability raised by M&M.
> > > Methodology and rigor along with the justification for conclusions are
> much
> > > more important. ...
> >
> > If you don't think replicability is a fundamental quality that defines
> > science, I'm happy to disagree with you.
>
> The accuracy of a study ( math mistakes ) is dealth with in the peer review....
I'm happy to disagree with you.
> ...
> The cross checking using different inputs by different teams is what
> provides evidence that the output was not a mistake.
Valuable, but not to the exclusion of the fundamental importance of
replicability.
>
> >
> > > ... Similar studies by alternative authors giving essentially
> > > the same results is much more important than looking at the math since
> > > simple math errors would have been picked up quickly.
> >
> > Is the use of JJA instead of annual data in two series a math error?
> > M&M's effort to replicate Mann et al 1998 identified the treatment of
> > these two series in a manner inconsistent with the way other series were
> > handled by Mann et al. Mann et al ought to explain it.
>
> I think that Mann has explained about all the criticisms as they come. ...
The Soon et al paper published many months ago in E&E had a whole
section devoted to discussion of Mann's work, including many specific
criticisms quite independent of the main part of the paper (the main
part was the answering of the "three questions" asked of each of many
datasets). The section on Mann et al is section 5.1, titled "An
examination of Mann et al.零 analyses and results". It spans pp.
258-264. Quite contrary to your "as they come" notion, there has been no
response to the criticisms voiced in these pages, yet. That's pp.
258-264.
> ... I
> have no doubt he will explain it over and over until you and your cohort of
> the clueless get it right. Not that this will slow you down from making the
> same claims over again.
I really like that phrase you use here, Ian. I'm pleased to be able to
say that your post contains creative and accurate information.
Unfortunately, the part that is creative is not accurate, and the part
that is accurate is where you're quoting me.
James Acker
I feel rebuffed.
Kingbarry2000
Hibernate for 12,000,000,000 years ?
--
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum,
minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
?
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> Mann's data too. ...
The plots on that figure you cite don't include Jones et al 1998. And I
don't see anything you've said which indicates you've actually read
Jones et al 1998. So what are you basing your conclusion here on,
anyway? Soon and Baliunas appear to have read Jones et al 1998. I
mentioned that because in previous post you remarked "It's funny how all
these critics ... aren't trying to criticize the work of these other
groups. It's funny how the work of these other groups is entirely
consistent with Mann et al's. research and data." Since Jones et al 1998
was one of the two of those other groups you specified in that post, I
thought it quite appropriate to note that Soon and Baliunas (who seem
reasonable to include in your "all these critics" group) discussed one
of the two studies you seemed to think ought not be ignored, and came to
quite different conclusion than you, even though theirs was consistent
with the quite broadly stated IPCC conclusion you quoted. So before we
move on, are you quite done with that particular line of trash you were
talking previously?
> ... If they can't rule out a MWP, then it can't be
> ruled out from Mann et al.'s data analysis, either. And note that
> I've posted URLs to other publications from Mann's Web site here that show
> regional data plots, which demonstrate significantly greater high and
> low temperature excursions during the warm and cold periods, particularly
> in EUROPE and England. So, as I've said before, the global analysis
> of data reduces the amplitude of regional temperature variability.
> So: there was never an elimination of the MWP and LIA by Mann et al.
> or any other group. They demonstrated that the global temperature
> variability is smaller than the regional temperature variability during
> these periods (probably due in part to non-synchronization of cold
> and warm periods during the 1000-1400 and 1450-1800 periods, i.e.,
> during the 12th century, it might have been warm in the Northern
> Hemisphere and cold in the Southern Hemisphere, which averages out
> to much less variability).
You and I apparently have a fundamental disagreement about what Mann et
al do. You say, for example, that their regional plots "demonstrate"
something. In actuality, their plots are illustration of a hypothesis.
And part of that hypothesis is that LIA and MWP were largely European
affairs. And one of the two types of evidences underlying that part of
the hypothesis is Diaz et al's conclusion that nothing of significance
was going on, climate-wise, in other parts of the world during those
periods. Soon et al 2003 obliterate that Diaz et al. conclusion, in my
humble opinion. So you'll pardon me for wondering why you think
assumption-laden plots, that depend more on weighting functions than on
the data itself, can be considered to demonstrate anything about past
mean temperatures.
> And if the research of these other groups is accurate, then it
> would appear that Mann et al.'s is probably accurate, too.
Did you notice Mann and Jones 2003 dropping of two time series, which
Mann et al 1999 had used, due to lack of confidence that they correlated
with local temperature? I've mentioned this before, and I think it was
you who asked to be provided the exact quote. It seems to me that Mann
is thus on record as saying that his 1999 work includes data that is
inappropriate for the task. Perhaps someday we'll learn what the Mann et
al 1999 plot would look like without those two series. Your assertion
about "probably accurate" seems pretty iffy to me.
>
> Regarding your last statement, Jones et al. 1998 do not appear
> to append the instrumental record to their data as Mann does. So their
> plot would not show the full range of 20th century warming.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn you're right about this. The "apples vs
oranges" aspect of the splicing technique of Mann et al is an
interesting subject in and of itself. I haven't heard of anyone else
using it. Fred Singer has an article in review about late 20th-century
proxy data. He's provided some details about it in various venues over
the past couple of years. Interesting stufff.
>
> [small deletion]
>
> :> "Mann also asserts that many other paleoclimatoligists hve been able to
> :> replicate his results closely. But this response does not address the
> :> question whether those experts uncovered the same errors in the data that
> :> M&M, coming to the issue fresh, were able to find."
> :>
> :> But Murray doesn't address whether or not the data "errors"
> :> that Mickey-Mick "found" in an improperly formulated dataset were actually
> :> present in the original data. ...
>
> : Murray appears to be (mistakenly) taking mann at his word about the
> : others "replicating" his work. Nobody has used the same particular
> : combination of data and methods which Mann et al 1998 describe.
>
> Nobody wants to "replicate" Mann's work. ...
Well, its kind of academic, since Mann et al 1998 appears to be
inherently unreplicable as documented in the literature. But I take it
you agree that when Mann refers to his work being replicated, he's using
the term in a way quite different than taught to generations of
scientists.
> ... They want to do their
> own work and see if their independent research is consistent or
> inconsistent with Mann's work. ...
I sure don't begrudge folks their preferences about what work to pursue.
> ... That's what Crowley and Lowery (2000)
> and Jones et al. 1998 did. Because the results are so similar,
> the Mann et al. research is supported, not refuted.
>
> Does that make sense to you? ...
I understand your argument, but I don't find it persuasive. You've
previously mentioned that you read Soon et al's E&E paper. Soon et al
are quite specific in their criticism of Crowley and Lowery 2000
methodology. Have you seen any response to these criticisms? I'm
referring to section 5.3, on pp. 264-266, titled "On criticisms of the
Crowley and Lowery (2000) composite proxy curve".
> ... Have you looked at the figure
> provided? Would you say that the results shown in the figure from
> different research groups support Mann's results, or not?
I say that all the plots shown in that figure, except for a tiny portion
of Esper et al, fall within the uncertainty range calculated by Mann et
al 1999 or Mann and Jones 2003. I also note that if the plot of Esper et
al were to include the confidence interval, instead of just the central
value, much of it would be outside the uncertainty range shown in the
figure you cite. The Esper et al paper includes such a comparison in its
Fig. 3 (Science, 295:2250).
