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"
James Acker
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:
[deletions to here; see responses 1 and 2]
:> : 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:
I didn't connect what you asked with what was said here.
Thanks for clarifying. I'm planning a more general discussion
of temperature dendrochronology with Titan Point (which is
investigational; I'm learning as I go along).
: <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.
Since I still have Mann and Jones 2003 up, I can see that
section. Speculating, since I'm not a statistician, the inclusion
of data with negative or zero correlation with local conditions would
seem to have an effect of adding "noise" to the data analysis in the
earlier papers. I.e., if you take that data out, the analysis of
temperature variability is improved (less scatter/variability in
the data). The question it raises with regard to the 1998 and
1999 papers is why data that didn't have temperature correlation
was used, since not having that data makes the analysis better.
: <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.
OK, we can get to that.
: <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
Yup, now we've both posted the link and looked at the paper.
:> : 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.
That gets us back to the original question(s). To whit:
Mickey-Mick indicate that Mann et al.'s 1998 paper had methodological
errors. Their flawed reanalysis indicated a significant difference
with Mann et al. 1998. Mann responds that other groups have provided
results that support his work. This is shown by perusal of data plots
showing his data with the results of other groups (and also including
both his 1999 and 2003 data). The corroboration found in this
compilation indicates that Mickey-Mick were erroneous in their
initial assessment of Mann's methodological errors.
There wasn't much change between the 1999 and 2003 papers.
That can be seen in the Eos figure.
[deletions]
:> :> :> 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.
Which remains to be proven.
:> ... 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.
That was a mistaken impression. Yes, it's important. I
find this farcical: it is obvious that Mann et al.'s
research is so well corroborated by independent analyses done by
other groups. It should have struck Mickey-Mick as strange that their
reanalysis was so at odds with ALL of those groups, not just Mann.
But... they were likely gleeful that they had found "big" mistakes
by Mann et al., and they didn't think about that issue. They were
focused on discrediting Mann.
To say otherwise would be to imply that everybody is doing it
wrong, not just Mann et al. That means to me that Mann et al.'s work
is likely fully replicable.
:> : 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.
Did he ever actually use that particular word? It's a bit
different in meaning than "reproduced", for example.
:> :> ... 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.
Good.
:> :> ... 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...
: 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.
There is a legitimate question here. Can a large enough
set of temperature data proxies be compiled to provide a record of
regional, hemispheric, and global temperatures? The Mann et al.
naysayers want the answer to be "no". The groups doing this kind of
work would obviously contend "yes". I personally think that there's
barely enough SH data to do the job for that hemisphere, and that
uncertainty means that the global reconstructions are not as reliable
as the NH reconstructions. And I think that the groups doing the
actual research agree with that. But as long as you point out the
potential problems, you go with what you have; giving up is somewhat
useless.
:> 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.
I have not seen a specific response to the section about
Crowley and Lowery (5.3). It would be appropriate for Crowley and
Lowery to respond. Crowley has; read the author list of the Eos
article. I believe that key point 2 addresses the criticisms
directed at Crowley and Lowery (2000) in S&B section 5.3. To make
this explicitly clear, one of the authors of the Crowley and Lowery
(2000) paper criticized in S&B 2003 (E&E) is a co-author on the
response to that paper in Eos which is first-authored by Michael
Mann.
:> 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.
No stake? That's the funniest thing you've said. I'll just
leave it at that.
: 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?
If it becomes clear that this is what actually occurred.
I'll note that if an error like this is substantiated, authors are
allowed to write an "Errata" note explicitly stating the error and
documenting any effects that it may have had on their results.
:> : 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?
I'm only relaying what is said about that data in the caption.
:> 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?
If my data is good enough, a 3rd party graph would suffice.
Be that as it may, one of the centralities of this entire debate
is whether or not Mann et al.'s so-called "Hockey Stick" data presentation
eliminated the MWP and the LIA from scientific understanding. That's
a summary position of the skeptics that have assailed his work from
various quarters. Leaving aside the question of data and analysis
integrity, it is still possible to evaluate the current data presentation
as it stands to determine if this is actually what happened, or if it
distorts the Mann et al. results for public consumption. You have
again demurred from making such an evaluation. Let me therefore
quote from the Mann et al. Eos article:
"While relative hemispheric warmth during the 10th, 11th,
and 12th centuries, and cool conditions during the 15th to the early
20th century are _evident_ from reconstructions of hemispheric-mean
temperature (Figure 1), the specific periods of coldness and warmth
differ from region to region (Figure 2) from those for the northern
hemisphere as a whole. Rather than indicating inconsistency, the
difference between such regional and hemispheric-scale anomalies
follows naturally from the physics governing atmospheric variability."
My rephrase:
There was hemispheric warmth during the 10th, 11th, and
12th centuries, and cool conditions* during the 15th through to the
early 20th century. Thus, the MWP and LIA periods are expressed in
Mann et al.'s data and the results of other independent research
analyses. They have not been eliminated; they are not better
understood than via previous understanding gleaned from qualitative
descriptions and unquantified proxy information.
[profane image deleted]
James Acker
In the final paragraph of response 3, the word "not" should
be "now". This correction should add clarity to that statement.
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
When I say "your guess", I'm referring to your sentence which begins "I
guess".
I have neither quibble nor qualm about your very nice, uh, previous
highlighting of the caption. Thanks again.
> yourself. ...
Of course, I only relied on them to counter your claim that none of the
critics criticized Jones et al. (1998) and Crowley and Lowery (2000).
> ... 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.
Most show very little variability, it is true.
>
> :> : 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. ...
Yes, my understanding is that you feel the "support" comment is specific
enough for your purposes, accompanied by the data plot, despite the
specific criticism of the "support" comment by folks who have apparently
read the paper, because you don't believe they're worth listening to on
matters related to climate change on Earth.
> ... 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.
That clears that up. Your criticism of the Mann critics was intended to
refer to a narrow subgroup of the Mann critics. And that subgroup is the
op ed writers who have written articles published in these first few
days after M&M paper was published. If I had accurately assessed your
meaning, I certainly wouldn't have taken that opportunity to point out
Soon et al. Here is a case where it would be correct to "guess [Jim]
must have discombobulated [Steve] a bit."
>
> (End part 1.)
>
Very truly,
Josh Halpern
James Acker wrote:
>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:
>
>Response part 2.
>
SNIP....
>:> : 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.)
>
Temperature anomolies are AFAIK the only way of putting records from
multiple types of proxies at multiple sites taken over multiple periods
on a
single scale. Or perhaps someone has a better explanation. Since Mann,
Jones, took published data, the plots showing individual records are in the
publications showing those records.
josh halpern
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
When I say "The data, from the proxies, are not temperature anomalies",
I mean that the data are ring width measurements, or density
measurements, or oxygen isotope ratio measurements. They are not the
temperature anomalies shown by the plots you cite. Thus, the plots of
temperature anomalies are "illustration of hypothesis".
What a silly thing to say. All assumptions aren't accounted for by
calculating sampling error. Or is there some other kind of uncertainty
you imagine to be bounded by the "two standard error uncertainties". The
uncertainty range cited by Mann et al. 1998 does not include any
contribution from uncertainty in, for example, the appropriateness of
using the 20th century calibration period for conditions hundreds of
years earlier.
>
> :> 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.
Mann and Jones 2003 say that two of the Mann et al 1999 time series were
inappropriate for the task. I brought it up because you have talked
about Mann et al 1999.
>
> :> ... 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.
All three papers use different datasets. Your conclusion seems to assume
a (probable) homogeneity in the indvidual time series. That assumption
seems pretty arbitrary to me.
>
> :> 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. ...
As long as those whose opinions they value don't give a hoot (1) whether
they're replicable, or (2) whether they correct their apparent mistakes,
or (3) whether they recalculate using the latest versions of their
sources' data, I don't think they'll be very forthcoming about their own
work, but will focus on aspects of M&M which disqualify the alternate
construction graph. "Save Our Stick".
> ... 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?
McIntyre mentions questions based on his use of it in his Sept 25 email
to Mann. Mann et al's Supplementary Info is also mentioned several times
in the body of the peer reviewed paper, as well. Nature makes the
Supplementary Info freely available via abstract page on the web, BTW
Philip Felton
James Acker wrote:
I do have access and here's the title:
Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries
MICHAEL E. MANN*, RAYMOND S. BRADLEY* & MALCOLM K. HUGHES?
1 Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts , Amherst, Massachusetts
01003-5820, USA
? Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 ,
USA
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to M.E.M. (e-mail:
ma...@snow.geo.umass.edu).