James Acker
: James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
:> In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
:> : In article <bo8mms$ach$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
:> : James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
:>
:> :> In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
:> :> : Paleoclimate researcher Bob Carter has an op ed in today's Australian
:> :> : Financial Review. Here are some excerpts I thought some folks here would
:> :> : find interesting:
:> :>
:> :> [deleted]
[deletions for space and brevity]
I guess I must have discombobulated you a bit. READ THE
CAPTION. Jones et al. 1998 is the black line, in the legend referred
to as "Jones et al. scaled 1856-1980". There isn't any other Jones
et al. in the legend, and Jones et al. 1998 is specifically
referenced in the caption.
: don't see anything you've said which indicates you've actually read
: Jones et al 1998. So what are you basing your conclusion here on,
: anyway?
I don't have to read it. It's cited as corroborative research
work by Mann et al. AGU Eos, Vol. 84, #27, page 256. Here's what
they say:
"A large number of such reconstructions [Mann et al. 1999;
Jones et al. 1998; Crowley and Lowery, 2000] now support the conclusion
that the hemispheric-mean warmth of the late 20th century (i.e., the
past few decades) is likely unprecedented in the last 1000 years
[Jones et al. 2001; Folland et al. 2001]."
And the data is shown in the figure which you examined.
: Soon and Baliunas appear to have read Jones et al 1998. I
: mentioned that because in previous post you remarked "It's funny how all
: these critics ... aren't trying to criticize the work of these other
: groups. It's funny how the work of these other groups is entirely
: consistent with Mann et al's. research and data." Since Jones et al 1998
: was one of the two of those other groups you specified in that post, I
: thought it quite appropriate to note that Soon and Baliunas (who seem
: reasonable to include in your "all these critics" group) discussed one
Discussing it is not the same as criticizing it.
: of the two studies you seemed to think ought not be ignored, and came to
: quite different conclusion than you, even though theirs was consistent
: with the quite broadly stated IPCC conclusion you quoted. So before we
: move on, are you quite done with that particular line of trash you were
: talking previously?
They didn't come to a different conclusion. What they've done
is try to say that Mann et al.'s work eliminated the MWP and the LIA
from the temperature record of the last 600-1000 years. Which it
didn't. I asked you a direct question about the appearance of the
data in the graph provided, and you've avoided it.
:> ... If they can't rule out a MWP, then it can't be
:> ruled out from Mann et al.'s data analysis, either. And note that
:> I've posted URLs to other publications from Mann's Web site here that show
:> regional data plots, which demonstrate significantly greater high and
:> low temperature excursions during the warm and cold periods, particularly
:> in EUROPE and England. So, as I've said before, the global analysis
:> of data reduces the amplitude of regional temperature variability.
:> So: there was never an elimination of the MWP and LIA by Mann et al.
:> or any other group. They demonstrated that the global temperature
:> variability is smaller than the regional temperature variability during
:> these periods (probably due in part to non-synchronization of cold
:> and warm periods during the 1000-1400 and 1450-1800 periods, i.e.,
:> during the 12th century, it might have been warm in the Northern
:> Hemisphere and cold in the Southern Hemisphere, which averages out
:> to much less variability).
: You and I apparently have a fundamental disagreement about what Mann et
: al do.
Apparently.
: You say, for example, that their regional plots "demonstrate"
: something. In actuality, their plots are illustration of a hypothesis.
They are data. Whether or not they illustrate a hypothesis
depends on the hypothesis. (You're spinning so fast I'm afraid you'll
fall out of your chair and hurt yourself.) The data shown in the
Mann "Little Ice Age" article on his Web site shows regional temperature
data for the same period covered by his multi-proxy data set. See
below for a link to that article. As an example, while central
England was at it's lowest temperature at around AD 1700, eastern
China was warming up a bit.
: And part of that hypothesis is that LIA and MWP were largely European
: affairs. And one of the two types of evidences underlying that part of
Wrongo, Steve-o. If it's a hypothesis, it's that the MWP and
L1A were most strongly expressed in Europe, and to a lesser extent,
the Northern Hemisphere.
: the hypothesis is Diaz et al's conclusion that nothing of significance
: was going on, climate-wise, in other parts of the world during those
: periods. Soon et al 2003 obliterate that Diaz et al. conclusion, in my
: humble opinion.
As long at it's your opinion, I don't mind.
: So you'll pardon me for wondering why you think
: assumption-laden plots, that depend more on weighting functions than on
: the data itself, can be considered to demonstrate anything about past
: mean temperatures.
What assumptions go into the plots? Back up that statement
with an analysis. And while you're at it, explain how you can compare
data from different proxies without weighting functions.
If you look at the data, the most intense low temperature
periods occurred in England and Europe during the LIA period, which
is shown in Mann's data to take place between 1400 and ~1850.
"Fennoscandia" shows even more intense cold excursions than
England.
:> And if the research of these other groups is accurate, then it
:> would appear that Mann et al.'s is probably accurate, too.
: Did you notice Mann and Jones 2003 dropping of two time series, which
: Mann et al 1999 had used, due to lack of confidence that they correlated
: with local temperature?
What does that have to do with Crowley and Lowery? What does
that have to do with Jones et al. 1998? Stop trying to confuse the
issue with peripheral topics. Mann et al. may be modifying their
analysis in an attempt to make it better, but the overall picture
hasn't changed between the 1998 and 2003 papers.
Do Crowley and Lowery (2000) and Jones et al. (1998) support
Mann's data analysis, or not?
: I've mentioned this before, and I think it was
: you who asked to be provided the exact quote. It seems to me that Mann
Wasn't me.
: is thus on record as saying that his 1999 work includes data that is
: inappropriate for the task. Perhaps someday we'll learn what the Mann et
: al 1999 plot would look like without those two series. Your assertion
: about "probably accurate" seems pretty iffy to me.
Why would a change in Mann et al.'s analyses affect the
published results of other groups?
:> Regarding your last statement, Jones et al. 1998 do not appear
:> to append the instrumental record to their data as Mann does. So their
:> plot would not show the full range of 20th century warming.
: I wouldn't be surprised to learn you're right about this. The "apples vs
: oranges" aspect of the splicing technique of Mann et al is an
: interesting subject in and of itself. I haven't heard of anyone else
: using it. Fred Singer has an article in review about late 20th-century
: proxy data. He's provided some details about it in various venues over
: the past couple of years. Interesting stufff.
For it to be interesting to me, it would have to come from
someone other than Singer.
:> [small deletion]
:>
:> :> "Mann also asserts that many other paleoclimatoligists hve been able to
:> :> replicate his results closely. But this response does not address the
:> :> question whether those experts uncovered the same errors in the data that
:> :> M&M, coming to the issue fresh, were able to find."
:> :>
:> :> But Murray doesn't address whether or not the data "errors"
:> :> that Mickey-Mick "found" in an improperly formulated dataset were actually
:> :> present in the original data. ...
:>
:> : Murray appears to be (mistakenly) taking mann at his word about the
:> : others "replicating" his work. Nobody has used the same particular
:> : combination of data and methods which Mann et al 1998 describe.
:>
:> Nobody wants to "replicate" Mann's work. ...
: Well, its kind of academic, since Mann et al 1998 appears to be
: inherently unreplicable as documented in the literature. But I take it
What do you mean by "inherently unreplicable"? If you're
casting aspersions based on the Mickey-Mick paper, I think you're
going to be sadly mistaken.
: you agree that when Mann refers to his work being replicated, he's using
: the term in a way quite different than taught to generations of
: scientists.
That's a possibility. Remind me where Mann actually used
the term "replicated".
:> ... They want to do their
:> own work and see if their independent research is consistent or
:> inconsistent with Mann's work. ...
: I sure don't begrudge folks their preferences about what work to pursue.
:> ... That's what Crowley and Lowery (2000)
:> and Jones et al. 1998 did. Because the results are so similar,
:> the Mann et al. research is supported, not refuted.
:>
:> Does that make sense to you? ...
: I understand your argument, but I don't find it persuasive. You've
: previously mentioned that you read Soon et al's E&E paper. Soon et al
: are quite specific in their criticism of Crowley and Lowery 2000
: methodology. Have you seen any response to these criticisms? I'm
: referring to section 5.3, on pp. 264-266, titled "On criticisms of the
: Crowley and Lowery (2000) composite proxy curve".
I just read that section. The authors provide little actual
justification for their observations regarding Crowley and Lowery's
methodology.
They write:
"A selective set of proxy records, each with a unique
spatial-temporal resolution and differing in climate sensitivity,
cannot be combined to produce a composite curve as readily as
Crowley and Lowery (2000) assume."
My response to reading that: Why not? Have S&B produced
composite curves the supposed "right" way? Or are they trying to
cast any attempt to do it in a bad light? Hmmm...
I haven't seen any response, other than the AGU paper by
Mann et al., which has 3 "key points". I assume that these key points
apply to temperature reconstruction groups by any researchers, not
just Mann. You also need to read key point 2, and see the associated
figure 2. (This addresses the quotes from the S&B paper regarding
"Medieval warmth", which occur in the paragraph following the end-
paragraph quote provided above.
Here's where you can see the whole paper:
ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/eos03.pdf
I couldn't find Mann's Little Ice Age article on his Web
site, but the kind folks at Harvard-Smithsonian have provided it,
too:
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/DaveLegates03-d/Mann01LIA.pdf
See page 5, which is quite similar to the AGU paper's
Figure 2.
:> ... Have you looked at the figure
:> provided? Would you say that the results shown in the figure from
:> different research groups support Mann's results, or not?
: I say that all the plots shown in that figure, except for a tiny portion
: of Esper et al, fall within the uncertainty range calculated by Mann et
: al 1999 or Mann and Jones 2003. I also note that if the plot of Esper et
Thanks for that. To translate: because the results of the
other groups fall within the uncertainty range (and I will add, are nearly
congruent with Mann's curves in many places), the independent analyses
of other research groups do support Mann's results.
(That would be BAD news for Mickey-Mick, because it would
definitely indicate that their data reanalysis is flawed.)
: al were to include the confidence interval, instead of just the central
: value, much of it would be outside the uncertainty range shown in the
: figure you cite. The Esper et al paper includes such a comparison in its
: Fig. 3 (Science, 295:2250).
But as noted by Mann in the caption, the Esper data is not the same
kind of data. (Neither is Briffa et al.'s 2001, which is also shown
in the figure.) Nonetheless, he includes it to show that the patterns
of change in Esper's data are pretty similar to the other data records.
So how about it, Steve? How do temperatures from 1000-1400
compare to temperatures from 1400-1850? You don't need a lot of words
to answer that question.
[remainder deleted]
David Ball
<jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> Still waiting. Score: 2 replies to Ian St. John, none to me.
>
>
> I feel rebuffed.
>
>
You are being, Jim. Long experience with Mr. Schulin shows
that he does a lot of dancing, but little responding with substance.
You can ask him a point-blank question and if the answer will require
him to admit there is a problem with his position he either won't
answer or will respond to your question with another question. This is
standard practice for him. He will not do or say anything that will
put him on record as standing for something. He's not stupid. He knows
that there are serious problems with the M&M's paper, but he will
never admit it. He will obfuscate, dance, try to confuse the issue or
run away, but he will never admit there is a problem, even if it
something very minor. Gods, I pointed out to him a long time ago that
the way the Idso's handle the USHCN data is completely bogus - you do
not slap a straight line through periodic data - and he ran away
rather than address the obvious problematic nature of their analysis.
I wouldn't get my hopes up that you will get a straight answer from
him. I don't believe he is capable of it...unless it's written in the
stars.
Titan Point
> Still waiting. Score: 2 replies to Ian St. John, none to me.
>
>
> I feel rebuffed.
>
>
> Jim Acker
>
Still waiting (now several months) for an explanation from you about how
tree rings are calibrated with temperature.
I'd feel rebuffed if I wasn't surprised.
Ian St. John
"Titan Point" <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.06....@myrealbox.com...
Enjoy..
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~e238031/mwp.htm
3. The tree-ring signal
Although a variety of sources provide evidence of the MWP, the key proxy for
reconstruction of this period is arguably that derived from tree-rings, as
they give a good indication of the magnitude of temperature changes. It is
dendroclimatological reconstruction that this report will be discussing,
particularly the use of this proxy to give accurate mean annual temperatures
before the instrumental period.
In years in which conditions are suitable, a growth ring is typically added
to the girth of a tree. In certain situations, the characteristics of this
growth ring can be used to infer the nature of certain aspects of the
climate when growth occurred (Briffa 1999). As the growing season occurs
when temperatures are at their warmest (i.e. summer), tree-rings are often
used as indicators of warm season temperatures (Briffa 2000). It has in
fact been questioned as to whether using summer responsive evidence for
anything other than warm season temperatures is a realistic process (Briffa
& Jones 1993)
The situation is not quite as simple as this however, as Jacoby & D'Arrigo
(1989) detail - it can in fact be highly dangerous to assume that tree-ring
growth responds only to summer temperatures, particularly in high latitude
locations. For example, if autumn temperatures are suitable, photosynthesis
will continue after growth has finished, producing growth chemicals to be
used in the following season.
As a consequence of this (and other factors), tree-ring growth cannot purely
be described as a function of summer warmth (Jacoby & D'Arrigo 1989).
Moreover, as the importance of these factors on an interannual basis cannot
easily be reconstructed without instrumental evidence, there is no simple
way to examine how much of an influence non-growing season temperatures
were. In spite of this, (and because warm season temperatures are arguably
the key influence on growth), many continue to take tree-ring data as being
primarily indicative of warm season temperatures.
4. Annual temperatures from tree-rings
On the basis of the above, the investigation by Esper et al (2002) created
an annual temperature record for the last millennium. This was done by
using regression to establish the summer-annual temperature relationship
over the instrumental period, and extrapolating it back to the MWP. This is
a satisfactory approach as long as the relationship between the proxy and
summer climate, and between summer and annual climates remains constant
(Briffa & Osborn 2002). In support of their technique, Esper et al (2002)
state that low frequency warm season and annual temperature trends are
"statistically indistinguishable" over the northern hemisphere instrumental
period, with there being a 0.94 correlation between the two records.
Especially for the summer-annual relationship, assumption of
uniformitarianism over a 1000-year period is quite a large step to make, and
may not even be completely valid over the instrumental period. Since 1861,
annual average temperatures have warmed by 0.6°C, but with a seasonal
contrast: summers have warmed by 0.4°C, whereas winters have warmed by
0.8°C, therefore showing a change in the summer-annual relationship (Jones
et al 2001).
5. Further research requirements
The changing relationship described in the previous section presents some
interesting questions that need to be resolved. For example, if winter
temperatures are contributing the majority of impetus to the current rise in
temperatures, does this mean that winters in the MWP had a similar role? If
so, it may indicate that warm season temperature data derived from
tree-rings actually underestimate the true annual warmth of the MWP, as any
warming would primarily have occurred due an increase in minimum, rather
than maximum, temperatures.
Reconstructions by Mann et al (1999) and Esper et al (2002) show MWP
temperatures rivalling mean 20th century temperatures (but not the mean
temperature of the last decade). However, 1990's temperatures are only
within two standard errors of the MWP maxima in the reconstruction of Mann
et al (1999) - see Figure 2. It would therefore not be too large a jump if
the MWP was shown to be as warm, or warmer than at present.