Then a couple of paras later under 'DATA' we have:
"Data
We use a multiproxy network consisting of widely distributed high-quality
annual-resolution proxy climate indicators, individually collected and formerly
analysed by many palaeoclimate researchers (details and references are available:
see Supplementary Information). "
The supplementary info was a link to amongst other things to:
"Multiproxy Data Network
The various records contributing to the multiproxy network are indicated along
with type of proxy (e.g., instrumental or historical, dendroclimatic, coral, ice
core), climate variable (or probable climate variable) inferred, first year (AD)
of record available, and the reference/authors for the data. All data are annual
resolution (or annual mean in the case of instrumental data available at higher
resolution). Small gaps have been interpolated. If records terminate slightly
before the end of the 1902-1980 training interval, they are extended by
persistence to 1980. Certain proxy datasets have been represented by a smaller
number of leading principal components of the set (PCs) the maximum number of
which (available back to 1820) are indicated in parentheses. Information
for data taken from the International Tree Ring Data Band (ITRDB) is provided in a
different abbreviated format. More information and complete
references for these data can be found on a separate web location sponsored by the
National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC):
http://julius.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering.html"
There was also quite extensive discussion of their methodology.
Phil.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>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.
Sorry, Steve, it doesn't wash. I could ask you the equivalent
of, "is the sky blue." and your response would be "why do you ask".
You're a troll. Nothing more.
>
>> ... 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.
LOL. Oh, but you do, Steve. What you do is insinuate. You cast
aspertions on people whose work you can't even comprehend. You never
actually come out and say what you mean. That would put you on paper
and would make it very easy for people to prove you wrong.
>
>> ... 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.
What would be the point? You decided you like their results
and that's the end of it. I daresay if push came to shove you couldn't
explain Mann et al's methodology any more than you can explain M&M's.
Given that, you are hardly in a position to make any comment at all on
their work - either of them.
>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.
A wonderful example of what I outline above. You can't make
any comment about the science, you don't understand it, but you can
and do cast aspersions on the people who do the science. Typical
trollish behaviour. Thanks for providing a ready-made example.
>> ... 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.
Actually, troll, it's a fact. The USHCN data has periodic
elements. You can see them, provided you open your eyes. Indeed, you
have often quoted that very fact: it was warm early in the century,
cool in the middle and it is warm now. Not a bad long-term periodicity
and it is statistically significant. Removing them is relatively
minor, though obviously not exact and there is no way to assess what
caused the periodic signal. What's left, you can fit a straight-line
through. Of course, I didn't use a simplistic least-squares. One of
the things one finds when working with meteorological data is outliers
and while they are usually more interesting than the regular data,
they have the annoying habit of skewing the results of the least
squares. Robust techniques are far better, minimizing chi-squared, and
the results show warming on every single one of the Idso's USHCN site
of the week. It's really quite interesting.
BTW, are you still under the impression that you can make a
proper trend assessment through periodic data, Mr. Schulin?
>
>> 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,
"Very truly"?? You're kidding, right Steve?
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> : 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.)
>
>When I say "The data, from the proxies, are not temperature anomalies",
>I mean that the data are ring width measurements, or density
>measurements, or oxygen isotope ratio measurements. They are not the
>temperature anomalies shown by the plots you cite. Thus, the plots of
>temperature anomalies are "illustration of hypothesis".
So Spenser and Christy's website is just an illustration of
hypothesis?
>>
>> 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.
>
>What a silly thing to say. All assumptions aren't accounted for by
>calculating sampling error. Or is there some other kind of uncertainty
>you imagine to be bounded by the "two standard error uncertainties". The
>uncertainty range cited by Mann et al. 1998 does not include any
>contribution from uncertainty in, for example, the appropriateness of
>using the 20th century calibration period for conditions hundreds of
>years earlier.
Are you under the impression that the factors affecting tree
growth have changed in the past thousand years? Please offer an
illustration of this behaviour.
>> 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. ...
>
>As long as those whose opinions they value don't give a hoot (1) whether
>they're replicable, or (2) whether they correct their apparent mistakes,
>or (3) whether they recalculate using the latest versions of their
>sources' data, I don't think they'll be very forthcoming about their own
>work, but will focus on aspects of M&M which disqualify the alternate
>construction graph. "Save Our Stick".
A fair comment, yet you yourself have made note of the fact
that Mann et al 2003 stated that some of the data used in their 1999
paper was not up to snuff. Apparently, they do care, do correct their
apparent mistakes and do recalculation.
I have to comment, however, that you seem to be keeping your
outrage rather close to Mann et al. I wonder where it's been when
Spenser & Christy have been doing exactly what you decry for years.
Why the selective outrage?
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:32:50 -0500, Steve Schulin
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> : 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.)
> >
> >When I say "The data, from the proxies, are not temperature anomalies",
> >I mean that the data are ring width measurements, or density
> >measurements, or oxygen isotope ratio measurements. They are not the
> >temperature anomalies shown by the plots you cite. Thus, the plots of
> >temperature anomalies are "illustration of hypothesis".
>
> So Spenser and Christy's website is just an illustration of
> hypothesis?
No. I wouldn't say that. But you're getting warm, as the kids say. Keep
trying until you get it right.
>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >What a silly thing to say. All assumptions aren't accounted for by
> >calculating sampling error. Or is there some other kind of uncertainty
> >you imagine to be bounded by the "two standard error uncertainties". The
> >uncertainty range cited by Mann et al. 1998 does not include any
> >contribution from uncertainty in, for example, the appropriateness of
> >using the 20th century calibration period for conditions hundreds of
> >years earlier.
>
> Are you under the impression that the factors affecting tree
> growth have changed in the past thousand years? Please offer an
> illustration of this behaviour.
I refer you to the Soon et al paper for overview of the subject.
> >> 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. ...
> >
> >As long as those whose opinions they value don't give a hoot (1) whether
> >they're replicable, or (2) whether they correct their apparent mistakes,
> >or (3) whether they recalculate using the latest versions of their
> >sources' data, I don't think they'll be very forthcoming about their own
> >work, but will focus on aspects of M&M which disqualify the alternate
> >construction graph. "Save Our Stick".
>
> A fair comment, yet you yourself have made note of the fact
> that Mann et al 2003 stated that some of the data used in their 1999
> paper was not up to snuff. Apparently, they do care, do correct their
> apparent mistakes and do recalculation.
I'd love to see a recalculation of Mann 1999, sans the two inappropriate
series. Mann and Jones 2003 is not a recalculation by any stretch of the
imagination. Those two I mentioned were not the only ones dropped, they
were just the ones that were identified as unsuitable for correlating
with local temperature.
> I have to comment, however, that you seem to be keeping your
> outrage rather close to Mann et al. I wonder where it's been when
> Spenser & Christy have been doing exactly what you decry for years.
> Why the selective outrage?
I have no idea what parallels you imagine.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:19:37 -0500, Steve Schulin
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Sorry, Steve, it doesn't wash. I could ask you the equivalent
> of, "is the sky blue." and your response would be "why do you ask".
> You're a troll. Nothing more.
I've answered hundreds of questions of yours. My reluctance to presume
you mean what you even clearly say surely has come to influence my
responses.
> >> ... 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.
>
> LOL. Oh, but you do, Steve. What you do is insinuate. You cast
> aspertions on people whose work you can't even comprehend. You never
> actually come out and say what you mean. That would put you on paper
> and would make it very easy for people to prove you wrong.
On the contrary, I've been quite patient in backing up aspersions cast.
For example, I call you a liar, and I point to some of the specific lies
you've told. I call you an alarmist, and I point out alarmist language
and imagery you've used. There's no insinuation involved in these
examples. They are opinions, with reasoning cheerfully provided,
sometimes unsolicited, sometimes upon request.
>
> >
> >> ... 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.
>
> What would be the point? You decided you like their results
> and that's the end of it. I daresay if push came to shove you couldn't
> explain Mann et al's methodology any more than you can explain M&M's.
> Given that, you are hardly in a position to make any comment at all on
> their work - either of them.
One need not be a climate expert or a statistics expert to recognize
that Mann et al's recent claim (that the recently publicized ftp site
contains all the data) is incompatible with the Mann et al 1998 paper's
listing of fran003, ital015, ital015x, spai026, and spai047. I'd be more
sympathetic to the [implicit] claims that "We're too busy saving he
world to answer your impudent questions now, or perhaps ever" [not an
actual quote], if there weren't such clearly identifiable sloppy work
involved.
>
> >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.
>
> A wonderful example of what I outline above. You can't make
> any comment about the science, you don't understand it, but you can
> and do cast aspersions on the people who do the science. Typical
> trollish behaviour. Thanks for providing a ready-made example.
I read the Eos exchange and voiced an opinion. I'd be happy to try to
answer any (relevant) question you might have about the basis for that
opinion.
I find nothing wrong with the Idsos method of testing their hypothesis
that "There Has Been No Global Warming for the Past 70 Years".
> >> 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,
>
> "Very truly"?? You're kidding, right Steve?
Nope.
As always,
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <394pqvgsupoj8btrf...@4ax.com>,
> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:32:50 -0500, Steve Schulin
>> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> : 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.)