Figure 2: Millennial temperature reconstruction, with 2 standard error
limits included (from Mann et al 1999)
However, there is a further issue with the 20th century winter-summer
temperature differential. It is possible that this is a product of human
lifestyle - in the colder winter months, energy usage typically rises as
space heating and lighting demands peak. This increased energy usage would
result in an increased output of greenhouse gases due to the greater burning
of fossil fuels by power stations, and domestic central heating. A further
complication though, could be that the additional sulphate aerosols also
produced from increased energy usage would counteract the warming effects of
increased greenhouse gas emissions.
There is clearly an important issue to be resolved here, and is perhaps
beyond the means of a Masters dissertation to fully deal with. Partly due
to difficulty in forming a realistic research proposal from such a topic, no
specific issue has yet been decided upon, although there are some rough
ideas currently being considered. The issue of seasonal temperature
relationships and their constancy (or lack of) is one such area, possibly
from a more recent proxy record with greater temporal detail than is
possible to obtain from 1000 year old tree-ring records. If it could be
unequivocally shown that the relationship between summer and annual
temperature averages significantly shifts in nature, serious doubt could be
placed on estimates of MWP temperature.
6. Conclusion
The issues presented in this report are vitally important to the
understanding of climate change on millennial scales, especially in the
light of current warming. The validity of using tree-ring data for annual
temperatures has also been detailed - as it has proved to be such a useful,
and widely used tool for climate reconstruction, any work dealing with
potential improvements or limitations to the applications of this technique
should only be welcomed.
Thomas Palm
news:m2tqb.2845$143.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
...
> However, there is a further issue with the 20th century winter-summer
> temperature differential. It is possible that this is a product of
> human lifestyle - in the colder winter months, energy usage typically
> rises as space heating and lighting demands peak. This increased
> energy usage would result in an increased output of greenhouse gases
> due to the greater burning of fossil fuels by power stations, and
> domestic central heating.
The extra output of greenhouse gasses during the winter might conceivably
be noted in a detailed analysis of the CO2 record, although it is likely to
be well hidden by the large natural seasonal fluctuation in CO2
concentration, but it will be far too small to explain changes in seasonal
temperature difference. Only the accumulated CO2 from decades worth of
emissions causes noticable warming.
> A further complication though, could be
> that the additional sulphate aerosols also produced from increased
> energy usage would counteract the warming effects of increased
> greenhouse gas emissions.
This is a more reasonable effect. Aerosols are short lived and should
respond quicker to changes in emissions. (although changed life times in
summer and winter also comes into play)
> There is clearly an important issue to be resolved here, and is
> perhaps beyond the means of a Masters dissertation to fully deal with.
OK, it was a Masters level, then I guess a few errors are acceptable,
however embarrasing.
James Acker
When I was first ready to do this, you had a child. I've
found several references on this subject in preparation for the
discussion, whenever you are ready. In the past week-and-a-half,
we've been distracted by the "audit" of the Mann et al. paper.
For the record, here are the online references I've compiled:
http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~mat/trees/paper.pdf
(A research paper that discusses some of the technical issues
regarding the derivation of the most reliable climate data from
tree rings)
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/principles.htm
Principles of Dendrochronology (comprehensive treatment)
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/
Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research Home Page
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/dendrochronology.html
Introductory page
http://tree.ltrr.arizona.edu/lorim/lori.html
This last one is a good place to start, as it covers the
basics.
Feel free to look them over. We can begin the discussion
next week, if you feel that you have enough free time now to
devote to it.
Ian St. John
"Thomas Palm" <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message
news:Xns942BA8FAFFB08T...@212.83.64.229...
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in
> news:m2tqb.2845$143.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
> > http://www.uea.ac.uk/~e238031/mwp.htm
> > 3. The tree-ring signal
> ...
> > However, there is a further issue with the 20th century winter-summer
> > temperature differential. It is possible that this is a product of
> > human lifestyle - in the colder winter months, energy usage typically
> > rises as space heating and lighting demands peak. This increased
> > energy usage would result in an increased output of greenhouse gases
> > due to the greater burning of fossil fuels by power stations, and
> > domestic central heating.
>
> The extra output of greenhouse gasses during the winter might conceivably
> be noted in a detailed analysis of the CO2 record, although it is likely
to
> be well hidden by the large natural seasonal fluctuation in CO2
> concentration, but it will be far too small to explain changes in seasonal
> temperature difference. Only the accumulated CO2 from decades worth of
> emissions causes noticable warming.
I don't think that this question is applicable to the NH reconstructions
from before the increase in GHGs, but it certainly should be answered for
any reconstructions in the last century. Fortunately we can rely on the
instrument record for that period. It remains that the question of whether
the proxy relationship is retained in a global warming world, with
differential warming between low and high is a good one
>
> > A further complication though, could be
> > that the additional sulphate aerosols also produced from increased
> > energy usage would counteract the warming effects of increased
> > greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> This is a more reasonable effect. Aerosols are short lived and should
> respond quicker to changes in emissions. (although changed life times in
> summer and winter also comes into play)
Again, not applicable to pre-instrument reconstructuions, but maybe worth
looking at in the future.
>
> > There is clearly an important issue to be resolved here, and is
> > perhaps beyond the means of a Masters dissertation to fully deal with.
>
> OK, it was a Masters level, then I guess a few errors are acceptable,
> however embarrasing.
I thought it did a fairly good job.
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote, in part:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> : James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> :> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> :> : James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> ...
Thanks for correcting my error. Your guess seems a bit presumptuous,
however.
>
> : don't see anything you've said which indicates you've actually read
> : Jones et al 1998. So what are you basing your conclusion here on,
> : anyway?
>
> I don't have to read it. ...
LOL. Suit yourself.
> ... It's cited as corroborative research
> work by Mann et al. AGU Eos, Vol. 84, #27, page 256. Here's what
> they say:
> "A large number of such reconstructions [Mann et al. 1999;
> Jones et al. 1998; Crowley and Lowery, 2000] now support the conclusion
> that the hemispheric-mean warmth of the late 20th century (i.e., the
> past few decades) is likely unprecedented in the last 1000 years
> [Jones et al. 2001; Folland et al. 2001]."
I agree that the last two references, which are review-style
publications, voice the conclusion attributed to them. As to the "large
number of reconstructions" cited, I see we've discussed all three, so
I'm not sure what this quote adds to the discussion for you. For me, it
gives a good opportunity to note that I consider three to be "a few"
rather than "a large number". I don't say the authors are speaking
demonstrably falsely, I just say please don't insist that I agree with
the interpretations and generalizations you or they make. Actually, I
recall reading recently that there's a dozen constructions or
simulations in the literature which conclude or include the same kind of
supportive stuff as the three your quote mentioned.
> And the data is shown in the figure which you examined.
The way you say "the data is shown" sounds so authoritative. One seeing
this sentence without understanding that you're referring to the paper
you see no need to read might think you actually know what you're
talking about here. Is all the data shown? Are there any insights into
the data provided in the article which might temper your readiness to
package it all in the one thin line, mostly obscured, in the graph you
cite?
>
> : Soon and Baliunas appear to have read Jones et al 1998. I
> : mentioned that because in previous post you remarked "It's funny how all
> : these critics ... aren't trying to criticize the work of these other
> : groups. It's funny how the work of these other groups is entirely
> : consistent with Mann et al's. research and data." Since Jones et al 1998
> : was one of the two of those other groups you specified in that post, I
> : thought it quite appropriate to note that Soon and Baliunas (who seem
> : reasonable to include in your "all these critics" group) discussed one
>
> Discussing it is not the same as criticizing it.
LOL. So of the two studies you rant about the critics not criticizing,
you admit here that Soon et al discuss one (in a way that thoroughly
clashes with your take on it), and you admit elsewhere to having read
the multi-page section Soon et al devote to discussing, quite
critically, the other. You're full of surprises. I didn't imagine you
could go downhill from that "I don't need to read it" notion. But here
you are.