>> >
>> >When I say "The data, from the proxies, are not temperature anomalies",
>> >I mean that the data are ring width measurements, or density
>> >measurements, or oxygen isotope ratio measurements. They are not the
>> >temperature anomalies shown by the plots you cite. Thus, the plots of
>> >temperature anomalies are "illustration of hypothesis".
>>
>> So Spenser and Christy's website is just an illustration of
>> hypothesis?
>
>No. I wouldn't say that. But you're getting warm, as the kids say. Keep
>trying until you get it right.
Of course you wouldn't say that, yet it is entirely the same
thing. Being consistent isn't your strong suit.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >What a silly thing to say. All assumptions aren't accounted for by
>> >calculating sampling error. Or is there some other kind of uncertainty
>> >you imagine to be bounded by the "two standard error uncertainties". The
>> >uncertainty range cited by Mann et al. 1998 does not include any
>> >contribution from uncertainty in, for example, the appropriateness of
>> >using the 20th century calibration period for conditions hundreds of
>> >years earlier.
>>
>> Are you under the impression that the factors affecting tree
>> growth have changed in the past thousand years? Please offer an
>> illustration of this behaviour.
>
>I refer you to the Soon et al paper for overview of the subject.
I didn't ask you for a reference to Soon et al. I asked YOU to
offer an illustration of this behaviour. Please explain in purely
technical language how this occurs.
>
>> >> 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. ...
>> >
>> >As long as those whose opinions they value don't give a hoot (1) whether
>> >they're replicable, or (2) whether they correct their apparent mistakes,
>> >or (3) whether they recalculate using the latest versions of their
>> >sources' data, I don't think they'll be very forthcoming about their own
>> >work, but will focus on aspects of M&M which disqualify the alternate
>> >construction graph. "Save Our Stick".
>>
>> A fair comment, yet you yourself have made note of the fact
>> that Mann et al 2003 stated that some of the data used in their 1999
>> paper was not up to snuff. Apparently, they do care, do correct their
>> apparent mistakes and do recalculation.
>
>I'd love to see a recalculation of Mann 1999, sans the two inappropriate
>series. Mann and Jones 2003 is not a recalculation by any stretch of the
>imagination. Those two I mentioned were not the only ones dropped, they
>were just the ones that were identified as unsuitable for correlating
>with local temperature.
And I'd love to see you address the point raised. You made the
comment that they don't correct their mistakes. Apparently, they do.
What you are really saying is that YOU haven't seen the results of
those recalculations. You cannot say that they haven't been done, just
that they have not appeared in the peer-review. As such, your comments
are at best premature at worst completely wrong. My guess is that it
is the latter.
>
>> I have to comment, however, that you seem to be keeping your
>> outrage rather close to Mann et al. I wonder where it's been when
>> Spenser & Christy have been doing exactly what you decry for years.
>> Why the selective outrage?
>
>I have no idea what parallels you imagine.
ROTFL. Bet you do. You just aren't honest enough to admit it.
S&C have been trying the MSU data by non-sequitur for years. They've
attacked other's techniques rather than address the shortcomings in
their own methodology. I imagine you find that doing the very thing
that you decry above is consistent. There's another word for it,
though: hypocritical.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> > David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> : 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.)
> >> >
> >> >When I say "The data, from the proxies, are not temperature anomalies",
> >> >I mean that the data are ring width measurements, or density
> >> >measurements, or oxygen isotope ratio measurements. They are not the
> >> >temperature anomalies shown by the plots you cite. Thus, the plots of
> >> >temperature anomalies are "illustration of hypothesis".
> >>
> >> So Spenser and Christy's website is just an illustration of
> >> hypothesis?
> >
> >No. I wouldn't say that. But you're getting warm, as the kids say. Keep
> >trying until you get it right.
>
> Of course you wouldn't say that, yet it is entirely the same
> thing. Being consistent isn't your strong suit.
I disagree with your conclusion that "Spenser and Christy's website"
refers to the same thing as anything I've said.
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> >What a silly thing to say. All assumptions aren't accounted for by
> >> >calculating sampling error. Or is there some other kind of uncertainty
> >> >you imagine to be bounded by the "two standard error uncertainties". The
> >> >uncertainty range cited by Mann et al. 1998 does not include any
> >> >contribution from uncertainty in, for example, the appropriateness of
> >> >using the 20th century calibration period for conditions hundreds of
> >> >years earlier.
> >>
> >> Are you under the impression that the factors affecting tree
> >> growth have changed in the past thousand years? Please offer an
> >> illustration of this behaviour.
> >
> >I refer you to the Soon et al paper for overview of the subject.
>
> I didn't ask you for a reference to Soon et al. I asked YOU to
> offer an illustration of this behaviour. Please explain in purely
> technical language how this occurs.
LOL. Read it yourself.
You're misrepresenting my comments. If you can point to any particular
statment of mine you find objectionable, I'll be happy to defend it. In
this thread, I brought up the two inappropriate series when another
poster used the word "accurate" or some such to describe Mann 1999 plot.
I asked how he could vouch for its accuracy given that two of the time
series have been found to be inappropriate for the intended task.
> >
> >> I have to comment, however, that you seem to be keeping your
> >> outrage rather close to Mann et al. I wonder where it's been when
> >> Spenser & Christy have been doing exactly what you decry for years.
> >> Why the selective outrage?
> >
> >I have no idea what parallels you imagine.
>
> ROTFL. Bet you do. You just aren't honest enough to admit it.
> S&C have been trying the MSU data by non-sequitur for years. They've
> attacked other's techniques rather than address the shortcomings in
> their own methodology. I imagine you find that doing the very thing
> that you decry above is consistent. There's another word for it,
> though: hypocritical.
I'm glad you clarified. I figured it didn't have anything to with the
replicability isue. And I've never found your similar rants about S/C to
have any substance.
Very truly,
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <0l2pqv0boqfjnk7uo...@4ax.com>,
> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:19:37 -0500, Steve Schulin
>> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> Sorry, Steve, it doesn't wash. I could ask you the equivalent
>> of, "is the sky blue." and your response would be "why do you ask".
>> You're a troll. Nothing more.
>
>I've answered hundreds of questions of yours. My reluctance to presume
>you mean what you even clearly say surely has come to influence my
>responses.
I wonder why so many people have the same complaint about your
posts. I guess everyone is wrong.
>
>> >> ... 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.
>>
>> LOL. Oh, but you do, Steve. What you do is insinuate. You cast
>> aspertions on people whose work you can't even comprehend. You never
>> actually come out and say what you mean. That would put you on paper
>> and would make it very easy for people to prove you wrong.
>
>On the contrary, I've been quite patient in backing up aspersions cast.
>For example, I call you a liar, and I point to some of the specific lies
>you've told. I call you an alarmist, and I point out alarmist language
>and imagery you've used. There's no insinuation involved in these
>examples. They are opinions, with reasoning cheerfully provided,
>sometimes unsolicited, sometimes upon request.
LOL. Poor little Steve. He's under the impression that his
opinion matters. Sorry, Troll, but you can label me whatever you wish.
It doesn't bother me a bit. I don't lie. You on the other hand are a
master of it. There's little point in going around in circles on this
issue. Your insinuations are baseless. As usual. You lack the ability
to put anything into its proper context, so you presume, and as usual,
your presumptions don't stand up to scrutiny.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> ... 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.
>>
>> What would be the point? You decided you like their results
>> and that's the end of it. I daresay if push came to shove you couldn't
>> explain Mann et al's methodology any more than you can explain M&M's.
>> Given that, you are hardly in a position to make any comment at all on
>> their work - either of them.
>
>One need not be a climate expert or a statistics expert to recognize
>that Mann et al's recent claim (that the recently publicized ftp site
>contains all the data) is incompatible with the Mann et al 1998 paper's
>listing of fran003, ital015, ital015x, spai026, and spai047. I'd be more
>sympathetic to the [implicit] claims that "We're too busy saving he
>world to answer your impudent questions now, or perhaps ever" [not an
>actual quote], if there weren't such clearly identifiable sloppy work
>involved.
That's where you're wrong, Troll. You have made a lot of
assertions about the data used by Mann et al. Unfortunately, since you
lack the wherewithal to comprehend the methodology used by the
authors, you're hardly in a position to make assertions about the
impact of those data on the solution.
I'll also make note of your trollish response: "We're too busy
saving he world to answer your impudent questions now, or perhaps
ever". More insinuation. I wonder why you feel the authors have some
requirement to respond.
>
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> A wonderful example of what I outline above. You can't make
>> any comment about the science, you don't understand it, but you can
>> and do cast aspersions on the people who do the science. Typical
>> trollish behaviour. Thanks for providing a ready-made example.
>
>I read the Eos exchange and voiced an opinion. I'd be happy to try to
>answer any (relevant) question you might have about the basis for that
>opinion.
As usual, your opinion doesn't matter, especially given your
extreme position. Thanks again for offering proof-positive of your
trolling.