>
> : of the two studies you seemed to think ought not be ignored, and came to
> : quite different conclusion than you, even though theirs was consistent
> : with the quite broadly stated IPCC conclusion you quoted. So before we
> : move on, are you quite done with that particular line of trash you were
> : talking previously?
>
> They didn't come to a different conclusion. What they've done
> is try to say that Mann et al.'s work eliminated the MWP and the LIA
> from the temperature record of the last 600-1000 years. Which it
> didn't. I asked you a direct question about the appearance of the
> data in the graph provided, and you've avoided it.
I see where you thank me for my previous answer below. Is that the same
question you're referring to here and now?
> :> ... If they can't rule out a MWP, then it can't be
> :> ruled out from Mann et al.'s data analysis, either. And note that
> :> I've posted URLs to other publications from Mann's Web site here that show
> :> regional data plots, which demonstrate significantly greater high and
> :> low temperature excursions during the warm and cold periods, particularly
> :> in EUROPE and England. So, as I've said before, the global analysis
> :> of data reduces the amplitude of regional temperature variability.
> :> So: there was never an elimination of the MWP and LIA by Mann et al.
> :> or any other group. They demonstrated that the global temperature
> :> variability is smaller than the regional temperature variability during
> :> these periods (probably due in part to non-synchronization of cold
> :> and warm periods during the 1000-1400 and 1450-1800 periods, i.e.,
> :> during the 12th century, it might have been warm in the Northern
> :> Hemisphere and cold in the Southern Hemisphere, which averages out
> :> to much less variability).
>
> : You and I apparently have a fundamental disagreement about what Mann et
> : al do.
>
> Apparently.
>
> : You say, for example, that their regional plots "demonstrate"
> : something. In actuality, their plots are illustration of a hypothesis.
>
> They are data. ...
The plots show temperature anomalies. The data, from the proxies, are
not temperature anomalies.
> ... Whether or not they illustrate a hypothesis
> depends on the hypothesis. (You're spinning so fast I'm afraid you'll
> fall out of your chair and hurt yourself.) The data shown in the
> Mann "Little Ice Age" article on his Web site shows regional temperature
> data for the same period covered by his multi-proxy data set. ...
When he plots temperature data, that's different. I didn't say these
guys never plot data. I just said that what you referred to as data was
not data.
> ... See
> below for a link to that article. As an example, while central
> England was at it's lowest temperature at around AD 1700, eastern
> China was warming up a bit.
>
> : And part of that hypothesis is that LIA and MWP were largely European
> : affairs. And one of the two types of evidences underlying that part of
>
> Wrongo, Steve-o. If it's a hypothesis, it's that the MWP and
> L1A were most strongly expressed in Europe, and to a lesser extent,
> the Northern Hemisphere.
So much lesser that I'm not mucho wrongo, bub.
>
> : the hypothesis is Diaz et al's conclusion that nothing of significance
> : was going on, climate-wise, in other parts of the world during those
> : periods. Soon et al 2003 obliterate that Diaz et al. conclusion, in my
> : humble opinion.
>
> As long at it's your opinion, I don't mind.
>
> : So you'll pardon me for wondering why you think
> : assumption-laden plots, that depend more on weighting functions than on
> : the data itself, can be considered to demonstrate anything about past
> : mean temperatures.
>
> What assumptions go into the plots? Back up that statement
> with an analysis. And while you're at it, explain how you can compare
> data from different proxies without weighting functions.
Oh, it would just be my opinion. What do you care? If the authors wanted
you to know their assumptions, surely they'd list 'em. Oh, wait. You're
the wiz who doesn't need to read a paper aren't you? You seem to agree
that weighting factors are used in at least some study you're interested
in. If you know of one that includes uncertainty estimate for a
particular proxied variable, such as hemispheric mean temperature,
please feel welcome to identify the uncertainty associated with choice
of weighting factor. Perhaps you could find a partial solution to your
own perplexities without my humble assistance.
>
> If you look at the data, the most intense low temperature
> periods occurred in England and Europe during the LIA period, which
> is shown in Mann's data to take place between 1400 and ~1850.
> "Fennoscandia" shows even more intense cold excursions than
> England.
>
> :> And if the research of these other groups is accurate, then it
> :> would appear that Mann et al.'s is probably accurate, too.
>
> : Did you notice Mann and Jones 2003 dropping of two time series, which
> : Mann et al 1999 had used, due to lack of confidence that they correlated
> : with local temperature?
>
> What does that have to do with Crowley and Lowery? ...
Why do you ask?
> ... What does
> that have to do with Jones et al. 1998? ...
Why do you ask?
> ... Stop trying to confuse the
> issue with peripheral topics. Mann et al. may be modifying their
> analysis in an attempt to make it better, but the overall picture
> hasn't changed between the 1998 and 2003 papers.
Mann and Jones 2003 say that two of the few time series used to come up
with Mann et al 1999 hemispheric mean temperature estimates are, in
retrospect, not suited for the task. My question to you was how can you
talk about Mann et al 1999 being probably accurate when you don't know
what the plot looks like without these two time series included?
>
> Do Crowley and Lowery (2000) and Jones et al. (1998) support
> Mann's data analysis, or not?
The question seems too broad to be useful. But I will note that Mann et
al appear much more enthusiastic about discussing such matters than
about their own methodology in Mann 1998. But its early yet, perhaps
Mann et al will be more comprehensive in addressing M&M than they were
in addressing Soon et al. From what I've seen of their public writings,
however, Mann et al seem like they'd be right at home amongst the biased
hacks here who agree with them. Ball and Mann are like two peas in a
pod. And I don't mean that in any dehumanizing way.
>
> : I've mentioned this before, and I think it was
> : you who asked to be provided the exact quote. It seems to me that Mann
>
> Wasn't me.
Yes it was. Barely two weeks ago:
<Acker> As my schedule improves, I'm also planning to discuss why and
how the methodology of Mann et al. with regard to dendrochronology is
good, leading to how Mann can disparage the Soon+Baliunas work with
authority. I'll be back on that.
<Schulin> Tree rings are surely a very interesting part of this
scientific debate. I hope your discussion will include explanation of
how it is "good" to reconstruct hemispheric mean temperature from a
handful of inherently local time series, such as in the Mann et al 1998
and 1999 papers. I also notice that in the recent Mann and Jones
(Geophys. Res. Lett. 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003) article, many of the
previous time series are dropped, including a couple of SH tree ring
studies. The authors seem to say, in paragraph 23, that these two data
sets were dropped because they didn't have confidence that they were
correlated with local temperatures. Does that not beg the question of
Mann et al's use of these very time series in 1998 and 1999? Best
wishes, really, for finding something laudible about Mann's global mean
reconstruction.
<Acker> Name a proxy temperature variable that isn't inherently
"local"...
<Schulin>I can't.
<Acker> ...(Which also depends on what you consider the meaning of the
word local.) That seems to be an insignificant point. If you have
several proxy series that provide larger area coverage, then it's
appropriate to call your series "regional" (or larger, if the coverage
is appropriate). The Southern Hemisphere is far worse than the Northern
Hemisphere in this regard.
<Schulin>I look forward to your discussion of why and how Mann et al's
tree ring methodology is good, regardless of whether you place more
emphasis on spatial considerations than they do.
<Acker> As for the "dropping" of data sets, what I've examined so far
indicates that the location from where the proxy data set is obtained is
very significant with regard to its usefulness as a temperature proxy
(this said in regard to tree rings). You'd have to provide the exact
quote (rather than a "seem to say" paraphrase) for me to make a better
evaluation of why they did it.
The exact quote in paragraph 23 to which I referred is: "Local (decadal)
correlations were calculated between each proxy record and the
instrumental grid-box surface temperature records for the regions they
represent over the period 1901-1980 (see Figure 1). Proxy records
exhibiting negative or approximately zero local correlations (SH record
#2 and #3) were eliminated from further consideration in the study."