Of course you don't. Lacking even the most basic data analysis
skills and knowing that the Idso's are saying exactly what you want to
hear, I would be surprised to hear you utter anything else. It's also
of some interest that such apparent problems are of no interest to
you. Too bad. There was fodder for some interesting science discussion
here. More proof that you are more interested in trolling than
discussion of the science.
>
>> >> 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,
>>
>> "Very truly"?? You're kidding, right Steve?
>
>Nope.
>
Sorry, but given your comments, and their inherent hypocricy,
it's awfully hard to take anything you say as being truly anything,
aside from trolling.
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:
>
>* " ... 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."
I wonder, now that a wee bit of time has passed, whether YOU
still feel that this paragraph is valid. It smacks more of hubris than
anything else. McIntrye and McKitrick are coming across as collosally
incompetent. Imagine, the data they need is freely available on an ftp
site open for all the world to access and they can't retrieve it
themselves? Instead, they go through the extraordinary step of
contacting the author who tells them of the site. How long does a
google search take? A couple of seconds? What they end up getting is
corrupted, so their analysis results are as well and and rather than
take responsibility for it themselves they blame Mann. What's worse,
when confronted with the fact that the dataset they are working with
is garbage, they state that they are still waiting for a "proper"
response. What kind of proper response is needed? You screwed up,
boys! Don't blame Mann for it.
>
>* "... 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."
Have YOU read Mann et al? Apparently not, nor has Carter, from
this self-serving paragraph. Would you be so kind as to show where you
think this lack of disclosure took place? Clearly, if you felt this
was something important to post, you must agree with it. Being the
honest fellow you are I can't imagine you making a bogus post. That
being said, you've likely got the relevant sections from MBH memorized
and will have no difficulty posting the passages where you feel a lack
of disclosure takes place.
>
>* "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.
Too simplistic by a damned site. They used 112 records for the
period 1820 onward. 93 records were used back to 1760. 74 records back
to 1700 and so on. And at each step in the process they evaluated the
performance of their technique. Did you not read MBH? BTW, PCA is not
an averaging technique. It is a technique for reducing the
dimensionality of multivariate datasets to their common elements.
>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.
That is NOT what Mann said. He stated that the full dataset
was available on an ftp site. A 2 second search on Google would have
found it. He also pointed out that it was the SPREADSHEET that was
corrupted, not the data. Had M&M shown a wee bit of competence, they
could have validated their spreadsheet data with the ftp site. I guess
they were too lazy.
>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."
Why? The error was in the preparation of the spreadsheet. Give
us a break.
>
>* "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]
Clearly, Carter should have waited for the dust to settle
before putting out such an op-ed piece. Better still, rather than
foist this on the ng, Mr. Schulin, why didn't you show a little
restraint and wait for further developments?
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> > David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Sorry, Steve, it doesn't wash. I could ask you the equivalent
> >> of, "is the sky blue." and your response would be "why do you ask".
> >> You're a troll. Nothing more.
> >
> >I've answered hundreds of questions of yours. My reluctance to presume
> >you mean what you even clearly say surely has come to influence my
> >responses.
>
> I wonder why so many people have the same complaint about your
> posts. I guess everyone is wrong.
Which complaint? Are you referring to the complaint that I think my
opinion matters, or are you referring to the complaint that I don't
answer you when you ask for my opinion?
> >> >> ... 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.
> >>
> >> LOL. Oh, but you do, Steve. What you do is insinuate. You cast
> >> aspertions on people whose work you can't even comprehend. You never
> >> actually come out and say what you mean. That would put you on paper
> >> and would make it very easy for people to prove you wrong.
> >
> >On the contrary, I've been quite patient in backing up aspersions cast.
> >For example, I call you a liar, and I point to some of the specific lies
> >you've told. I call you an alarmist, and I point out alarmist language
> >and imagery you've used. There's no insinuation involved in these
> >examples. They are opinions, with reasoning cheerfully provided,
> >sometimes unsolicited, sometimes upon request.
>
> LOL. Poor little Steve. He's under the impression that his
> opinion matters. Sorry, Troll, but you can label me whatever you wish.
> It doesn't bother me a bit. ...
Uh, it's not you whom I'm trying to convince. You, of course, know that
you've told purposeful lies and that you've used alarmist language
without me calling attention to the specifics. If my efforts have
prompted readers to see through the veneer of objectivity you so often
exhibit, I'd be quite pleased enough about the otherwise unpleasant task
of reading your vomitus.
> ... I don't lie. ...
That's a damn lie.
> ... You on the other hand are a
> master of it. ...
You never back up this repeated charge of yours.
> ... There's little point in going around in circles on this
> issue. Your insinuations are baseless. As usual. You lack the ability
> to put anything into its proper context, so you presume, and as usual,
> your presumptions don't stand up to scrutiny.
If the science were on your side, maybe you wouldn't spend so much time
writing about me.
> >> >> ... 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.
> >>
> >> What would be the point? You decided you like their results
> >> and that's the end of it. I daresay if push came to shove you couldn't
> >> explain Mann et al's methodology any more than you can explain M&M's.
> >> Given that, you are hardly in a position to make any comment at all on
> >> their work - either of them.
> >
> >One need not be a climate expert or a statistics expert to recognize
> >that Mann et al's recent claim (that the recently publicized ftp site
> >contains all the data) is incompatible with the Mann et al 1998 paper's
> >listing of fran003, ital015, ital015x, spai026, and spai047. I'd be more
> >sympathetic to the [implicit] claims that "We're too busy saving he
> >world to answer your impudent questions now, or perhaps ever" [not an
> >actual quote], if there weren't such clearly identifiable sloppy work
> >involved.
>
> That's where you're wrong, Troll. You have made a lot of
> assertions about the data used by Mann et al. Unfortunately, since you
> lack the wherewithal to comprehend the methodology used by the
> authors, you're hardly in a position to make assertions about the
> impact of those data on the solution.
In the paragraph to which you here reply, I asserted that "Mann et al's
recent claim (that the recently publicized ftp site contains all the
data) is incompatible with the Mann et al 1998 paper's listing of
fran003, ital015, ital015x, spai026, and spai047." If Mann et al 1998
did actually use these time series in their published analysis, then
their own assertion (that all the data was available on the recently
publicized ftp site) is clearly wrong. There are other implications of
this side of the incompatibility, but its a hypothetical matter at this
point. If Mann et al 1998 did not use these time series, then the
original article is clearly wrong in listing them. There are other
implications of this side of the incompatibility, too, but again, its
hypothetical at this point. You can blather all day and all night along
with the other apologists about the invariably careful Prof. Mann, but
wouldn't it be better to explain about fran003, ital015, ital015x,
spai026 and spai047?
> I'll also make note of your trollish response: "We're too busy
> saving he world to answer your impudent questions now, or perhaps
> ever". More insinuation. I wonder why you feel the authors have some
> requirement to respond.
They don't seem to be too busy to refrain from casting aspersions on
McIntyre and complaining about stuff that's irrelevant to the science,
so its open season on derision, as best I can tell. My characterization
of Mann's email (informing McIntyre that Mann would be unable to reply
to future inquiries) is not in the least trollish. And I don't feel Mann
et al have any obligation to respond. They're free to stonewall or
whatever as long as they so desire. Based on response to Soon et al, I
wouldn't be surprised if the stonewalling continued as long as those
whose opinion they respect don't care.
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> A wonderful example of what I outline above. You can't make
> >> any comment about the science, you don't understand it, but you can
> >> and do cast aspersions on the people who do the science. Typical
> >> trollish behaviour. Thanks for providing a ready-made example.
> >
> >I read the Eos exchange and voiced an opinion. I'd be happy to try to
> >answer any (relevant) question you might have about the basis for that
> >opinion.
>
> As usual, your opinion doesn't matter, especially given your
> extreme position. Thanks again for offering proof-positive of your
> trolling.
Extreme? Compared to what? Has anyone else here even mentioned the
exchange in this week's Eos, much less voiced an opinion?
Nobody's stopping you from giving impact to your argument, except you.
> >> >> 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,
> >>
> >> "Very truly"?? You're kidding, right Steve?
> >
> >Nope.
> >
> Sorry, but given your comments, and their inherent hypocricy,
> it's awfully hard to take anything you say as being truly anything,
> aside from trolling.
As always, very truly,
Ian St. John
A masterful response Steve. Not one fact, not one reference, not even a good
piece of logic. Just empty rhetoric worthy of a truely gifted troll.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 19:51:13 -0500, 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:
> >
> >* " ... 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."
>
> I wonder, now that a wee bit of time has passed, whether YOU
> still feel that this paragraph is valid. ...
Yes.
> ... It smacks more of hubris than
> anything else. McIntrye and McKitrick are coming across as collosally
> incompetent. ....
I disagree.
> ... Imagine, the data they need is freely available on an ftp
> site open for all the world to access and they can't retrieve it
> themselves? Instead, they go through the extraordinary step of
> contacting the author who tells them of the site. How long does a
> google search take? A couple of seconds? ...
You paint a fictional picture here. I did a google search on October 29,
2003 for the ftp URL Mann recently announced. Not a single "hit" on web
or newgroups. McIntyre followed all the URLs Mann et al provided in Mann
et al 1998 and Mann et al 1999. He was able to identify all the time
series used in the 1999 paper, but not the 1998 paper. It's true enough
that Mann told McIntyre last April that there was an ftp site, but Mann
delegated the beneficent task of specifying the URL to his colleague,
Dr. Rutherford. Instead of verifying Dr. Mann's claim, Dr. Rutherford
said he didn't know of any single ftp site that included all the time
series, and he offered to compile the info for Mr. McIntyre. Later that
month, he provided the balled up .txt file to Mr. McIntyre.
> ... What they end up getting is
> corrupted, so their analysis results are as well and and rather than
> take responsibility for it themselves they blame Mann. ...
When McIntyre noticed the clear problems with the data provided by
Rutherford, he emailed the 112-column .txt file to Mann and asked him to
verify that it was indeed the data he used. Alas, Dr. Mann's reply to
that email did not include response to that particular request. Mann
did, however, explicitly discourage further inquiry by noting that he
would not reply to further inquiries. So McIntyre went to the original
data sources, including corresponding with some of the original
researchers and encouraging them to place their data in the world
paleoclimate archives. He discovered some interesting things, like the
time series had been revised in some cases. McIntyre and McKitrick used
the source data, not the balled up .txt file, in their attempt at
replication.
> ... What's worse,
> when confronted with the fact that the dataset they are working with
> is garbage, they state that they are still waiting for a "proper"
> response. What kind of proper response is needed? You screwed up,
> boys! Don't blame Mann for it.
Mann et al have still not disclosed the data they used. The revelation
that 159 time series were used is an interesting one. Did you notice the
example Mann gave of study which had successfully used the Mann et al
1998 method? That study only used 112 time series.
> >* "... 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."
>
> Have YOU read Mann et al? Apparently not, nor has Carter, from
> this self-serving paragraph. Would you be so kind as to show where you
> think this lack of disclosure took place? Clearly, if you felt this
> was something important to post, you must agree with it. Being the
> honest fellow you are I can't imagine you making a bogus post. That
> being said, you've likely got the relevant sections from MBH memorized
> and will have no difficulty posting the passages where you feel a lack
> of disclosure takes place.
I've read Mann et al several times over the years. I've read McIntyre
and McKitrick once. I've discussed several "lack of disclosure" examples
highlighted by McIntyre and McKitrick in previous posts. One I recall
off-hand was the lack of disclosure by Mann et al that they modified the
chin04 series by cropping off the first two years.
>
> >
> >* "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.
>
> Too simplistic by a damned site. ...
LOL - I'm glad to see there's some level of unreplicability you, uh,
admonish.
> ... They used 112 records for the
> period 1820 onward. 93 records were used back to 1760. 74 records back
> to 1700 and so on. And at each step in the process they evaluated the
> performance of their technique. Did you not read MBH? BTW, PCA is not
> an averaging technique. It is a technique for reducing the
> dimensionality of multivariate datasets to their common elements.
>
> >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.
>
> That is NOT what Mann said. He stated that the full dataset
> was available on an ftp site. ...
Both were said in the email allegedly authored by Mann and made public
on Quark Soup on Oct 29.
> ... A 2 second search on Google would have
> found it. ...
I can't vouch for what a google search would have shown last April, when
McIntyre praised the Mann et al 1999 ftp site and inquired about similar
source for the Mann et al 1998 time series, but my Oct 29 google search
for the ftp URL announced by Mann revealed nary a mention of it on web
or in usenet archives. I posted my finding at the time, in a way that
even Ian could replicate.
> ... He also pointed out that it was the SPREADSHEET that was
> corrupted, not the data. ...
Nobody's seen the spreadsheet except the Mann et al folks. Rutherford
sent McIntyre a .txt file with 112 columns.
> ... Had M&M shown a wee bit of competence, they
> could have validated their spreadsheet data with the ftp site. I guess
> they were too lazy.
Your particular combination of ignorance (at best) and character
assassination here is not a new thing for you.
>
> >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."
>
> Why? The error was in the preparation of the spreadsheet. Give
> us a break.
The audit found several types of errors. Not all are attributable to
Mann et al's balled up .txt file. The audit also found stuff that are
not errors, but are reasonable to be analyzed as long as you're
recalculating anyway -- such as the fact that 24 of the time series have
been revised by the original researchers since the version used by Mann
et al 1998.
>
> >
> >* "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]
>
> Clearly, Carter should have waited for the dust to settle
> before putting out such an op-ed piece. Better still, rather than
> foist this on the ng, Mr. Schulin, why didn't you show a little
> restraint and wait for further developments?
Some good has come of it. You have a chance to rectify some of your
ignorance, for example.
Steve Schulin
Not one fact, but many. Several references, albeit no citations. Logic
included pretty incontrovertable contrast between Mann's ftp claim and
the list of series in Mann et al 1998. Any empty part you see, please
consider it a metaphor for Mann-made warming apologists.
As always, very truly.
David Ball
Bullshit, but that's what I've come to expect from you. Never
attempt to argue science with an astrologer or a fool who believes
that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <8ltqqvcq1n2uh8bv2...@4ax.com>,
> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 19:51:13 -0500, 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:
>> >
>> >* " ... 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."
>>
>> I wonder, now that a wee bit of time has passed, whether YOU
>> still feel that this paragraph is valid. ...
>
>Yes.
>
>> ... It smacks more of hubris than
>> anything else. McIntrye and McKitrick are coming across as collosally
>> incompetent. ....
>
>I disagree.
>
The facts say otherwise.
>> ... Imagine, the data they need is freely available on an ftp
>> site open for all the world to access and they can't retrieve it
>> themselves? Instead, they go through the extraordinary step of
>> contacting the author who tells them of the site. How long does a
>> google search take? A couple of seconds? ...
>
>You paint a fictional picture here. I did a google search on October 29,
>2003 for the ftp URL Mann recently announced. Not a single "hit" on web
>or newgroups. McIntyre followed all the URLs Mann et al provided in Mann
>et al 1998 and Mann et al 1999. He was able to identify all the time
>series used in the 1999 paper, but not the 1998 paper. It's true enough
>that Mann told McIntyre last April that there was an ftp site, but Mann
>delegated the beneficent task of specifying the URL to his colleague,
>Dr. Rutherford. Instead of verifying Dr. Mann's claim, Dr. Rutherford
>said he didn't know of any single ftp site that included all the time
>series, and he offered to compile the info for Mr. McIntyre. Later that
>month, he provided the balled up .txt file to Mr. McIntyre.
Funny, it didn't take me very long to find the data. Maybe
you're just as incompetent as they are.
>
>> ... What they end up getting is
>> corrupted, so their analysis results are as well and and rather than
>> take responsibility for it themselves they blame Mann. ...
>
>When McIntyre noticed the clear problems with the data provided by
>Rutherford, he emailed the 112-column .txt file to Mann and asked him to
>verify that it was indeed the data he used.
Why should Dr. Mann do their work for them?
>Alas, Dr. Mann's reply to
>that email did not include response to that particular request. Mann
>did, however, explicitly discourage further inquiry by noting that he
>would not reply to further inquiries. So McIntyre went to the original
>data sources, including corresponding with some of the original
>researchers and encouraging them to place their data in the world
>paleoclimate archives. He discovered some interesting things, like the
>time series had been revised in some cases. McIntyre and McKitrick used
>the source data, not the balled up .txt file, in their attempt at
>replication.
You seem to be under the impression that researchers have some
obligation to hold the hands of every newbie on the block. As I have
pointed out in a past post, making data available on the net has a
serious downside. Newbie's can get in the way.
>
>> ... What's worse,
>> when confronted with the fact that the dataset they are working with
>> is garbage, they state that they are still waiting for a "proper"
>> response. What kind of proper response is needed? You screwed up,
>> boys! Don't blame Mann for it.
>
>Mann et al have still not disclosed the data they used. The revelation
>that 159 time series were used is an interesting one. Did you notice the
>example Mann gave of study which had successfully used the Mann et al
>1998 method? That study only used 112 time series.
Are you stupid? Let's see, M&M get themselves a corrupt
dataset and arrive at erroneous conclusions based on it. That is
no-one's fault but theirs. Expecting anyone to have to sort out the
mess THEY made is unreasonable.
>
>> >* "... 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."
>>
>> Have YOU read Mann et al? Apparently not, nor has Carter, from
>> this self-serving paragraph. Would you be so kind as to show where you
>> think this lack of disclosure took place? Clearly, if you felt this
>> was something important to post, you must agree with it. Being the
>> honest fellow you are I can't imagine you making a bogus post. That
>> being said, you've likely got the relevant sections from MBH memorized
>> and will have no difficulty posting the passages where you feel a lack
>> of disclosure takes place.