Dr. Mann has made a pdf version of the paper [Mann and Jones (Geophys.
Res. Lett. 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003)] available via his web page at
http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/Mann/articles/articles.html
>
> : is thus on record as saying that his 1999 work includes data that is
> : inappropriate for the task. Perhaps someday we'll learn what the Mann et
> : al 1999 plot would look like without those two series. Your assertion
> : about "probably accurate" seems pretty iffy to me.
>
> Why would a change in Mann et al.'s analyses affect the
> published results of other groups?
Why do you ask? I was addressing your assessment of Mann et al 1999.
>
> :> Regarding your last statement, Jones et al. 1998 do not appear
> :> to append the instrumental record to their data as Mann does. So their
> :> plot would not show the full range of 20th century warming.
>
> : I wouldn't be surprised to learn you're right about this. The "apples vs
> : oranges" aspect of the splicing technique of Mann et al is an
> : interesting subject in and of itself. I haven't heard of anyone else
> : using it. Fred Singer has an article in review about late 20th-century
> : proxy data. He's provided some details about it in various venues over
> : the past couple of years. Interesting stufff.
>
> For it to be interesting to me, it would have to come from
> someone other than Singer.
I can sure empathize with that sentiment, albeit not its application to
Dr. Singer.
>
>
> :> [small deletion]
> :>
> :> :> "Mann also asserts that many other paleoclimatoligists hve been able to
> :> :> replicate his results closely. But this response does not address the
> :> :> question whether those experts uncovered the same errors in the data
> :> :> that
> :> :> M&M, coming to the issue fresh, were able to find."
> :> :>
> :> :> But Murray doesn't address whether or not the data "errors"
> :> :> that Mickey-Mick "found" in an improperly formulated dataset were
> :> :> actually
> :> :> present in the original data. ...
> :>
> :> : Murray appears to be (mistakenly) taking mann at his word about the
> :> : others "replicating" his work. Nobody has used the same particular
> :> : combination of data and methods which Mann et al 1998 describe.
> :>
> :> Nobody wants to "replicate" Mann's work. ...
>
> : Well, its kind of academic, since Mann et al 1998 appears to be
> : inherently unreplicable as documented in the literature. But I take it
>
> What do you mean by "inherently unreplicable"? ...
They did stuff without saying they did. And they didn't do stuff they
said they did.
> ... If you're
> casting aspersions based on the Mickey-Mick paper, I think you're
> going to be sadly mistaken.
I'm sure glad to hear you think being unreplicable is a fault. I was
kind of getting the impression that you found the whole concept of
replicability quite trivial.
>
> : you agree that when Mann refers to his work being replicated, he's using
> : the term in a way quite different than taught to generations of
> : scientists.
>
> That's a possibility. Remind me where Mann actually used
> the term "replicated".
Well, perhaps the closest he's come was in answering questions that used
the term, such as his Sept 25 email to McIntyre previously quoted here
in sci.environment.
As a single step begins a journey, perhaps the single sentence you quote
from the pages is a beginning for you. You'll pardon me if I don't
accompany you, I hope.
>
> I haven't seen any response, other than the AGU paper by
> Mann et al., which has 3 "key points". I assume that these key points
> apply to temperature reconstruction groups by any researchers, not
> just Mann. You also need to read key point 2, and see the associated
> figure 2. (This addresses the quotes from the S&B paper regarding
> "Medieval warmth", which occur in the paragraph following the end-
> paragraph quote provided above.
Are you in any way trying to say that you've seen a response to the
criticisms voiced in Soon et al section 5.3? (Other than your personal
questions voiced before the end-paragraph "Hmmm..." above.
>
> Here's where you can see the whole paper:
>
> ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/eos03.pdf
>
> I couldn't find Mann's Little Ice Age article on his Web
> site, but the kind folks at Harvard-Smithsonian have provided it,
> too:
>
> http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/DaveLegates03-d/Mann01LIA.pdf
>
> See page 5, which is quite similar to the AGU paper's
> Figure 2.
>
> :> ... Have you looked at the figure
> :> provided? Would you say that the results shown in the figure from
> :> different research groups support Mann's results, or not?
>
> : I say that all the plots shown in that figure, except for a tiny portion
> : of Esper et al, fall within the uncertainty range calculated by Mann et
> : al 1999 or Mann and Jones 2003. I also note that if the plot of Esper et
>
> Thanks for that. To translate: because the results of the
> other groups fall within the uncertainty range (and I will add, are nearly
> congruent with Mann's curves in many places), the independent analyses
> of other research groups do support Mann's results.
>
> (That would be BAD news for Mickey-Mick, because it would
> definitely indicate that their data reanalysis is flawed.)
McIntyre and McKitrick have no stake in whether Mann et al 1998's
methodology is paleoclimatologically excellent or flawed. Their paper is
an attempt to replicate, as closely as possible, Mann et al 1998 methods
using the source data, including more recent revisions than Mann et al
used, that Mann et al claimed to use.
In your opinion, Jimbo, should M&M include the 5 time series (fran003,
ital015, ital015x, spai026, and spai047) that Mann et al claim to have
used, but apparently did not?
>
> : al were to include the confidence interval, instead of just the central
> : value, much of it would be outside the uncertainty range shown in the
> : figure you cite. The Esper et al paper includes such a comparison in its
> : Fig. 3 (Science, 295:2250).
>
> But as noted by Mann in the caption, the Esper data is not the same
> kind of data. (Neither is Briffa et al.'s 2001, which is also shown
> in the figure.) Nonetheless, he includes it to show that the patterns
> of change in Esper's data are pretty similar to the other data records.
LOL -- any excuse to avoid coloring outside the lines is good enough, eh?
>
> So how about it, Steve? How do temperatures from 1000-1400
> compare to temperatures from 1400-1850? You don't need a lot of words
> to answer that question.
Shouldn't we wait for your investigation into tree ring methodology and
apply it to these various studies before we go accepting these plots as
is? Esper et al use quite a different approach than the others. Will
your evaluation favor one approach over another? Will you urge others to
read the body of your work, or will a 3rd party graph suffice?
---
! !
! !
! !
! !
----! !----
----! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! --
! ! ! ! ! / !
! ! / !
! !/ /
! /
! /
! /
! /
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> > Still waiting. Score: 2 replies to Ian St. John, none to me.
> > I feel rebuffed.
> >
> You are being, Jim. Long experience with Mr. Schulin shows
> that he does a lot of dancing, but little responding with substance.
> You can ask him a point-blank question and if the answer will require
> him to admit there is a problem with his position he either won't
> answer or will respond to your question with another question. This is
> standard practice for him. ...
If you asked better questions, you might get answers you prefer.
> ... He will not do or say anything that will
> put him on record as standing for something. ...
Make up your mind, Mr. Ball. Do I take the extremist positions you
usually ascribe to me or do I take no positions as you here assert? I've
been feeling kind of lonesome in my defense here of replicability as a
piller of scientific method, lately. Surely that counts as standing for
something.
> ... He's not stupid. He knows
> that there are serious problems with the M&M's paper, but he will
> never admit it. ...
I hope for a full discussion of M&M's findings. I suspect that Mann et
al will be quite selective about what they respond to, just as Mann et
al have been so far regarding SB03. Speaking of which, I see that the
current Eos includes a Soon et al reply, and a Mann et al extension.
Mann et al., BTW, again demonstrate that they'd be right at home amidst
the ill-tempered exaggerators here who largely agree with them.
> ... He will obfuscate, dance, try to confuse the issue or
> run away, but he will never admit there is a problem, even if it
> something very minor. ...
Oops. Mr. Ball is describing himself here.
> ... Gods, I pointed out to him a long time ago that
> the way the Idso's handle the USHCN data is completely bogus - you do
> not slap a straight line through periodic data - and he ran away
> rather than address the obvious problematic nature of their analysis.
LOL - I don't mind if you claim that you can turn actual cooling into
statistical warming in any 1930-2000 time series graphed by the Idsos.
If you don't give impact to your argument, it seems pretty silly of you
to expect anybody to care enough to reply. I'm sure not looking to
invite more of your bluster.
> I wouldn't get my hopes up that you will get a straight answer from
> him. I don't believe he is capable of it...unless it's written in the
> stars.
Very truly,
Ian St. John
> In article <0u6jqvcbfef4qi7i8...@4ax.com>,
> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Still waiting. Score: 2 replies to Ian St. John, none to me.
> > > I feel rebuffed.
> > >
> > You are being, Jim. Long experience with Mr. Schulin shows
> > that he does a lot of dancing, but little responding with substance.
> > You can ask him a point-blank question and if the answer will require
> > him to admit there is a problem with his position he either won't
> > answer or will respond to your question with another question. This is
> > standard practice for him. ...
>
> If you asked better questions, you might get answers you prefer.
Translation: You keep asking Steve to back up his data. Stop that or he'll
continue ignoring you.
James Acker
until November 10.
In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
: In article <bobp09$iv3$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
: James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote, in part:
:> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
:> : James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
:> :> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
:> :> : James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[deletions]
:> :> This baloney about Mann et al. eliminating the MWP and
:> :> LIA has got to STOP! If you want to see the data, here's the
:> :> fricking data plotted all together:
:> :>
:> :> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann2003b.html
:> :>
:> :> Look at the big bottom figure.
:> :>
:> :> Now that you've looked at it, answer me this. Amalgamate
:> :> the various plots in your mind. How do temperatures in the period
:> :> 1000-1400 compare to temperatures from 1450-1800?
:> :>
:> :> Meaning: if Jones et al. 1998 found a LIA, then it's in
:> :> Mann's data too. ...
:>
:> : The plots on that figure you cite don't include Jones et al 1998. And I
:>
:> I guess I must have discombobulated you a bit. READ THE
:> CAPTION. Jones et al. 1998 is the black line, in the legend referred
:> to as "Jones et al. scaled 1856-1980". There isn't any other Jones
:> et al. in the legend, and Jones et al. 1998 is specifically
:> referenced in the caption.
: Thanks for correcting my error. Your guess seems a bit presumptuous,
: however.
Why presumptuous? Jones et al. 1998 is cited in the caption
as being shown in the plot. Later in the caption it says:
"All reconstructions have been scaled to the annual, full northern
hemisphere mean, over an overlapping period (1856-1980) using the
NH instrumental record (Jones et al. 1999) for comparison..."
If the caption says that Jones et al. 1998 is shown in the comparison,
and the only line in the legend that's connected to a "Jones et al."
is the black one, I think I'm safe.
:> : don't see anything you've said which indicates you've actually read
:> : Jones et al 1998. So what are you basing your conclusion here on,
:> : anyway?
:>
:> I don't have to read it. ...
: LOL. Suit yourself.
:> ... It's cited as corroborative research
:> work by Mann et al. AGU Eos, Vol. 84, #27, page 256. Here's what
:> they say:
:> "A large number of such reconstructions [Mann et al. 1999;
:> Jones et al. 1998; Crowley and Lowery, 2000] now support the conclusion
:> that the hemispheric-mean warmth of the late 20th century (i.e., the
:> past few decades) is likely unprecedented in the last 1000 years
:> [Jones et al. 2001; Folland et al. 2001]."
: I agree that the last two references, which are review-style
: publications, voice the conclusion attributed to them. As to the "large
: number of reconstructions" cited, I see we've discussed all three, so
: I'm not sure what this quote adds to the discussion for you. For me, it
: gives a good opportunity to note that I consider three to be "a few"
: rather than "a large number". I don't say the authors are speaking
If he says a large number, and only cites three, that doesn't
mean there aren't more (as you note, there may be several more.)
: demonstrably falsely, I just say please don't insist that I agree with
: the interpretations and generalizations you or they make. Actually, I
: recall reading recently that there's a dozen constructions or
: simulations in the literature which conclude or include the same kind of
: supportive stuff as the three your quote mentioned.
:> And the data is shown in the figure which you examined.
: The way you say "the data is shown" sounds so authoritative. One seeing
: this sentence without understanding that you're referring to the paper
: you see no need to read might think you actually know what you're
: talking about here. Is all the data shown? Are there any insights into
: the data provided in the article which might temper your readiness to
: package it all in the one thin line, mostly obscured, in the graph you
: cite?
You ask worthwhile questions. I also note that if you're
trying to establish a moral high ground regarding the reading of
references, you relied on what S&B said about Jones et al. 1998 and
Crowley and Lowery (2000), and stated that you hadn't read them
yourself. So I'm relying on what Mann et al. says about Jones et al.'s
data. Interesting that you note that one thin line is mostly
obscured. The reason is: nearly all of the temperature reconstructions,
and 3 out of 4 model results, follow nearly the same variability
patterns! They don't just lie within the same bounds of uncertainty.
:> : Soon and Baliunas appear to have read Jones et al 1998. I
:> : mentioned that because in previous post you remarked "It's funny how all
:> : these critics ... aren't trying to criticize the work of these other
:> : groups. It's funny how the work of these other groups is entirely
:> : consistent with Mann et al's. research and data." Since Jones et al 1998
:> : was one of the two of those other groups you specified in that post, I
:> : thought it quite appropriate to note that Soon and Baliunas (who seem
:> : reasonable to include in your "all these critics" group) discussed one
:>
:> Discussing it is not the same as criticizing it.
: LOL. So of the two studies you rant about the critics not criticizing,
: you admit here that Soon et al discuss one (in a way that thoroughly
: clashes with your take on it), and you admit elsewhere to having read
: the multi-page section Soon et al devote to discussing, quite
: critically, the other. You're full of surprises. I didn't imagine you
: could go downhill from that "I don't need to read it" notion. But here
: you are.
Above I state why I do not feel it necessary to have read the
Jones et al. 1998 paper. The current topic is the corroborative
support for Mann et al.'s analyses. I think that the graph, the IPCC
excerpt, and Mann's Eos paper indicate that Jones et al. 1998 provide
corroborative support for Mann et al.'s research results.
I've got the whole E&E paper. It was available as a PDF
and I printed it. Feel free to refer to it. Jones et al. 1998 was
in the journal Holocene. Not readily available to me.
You actually brought Soon and Baliunas into the discussion.
When I was referring to the critics, I meant the editorialists
who were trashing Mann on the basis of the Mickey-Mick paper, because
only one of them noted that Mann had actually said that there were
other research groups with results that supported his. The other
editorials make it seem like he's the last and only word, and if
he's wrong, the whole kaboodle of paleoclimate reconstruction for the
past 1000 years comes crashing down. I have no doubt that the
editorial writers might want the public to think that, but it's an
inaccurate representation.
(End part 1.)
James Acker
: James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote, in part:
Response part 2.
:> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
:> : James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
:> :> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
:> :> : James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[deletion of material in response 1]
:> : of the two studies you seemed to think ought not be ignored, and came to
:> : quite different conclusion than you, even though theirs was consistent
:> : with the quite broadly stated IPCC conclusion you quoted. So before we
:> : move on, are you quite done with that particular line of trash you were
:> : talking previously?
:>
:> They didn't come to a different conclusion. What they've done
:> is try to say that Mann et al.'s work eliminated the MWP and the LIA
:> from the temperature record of the last 600-1000 years. Which it
:> didn't. I asked you a direct question about the appearance of the
:> data in the graph provided, and you've avoided it.