>
>I've read Mann et al several times over the years. I've read McIntyre
>and McKitrick once. I've discussed several "lack of disclosure" examples
>highlighted by McIntyre and McKitrick in previous posts. One I recall
>off-hand was the lack of disclosure by Mann et al that they modified the
>chin04 series by cropping off the first two years.
Ah, so what you are saying is that despite your having read
Mann et al several times, you were unaware of any failure to disclose
relevant information. You had to be told by someone else, and that
someone else has a serious competency problem.
>
>>
>> >
>> >* "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.
>>
>> Too simplistic by a damned site. ...
>
>LOL - I'm glad to see there's some level of unreplicability you, uh,
>admonish.
I admonish Carter for attempting to oversimplify. Stop
trolling, little man.
Allegedly. Ah, the famous Schulin innuendo rears its ugly
head. Tell me, Troll, do you have any FACTS?
>
>> ... A 2 second search on Google would have
>> found it. ...
>
>I can't vouch for what a google search would have shown last April, when
>McIntyre praised the Mann et al 1999 ftp site and inquired about similar
>source for the Mann et al 1998 time series, but my Oct 29 google search
>for the ftp URL announced by Mann revealed nary a mention of it on web
>or in usenet archives. I posted my finding at the time, in a way that
>even Ian could replicate.
The data is available. You just have to know where to look.
>
>> ... He also pointed out that it was the SPREADSHEET that was
>> corrupted, not the data. ...
>
>Nobody's seen the spreadsheet except the Mann et al folks. Rutherford
>sent McIntyre a .txt file with 112 columns.
It's probably on the grassy knoll where Elvis and Amelia
Earhart are hiding out. Conspiracy theorists of the world unite!!
Schulin is on the case.
>
>> ... Had M&M shown a wee bit of competence, they
>> could have validated their spreadsheet data with the ftp site. I guess
>> they were too lazy.
>
>Your particular combination of ignorance (at best) and character
>assassination here is not a new thing for you.
I call them as I see them. It's called being honest, Troll, a
concept foreign to you. You seem to revel in the incompetence of
others while you attempt to assassinate the character of those whose
work you haven't even got the wit to understand.
>
>>
>> >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."
>>
>> Why? The error was in the preparation of the spreadsheet. Give
>> us a break.
>
>The audit found several types of errors. Not all are attributable to
>Mann et al's balled up .txt file. The audit also found stuff that are
>not errors, but are reasonable to be analyzed as long as you're
>recalculating anyway -- such as the fact that 24 of the time series have
>been revised by the original researchers since the version used by Mann
>et al 1998.
Isn't science grand, Troll?
>
>>
>> >
>> >* "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]
>>
>> Clearly, Carter should have waited for the dust to settle
>> before putting out such an op-ed piece. Better still, rather than
>> foist this on the ng, Mr. Schulin, why didn't you show a little
>> restraint and wait for further developments?
>
>Some good has come of it. You have a chance to rectify some of your
>ignorance, for example.
>
LOL. Any time you feel like shucking that coat of the
astrologer you where and get down and dirty with some real science,
Troll, I'll be more than happy to have meaningful discourse with you.
Until then, happy trolling. That's all you're doing.
David Ball
LOL. Disagree away. It changes nothing.
>> >>
>> >> Are you under the impression that the factors affecting tree
>> >> growth have changed in the past thousand years? Please offer an
>> >> illustration of this behaviour.
>> >
>> >I refer you to the Soon et al paper for overview of the subject.
>>
>> I didn't ask you for a reference to Soon et al. I asked YOU to
>> offer an illustration of this behaviour. Please explain in purely
>> technical language how this occurs.
>
>LOL. Read it yourself.
Translation: You can't. Thanks for confirming that.
>> >>
>> >> A fair comment, yet you yourself have made note of the fact
>> >> that Mann et al 2003 stated that some of the data used in their 1999
>> >> paper was not up to snuff. Apparently, they do care, do correct their
>> >> apparent mistakes and do recalculation.
>> >
>> >I'd love to see a recalculation of Mann 1999, sans the two inappropriate
>> >series. Mann and Jones 2003 is not a recalculation by any stretch of the
>> >imagination. Those two I mentioned were not the only ones dropped, they
>> >were just the ones that were identified as unsuitable for correlating
>> >with local temperature.
>>
>> And I'd love to see you address the point raised. You made the
>> comment that they don't correct their mistakes. Apparently, they do.
>> What you are really saying is that YOU haven't seen the results of
>> those recalculations. You cannot say that they haven't been done, just
>> that they have not appeared in the peer-review. As such, your comments
>> are at best premature at worst completely wrong. My guess is that it
>> is the latter.
>
>You're misrepresenting my comments. If you can point to any particular
>statment of mine you find objectionable, I'll be happy to defend it. In
>this thread, I brought up the two inappropriate series when another
>poster used the word "accurate" or some such to describe Mann 1999 plot.
>I asked how he could vouch for its accuracy given that two of the time
>series have been found to be inappropriate for the intended task.
Incorrect. You've made the point that the author's don't
correct their mistakes. That is, in fact, a lie. They have pointed out
that two of the series are not appropriate. You made the claim that
they don't recalculate their results. That, too, is likely incorrect.
You don't KNOW that they haven't done it. All you can say is that you
haven't seen it. That is not the same thing, nor is it an acceptable
reason for your character assassination, especially since you don't
see so very much.
>
>> >
>> >> I have to comment, however, that you seem to be keeping your
>> >> outrage rather close to Mann et al. I wonder where it's been when
>> >> Spenser & Christy have been doing exactly what you decry for years.
>> >> Why the selective outrage?
>> >
>> >I have no idea what parallels you imagine.
>>
>> ROTFL. Bet you do. You just aren't honest enough to admit it.
>> S&C have been trying the MSU data by non-sequitur for years. They've
>> attacked other's techniques rather than address the shortcomings in
>> their own methodology. I imagine you find that doing the very thing
>> that you decry above is consistent. There's another word for it,
>> though: hypocritical.
>
>I'm glad you clarified. I figured it didn't have anything to with the
>replicability isue. And I've never found your similar rants about S/C to
>have any substance.
>
It has everything to do with approach, Troll. It's interesting
that what you decry on the one hand, you tacitly support on the other.
Like I said, hypocritical. A little consistency on your part would be
nice.
Eric Swanson
I've often wondered what Dr. John Christy thinks about the age of the
Earth, as he began as a Baptist preacher and missionary in Kenya.
If he is a "creation scientist" in deep cover, that would explain a lot.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
Not at all.
>
> >> ... Imagine, the data they need is freely available on an ftp
> >> site open for all the world to access and they can't retrieve it
> >> themselves? Instead, they go through the extraordinary step of
> >> contacting the author who tells them of the site. How long does a
> >> google search take? A couple of seconds? ...
> >
> >You paint a fictional picture here. I did a google search on October 29,
> >2003 for the ftp URL Mann recently announced. Not a single "hit" on web
> >or newgroups. McIntyre followed all the URLs Mann et al provided in Mann
> >et al 1998 and Mann et al 1999. He was able to identify all the time
> >series used in the 1999 paper, but not the 1998 paper. It's true enough
> >that Mann told McIntyre last April that there was an ftp site, but Mann
> >delegated the beneficent task of specifying the URL to his colleague,
> >Dr. Rutherford. Instead of verifying Dr. Mann's claim, Dr. Rutherford
> >said he didn't know of any single ftp site that included all the time
> >series, and he offered to compile the info for Mr. McIntyre. Later that
> >month, he provided the balled up .txt file to Mr. McIntyre.
>
> Funny, it didn't take me very long to find the data. Maybe
> you're just as incompetent as they are.
Maybe. But how long it took you to find it this week doesn't have much
relevance as to whether it was referenced publicly by last April or
subsequent months through September or even October.
> >> ... What they end up getting is
> >> corrupted, so their analysis results are as well and and rather than
> >> take responsibility for it themselves they blame Mann. ...
> >
> >When McIntyre noticed the clear problems with the data provided by
> >Rutherford, he emailed the 112-column .txt file to Mann and asked him to
> >verify that it was indeed the data he used.
>
> Why should Dr. Mann do their work for them?
LOL - I'm glad he ignored the request. We've learned much because of the
work McIntyre did on the source data side.
>
> >Alas, Dr. Mann's reply to
> >that email did not include response to that particular request. Mann
> >did, however, explicitly discourage further inquiry by noting that he
> >would not reply to further inquiries. So McIntyre went to the original
> >data sources, including corresponding with some of the original
> >researchers and encouraging them to place their data in the world
> >paleoclimate archives. He discovered some interesting things, like the
> >time series had been revised in some cases. McIntyre and McKitrick used
> >the source data, not the balled up .txt file, in their attempt at
> >replication.
>
> You seem to be under the impression that researchers have some
> obligation to hold the hands of every newbie on the block. ...
Not at all. Just countering your spin. As to your mention of newbies, I
note that McIntyre appears to have been quite competent to replicate the
methods, had they been replicable.
> ... As I have
> pointed out in a past post, making data available on the net has a
> serious downside. Newbie's can get in the way.
Lots of work is replicable without releasing data.
>
> >
> >> ... What's worse,
> >> when confronted with the fact that the dataset they are working with
> >> is garbage, they state that they are still waiting for a "proper"
> >> response. What kind of proper response is needed? You screwed up,
> >> boys! Don't blame Mann for it.
> >
> >Mann et al have still not disclosed the data they used. The revelation
> >that 159 time series were used is an interesting one. Did you notice the
> >example Mann gave of study which had successfully used the Mann et al
> >1998 method? That study only used 112 time series.
>
> Are you stupid? Let's see, M&M get themselves a corrupt
> dataset and arrive at erroneous conclusions based on it. ...
Actually, McIntyre's main conclusion from the ballocksed file provided
by Mann et al was that there was good reason to look at the original
source data instead of just trying to replicate Mann et al's method.
> ... That is
> no-one's fault but theirs. Expecting anyone to have to sort out the
> mess THEY made is unreasonable.
What mess did McIntyre and McKitrick make?
>
> >
> >> >* "... 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."
> >>
> >> Have YOU read Mann et al? Apparently not, nor has Carter, from
> >> this self-serving paragraph. Would you be so kind as to show where you
> >> think this lack of disclosure took place? Clearly, if you felt this
> >> was something important to post, you must agree with it. Being the
> >> honest fellow you are I can't imagine you making a bogus post. That
> >> being said, you've likely got the relevant sections from MBH memorized
> >> and will have no difficulty posting the passages where you feel a lack
> >> of disclosure takes place.
> >
> >I've read Mann et al several times over the years. I've read McIntyre
> >and McKitrick once. I've discussed several "lack of disclosure" examples
> >highlighted by McIntyre and McKitrick in previous posts. One I recall
> >off-hand was the lack of disclosure by Mann et al that they modified the
> >chin04 series by cropping off the first two years.
>
> Ah, so what you are saying is that despite your having read
> Mann et al several times, you were unaware of any failure to disclose
> relevant information. ...
That's correct.
> ... You had to be told by someone else, ...
That's correct.
> ... and that
> someone else has a serious competency problem.
That's incorrect. One need not be a paleoclimate expert to replicate the
Mann et al methods.
> >> >* "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.
> >>
> >> Too simplistic by a damned site. ...
> >
> >LOL - I'm glad to see there's some level of unreplicability you, uh,
> >admonish.
>
> I admonish Carter for attempting to oversimplify. Stop
> trolling, little man.
You're the troll, big time, in this case, o' ballzabubba.
I can't vouch for Mr. Appell, the blogger at Quark Soup. But you're the
only one I've heard who thinks it reasonable to assume that he's a liar
in this matter.
> >> ... A 2 second search on Google would have
> >> found it. ...
> >
> >I can't vouch for what a google search would have shown last April, when
> >McIntyre praised the Mann et al 1999 ftp site and inquired about similar
> >source for the Mann et al 1998 time series, but my Oct 29 google search
> >for the ftp URL announced by Mann revealed nary a mention of it on web
> >or in usenet archives. I posted my finding at the time, in a way that
> >even Ian could replicate.
>
> The data is available. You just have to know where to look.
Please feel welcome to take it up with Dr. Rutherford.
> >> ... He also pointed out that it was the SPREADSHEET that was
> >> corrupted, not the data. ...
> >
> >Nobody's seen the spreadsheet except the Mann et al folks. Rutherford
> >sent McIntyre a .txt file with 112 columns.
>
> It's probably on the grassy knoll where Elvis and Amelia
> Earhart are hiding out. Conspiracy theorists of the world unite!!
> Schulin is on the case.
What are you blathering about now?
> >> ... Had M&M shown a wee bit of competence, they
> >> could have validated their spreadsheet data with the ftp site. I guess
> >> they were too lazy.
> >
> >Your particular combination of ignorance (at best) and character
> >assassination here is not a new thing for you.
>
> I call them as I see them. It's called being honest, Troll, a
> concept foreign to you. You seem to revel in the incompetence of
> others while you attempt to assassinate the character of those whose
> work you haven't even got the wit to understand.
I don't claim to be able to consistently identify when you're honestly
ignorant. But I sure stand by my assessment here. You're a hack.
> >> >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."
> >>
> >> Why? The error was in the preparation of the spreadsheet. Give
> >> us a break.
> >
> >The audit found several types of errors. Not all are attributable to
> >Mann et al's balled up .txt file. The audit also found stuff that are
> >not errors, but are reasonable to be analyzed as long as you're
> >recalculating anyway -- such as the fact that 24 of the time series have
> >been revised by the original researchers since the version used by Mann
> >et al 1998.
>
> Isn't science grand, Troll?
Not without replicability.
> >> >* "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]
> >>
> >> Clearly, Carter should have waited for the dust to settle
> >> before putting out such an op-ed piece. Better still, rather than
> >> foist this on the ng, Mr. Schulin, why didn't you show a little
> >> restraint and wait for further developments?
> >
> >Some good has come of it. You have a chance to rectify some of your
> >ignorance, for example.
> >
> LOL. Any time you feel like shucking that coat of the
> astrologer you where and get down and dirty with some real science,
> Troll, I'll be more than happy to have meaningful discourse with you.
> Until then, happy trolling. That's all you're doing.
There you go, Ballocksing up everything again.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> > "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote:
> >> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote
> >>
> >> A masterful response Steve. Not one fact, not one reference, not even a
> >> good
> >> piece of logic. Just empty rhetoric worthy of a truely gifted troll.
> >
> >Not one fact, but many. Several references, albeit no citations. Logic
> >included pretty incontrovertable contrast between Mann's ftp claim and
> >the list of series in Mann et al 1998. Any empty part you see, please
> >consider it a metaphor for Mann-made warming apologists.
> >
> Bullshit, but that's what I've come to expect from you. Never
> attempt to argue science with an astrologer or a fool who believes
> that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
I disclose my assumptions without demanding you share them. You hide
your assumptions and blather on like here. I show much more respect for
science than you do.
Ian St. John
> In article <zLhrb.30108$mB5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote:
>
> > "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> > news:steve.schulin-DB7...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> >
> > A masterful response Steve. Not one fact, not one reference, not even a
good
> > piece of logic. Just empty rhetoric worthy of a truely gifted troll.
>
> Not one fact, but many.
"Which complaint? Are you referring to the complaint that I think my
opinion matters, or are you referring to the complaint that I don't
answer you when you ask for my opinion?"
"Uh, it's not you whom I'm trying to convince. You, of course, know that
you've told purposeful lies and that you've used alarmist language
without me calling attention to the specifics. If my efforts have
prompted readers to see through the veneer of objectivity you so often
exhibit, I'd be quite pleased enough about the otherwise unpleasant task
of reading your vomitus."
"That's a damn lie."
"You never back up this repeated charge of yours. "
"If the science were on your side, maybe you wouldn't spend so much time
writing about me."
"In the paragraph to which you here reply, I asserted that "Mann et al's
recent claim (that the recently publicized ftp site contains all the
data) is incompatible with the Mann et al 1998 paper's listing of
fran003, ital015, ital015x, spai026, and spai047." If Mann et al 1998
did actually use these time series in their published analysis, then
their own assertion (that all the data was available on the recently
publicized ftp site) is clearly wrong. There are other implications of
this side of the incompatibility, but its a hypothetical matter at this
point. If Mann et al 1998 did not use these time series, then the
original article is clearly wrong in listing them. There are other
implications of this side of the incompatibility, too, but again, its
hypothetical at this point. You can blather all day and all night along
with the other apologists about the invariably careful Prof. Mann, but
wouldn't it be better to explain about fran003, ital015, ital015x,
spai026 and spai047?"
"They don't seem to be too busy to refrain from casting aspersions on
McIntyre and complaining about stuff that's irrelevant to the science,
so its open season on derision, as best I can tell. My characterization
of Mann's email (informing McIntyre that Mann would be unable to reply
to future inquiries) is not in the least trollish. And I don't feel Mann
et al have any obligation to respond. They're free to stonewall or
whatever as long as they so desire. Based on response to Soon et al, I
wouldn't be surprised if the stonewalling continued as long as those
whose opinion they respect don't care."
"Extreme? Compared to what? Has anyone else here even mentioned the
exchange in this week's Eos, much less voiced an opinion?"
"Nobody's stopping you from giving impact to your argument, except you. "
"As always, very truly,"
----------------------------------------
There is nothing above but empty rhetoric, rehashing the previous rhetoric.
The next post is composed of more rhetoric, as is the one I am responding
to. As I said, a masterful response worthy of a great troll. Not one fact,
reference, or good piece of logic.