: I see where you thank me for my previous answer below. Is that the same
: question you're referring to here and now?
No. It's the same question that you avoided answering again.
If you examine all of the temperature reconstructions, how do temperatures
between 1000-1400 compare to temperatures between 1400 and 1800?
More on this later.
:> :> ... If they can't rule out a MWP, then it can't be
:> :> ruled out from Mann et al.'s data analysis, either. And note that
:> :> I've posted URLs to other publications from Mann's Web site here that
show
:> :> regional data plots, which demonstrate significantly greater high and
:> :> low temperature excursions during the warm and cold periods, particularly
:> :> in EUROPE and England. So, as I've said before, the global analysis
:> :> of data reduces the amplitude of regional temperature variability.
:> :> So: there was never an elimination of the MWP and LIA by Mann et al.
:> :> or any other group. They demonstrated that the global temperature
:> :> variability is smaller than the regional temperature variability during
:> :> these periods (probably due in part to non-synchronization of cold
:> :> and warm periods during the 1000-1400 and 1450-1800 periods, i.e.,
:> :> during the 12th century, it might have been warm in the Northern
:> :> Hemisphere and cold in the Southern Hemisphere, which averages out
:> :> to much less variability).
:>
:> : You and I apparently have a fundamental disagreement about what Mann et
:> : al do.
:>
:> Apparently.
:>
:> : You say, for example, that their regional plots "demonstrate"
:> : something. In actuality, their plots are illustration of a hypothesis.
:>
:> They are data. ...
: The plots show temperature anomalies. The data, from the proxies, are
: not temperature anomalies.
Chuckle. Temperature anomalies are an alternate way of
showing patterns in the data, perhaps with more clarity than viewing
the original data. The data isn't changed just because it's portrayed
as anomalies rather than as a direct representation of temperature.
(But I will admit that the choice of the mean comparison line that
forms the basis of a temperature anomaly generation will affect the
portrayal of the anomalies.)
:> ... Whether or not they illustrate a hypothesis
:> depends on the hypothesis. (You're spinning so fast I'm afraid you'll
:> fall out of your chair and hurt yourself.) The data shown in the
:> Mann "Little Ice Age" article on his Web site shows regional temperature
:> data for the same period covered by his multi-proxy data set. ...
: When he plots temperature data, that's different. I didn't say these
: guys never plot data. I just said that what you referred to as data was
: not data.
See above.
:> ... See
:> below for a link to that article. As an example, while central
:> England was at it's lowest temperature at around AD 1700, eastern
:> China was warming up a bit.
:>
:> : And part of that hypothesis is that LIA and MWP were largely European
:> : affairs. And one of the two types of evidences underlying that part of
:>
:> Wrongo, Steve-o. If it's a hypothesis, it's that the MWP and
:> L1A were most strongly expressed in Europe, and to a lesser extent,
:> the Northern Hemisphere.
: So much lesser that I'm not mucho wrongo, bub.
I see a difference between "largely European affairs" (carrying
the implication that there's only a little bit going on elsewhere) and
"most strongly expressed in Europe, and to a lesser extent, the
Northern Hemisphere" (carrying the implication that they actually
did occur just about everywhere, but are most detectable in Europe
and the Northern Hemisphere).
Heck, glacier data shows that the LIA affected New Zealand.
[short deletion]
:> : So you'll pardon me for wondering why you think
:> : assumption-laden plots, that depend more on weighting functions than on
:> : the data itself, can be considered to demonstrate anything about past
:> : mean temperatures.
:>
:> What assumptions go into the plots? Back up that statement
:> with an analysis. And while you're at it, explain how you can compare
:> data from different proxies without weighting functions.
: Oh, it would just be my opinion. What do you care? If the authors wanted
: you to know their assumptions, surely they'd list 'em. Oh, wait. You're
: the wiz who doesn't need to read a paper aren't you? You seem to agree
I've stated my reasons for not finding it necessary to read
that particular paper in the discussion of this topic.
You say the plots are "assumption-laden". Can it be done
differently, with less assumptions? Do the assumptions invalidate
the results? Etc. (In most cases, authors of scientific papers
explicitly note their assumptions.)
: that weighting factors are used in at least some study you're interested
: in. If you know of one that includes uncertainty estimate for a
: particular proxied variable, such as hemispheric mean temperature,
: please feel welcome to identify the uncertainty associated with choice
: of weighting factor. Perhaps you could find a partial solution to your
: own perplexities without my humble assistance.
I've reread this three times and I am unsure what you're
asking me to try to do. Mann's data plot includes "two standard error
uncertainties". If the assumptions induce an amount of uncertainty,
then that should be represented by the illustrated range.
:> If you look at the data, the most intense low temperature
:> periods occurred in England and Europe during the LIA period, which
:> is shown in Mann's data to take place between 1400 and ~1850.
:> "Fennoscandia" shows even more intense cold excursions than
:> England.
:>
:> :> And if the research of these other groups is accurate, then it
:> :> would appear that Mann et al.'s is probably accurate, too.
:>
:> : Did you notice Mann and Jones 2003 dropping of two time series, which
:> : Mann et al 1999 had used, due to lack of confidence that they correlated
:> : with local temperature?
:>
:> What does that have to do with Crowley and Lowery? ...
: Why do you ask?
Because I was trying to keep on the topic of whether or not
Mann et al.'s research work is independently corroborated. You keep
bringing up issues that are peripheral to that topic.
And: we aren't discussing Mann and Jones 2003. Mickey-
Mick were concerned with Mann et al. 1998.
:> ... What does
:> that have to do with Jones et al. 1998? ...
: Why do you ask?
See above if you can't figure it out.
:> ... Stop trying to confuse the
:> issue with peripheral topics. Mann et al. may be modifying their
:> analysis in an attempt to make it better, but the overall picture
:> hasn't changed between the 1998 and 2003 papers.
: Mann and Jones 2003 say that two of the few time series used to come up
: with Mann et al 1999 hemispheric mean temperature estimates are, in
: retrospect, not suited for the task. My question to you was how can you
: talk about Mann et al 1999 being probably accurate when you don't know
: what the plot looks like without these two time series included?
Hmmm. Good question!
ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/mannjones03.pdf
Reference figure 2.
Examining in real-time...
Result: high congruent similarity detected between figure 2,
part a) and Mann et al. 1998 figure 5, which is sitting on my desk.
Conclusion: probable accuracy confirmed.
:> Do Crowley and Lowery (2000) and Jones et al. (1998) support
:> Mann's data analysis, or not?
: The question seems too broad to be useful. But I will note that Mann et
: al appear much more enthusiastic about discussing such matters than
: about their own methodology in Mann 1998. But its early yet, perhaps
: Mann et al will be more comprehensive in addressing M&M than they were
: in addressing Soon et al. From what I've seen of their public writings,
: however, Mann et al seem like they'd be right at home amongst the biased
: hacks here who agree with them. Ball and Mann are like two peas in a
: pod. And I don't mean that in any dehumanizing way.
I think it's possible, though I can't say for certain, that this
"controversy" might cause Mann et al. to even more fully elucidate
what they've done despite the amount of work they've already done to
explain it. I can't access Nature online, but Mann et al. 1998 indicated
that there is more supplementary information available there or by
request from the Nature editorial office. I wonder if Mickey-Mick
ever asked Nature for that?
(End part 2.)
Jim Acker
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
A second flood, a simple famine, plagues of locusts everywhere,
Or a cataclysmic earthquake, I'd accept with some despair.
But no, you sent us Congress! Good God, sir, was that fair?
--- John Adams, "Piddle, Twiddle, and Resolve", from the
musical "1776"