> Several references, albeit no citations. Logic
> included pretty incontrovertable contrast between Mann's ftp claim and
> the list of series in Mann et al 1998. Any empty part you see, please
> consider it a metaphor for Mann-made warming apologists.
The usual 'argument from ignorance'. You do not try to track down the
'discrepancies' you see, or find the facts but instead deliberately avoid
any serious investigation because you KNOW that this would weaken your
arguments as the facts came to light.
>
> As always, very truly.
>
> BallB...@nuclear.com
Cute. An ad-hominem worthy of your trollishness. I alway like a clever twist
on the names. In this case it clearly shows that your trolling is directed
at David Ball specifically. Most trolls just look for ANY response, whereas
you have a targetted attack trying to wear him down with rhetorical posts of
the 'bullshit baffles brains' variety whereby you want to trigger a long
dissertation with facts and figures in response to your empty challenges
that you can then ignore with more rhetoric. Eventually David will just give
up in disgust and you will be able to claim 'victory'. Don't get me wrong.
You are my hero. A sophisticated troll is rare.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> >You paint a fictional picture here. I did a google search on October 29,
>> >2003 for the ftp URL Mann recently announced. Not a single "hit" on web
>> >or newgroups. McIntyre followed all the URLs Mann et al provided in Mann
>> >et al 1998 and Mann et al 1999. He was able to identify all the time
>> >series used in the 1999 paper, but not the 1998 paper. It's true enough
>> >that Mann told McIntyre last April that there was an ftp site, but Mann
>> >delegated the beneficent task of specifying the URL to his colleague,
>> >Dr. Rutherford. Instead of verifying Dr. Mann's claim, Dr. Rutherford
>> >said he didn't know of any single ftp site that included all the time
>> >series, and he offered to compile the info for Mr. McIntyre. Later that
>> >month, he provided the balled up .txt file to Mr. McIntyre.
>>
>> Funny, it didn't take me very long to find the data. Maybe
>> you're just as incompetent as they are.
>
>Maybe. But how long it took you to find it this week doesn't have much
>relevance as to whether it was referenced publicly by last April or
>subsequent months through September or even October.
The data has been available for a long time, Steve. You think
I just went looking for it recently?
>
>> >> ... What they end up getting is
>> >> corrupted, so their analysis results are as well and and rather than
>> >> take responsibility for it themselves they blame Mann. ...
>> >
>> >When McIntyre noticed the clear problems with the data provided by
>> >Rutherford, he emailed the 112-column .txt file to Mann and asked him to
>> >verify that it was indeed the data he used.
>>
>> Why should Dr. Mann do their work for them?
>
>LOL - I'm glad he ignored the request. We've learned much because of the
>work McIntyre did on the source data side.
We've learned that the author's are incompetent. What else do
you think we've learned?
>>
>> >Alas, Dr. Mann's reply to
>> >that email did not include response to that particular request. Mann
>> >did, however, explicitly discourage further inquiry by noting that he
>> >would not reply to further inquiries. So McIntyre went to the original
>> >data sources, including corresponding with some of the original
>> >researchers and encouraging them to place their data in the world
>> >paleoclimate archives. He discovered some interesting things, like the
>> >time series had been revised in some cases. McIntyre and McKitrick used
>> >the source data, not the balled up .txt file, in their attempt at
>> >replication.
>>
>> You seem to be under the impression that researchers have some
>> obligation to hold the hands of every newbie on the block. ...
>
>Not at all. Just countering your spin. As to your mention of newbies, I
>note that McIntyre appears to have been quite competent to replicate the
>methods, had they been replicable.
What spin?
>
>> ... As I have
>> pointed out in a past post, making data available on the net has a
>> serious downside. Newbie's can get in the way.
>
>Lots of work is replicable without releasing data.
I notice you danced around the point I raised. Too bad,
because it is important, especially if you ever have cause to deal
with people who don't understand the science.
So you're merely parroting what M&M have said. How do YOU know
that they're right? The answer is, you don't.
>
>> ... You had to be told by someone else, ...
>
>That's correct.
>
>> ... and that
>> someone else has a serious competency problem.
>
>That's incorrect. One need not be a paleoclimate expert to replicate the
>Mann et al methods.
Hmmm...Someone logs on to the net and downloads some radar
loops during a potential severe weather outbreak. He sees what he
thinks is severe weather and calls the forecast office to ask why
there aren't warnings out on a storm HE thinks is severe. He is told
that while there is potential for severe weather, what he is really
looking at are the mountains, not storms at all.
The first step in doing science, Steve, is getting the data.
The next is doing a proper analysis of the data. The third is to
diagnose the analysis and put it into proper context. You can get the
data, repeat the analysis verbatim, but if you are unable to put the
results of the analysis into a proper context, you will reach the
wrong conclusions. That is exactly why economists should not do
paleoclimatology and why car mechanics shouldn't do neurosurgery and
why fools like you shouldn't get involved in science.
>
>> >> >* "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.
>> >>
>> >> Too simplistic by a damned site. ...
>> >
>> >LOL - I'm glad to see there's some level of unreplicability you, uh,
>> >admonish.
>>
>> I admonish Carter for attempting to oversimplify. Stop
>> trolling, little man.
>
>You're the troll, big time, in this case, o' ballzabubba.
LOL. When someone takes a researcher to task in the op-ed
pages and lacks the wit to even comprehend the work of the author,
that is trolling. You know, the kind of thing that appears in every
one of your posts.
>> >> >
>> >> >* "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.
>> >>
>> >> That is NOT what Mann said. He stated that the full dataset
>> >> was available on an ftp site. ...
>> >
>> >Both were said in the email allegedly authored by Mann and made public
>> >on Quark Soup on Oct 29.
>>
>> Allegedly. Ah, the famous Schulin innuendo rears its ugly
>> head. Tell me, Troll, do you have any FACTS?
>
>I can't vouch for Mr. Appell, the blogger at Quark Soup. But you're the
>only one I've heard who thinks it reasonable to assume that he's a liar
>in this matter.
ROTFL. You're the one making the allegations of nefarious
behavior, Troll. At the end of the day, the question that needs to be
asked is, are Mann et al correct? Have you addressed this point in any
detail? No. What you've done, as you always do, is find something that
supports your view of the world and latch on to it. The fact that you
can't back anything you say up with objective facts, never seems to
get in the way.
>
>> >> ... A 2 second search on Google would have
>> >> found it. ...
>> >
>> >I can't vouch for what a google search would have shown last April, when
>> >McIntyre praised the Mann et al 1999 ftp site and inquired about similar
>> >source for the Mann et al 1998 time series, but my Oct 29 google search
>> >for the ftp URL announced by Mann revealed nary a mention of it on web
>> >or in usenet archives. I posted my finding at the time, in a way that
>> >even Ian could replicate.
>>
>> The data is available. You just have to know where to look.
>
>Please feel welcome to take it up with Dr. Rutherford.
Why? It's M&M who were lazy. They could have found it
themselves very easily.
>
>> >> ... Had M&M shown a wee bit of competence, they
>> >> could have validated their spreadsheet data with the ftp site. I guess
>> >> they were too lazy.
>> >
>> >Your particular combination of ignorance (at best) and character
>> >assassination here is not a new thing for you.
>>
>> I call them as I see them. It's called being honest, Troll, a
>> concept foreign to you. You seem to revel in the incompetence of
>> others while you attempt to assassinate the character of those whose
>> work you haven't even got the wit to understand.
>
>I don't claim to be able to consistently identify when you're honestly
>ignorant. But I sure stand by my assessment here. You're a hack.
LOL. Anytime you'd like to discuss the nuances of Mann et al's
analysis, feel free to make a post, Troll. Given your penchant for
running away the second science makes an appearance, I have a feeling
I'll be waiting a long time.
>> >
>> >The audit found several types of errors. Not all are attributable to
>> >Mann et al's balled up .txt file. The audit also found stuff that are
>> >not errors, but are reasonable to be analyzed as long as you're
>> >recalculating anyway -- such as the fact that 24 of the time series have
>> >been revised by the original researchers since the version used by Mann
>> >et al 1998.
>>
>> Isn't science grand, Troll?
>
>Not without replicability.
It is self-adjusting. That's the way it works.
>
>> >> >* "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]
>> >>
>> >> Clearly, Carter should have waited for the dust to settle
>> >> before putting out such an op-ed piece. Better still, rather than
>> >> foist this on the ng, Mr. Schulin, why didn't you show a little
>> >> restraint and wait for further developments?
>> >
>> >Some good has come of it. You have a chance to rectify some of your
>> >ignorance, for example.
>> >
>> LOL. Any time you feel like shucking that coat of the
>> astrologer you where and get down and dirty with some real science,
>> Troll, I'll be more than happy to have meaningful discourse with you.
>> Until then, happy trolling. That's all you're doing.
>
>There you go, Ballocksing up everything again.
ROTFL. Coming from a guy who thinks the world is only a few
thousand years old, that's high praise. Never argue science with an
astrologer. They don't understand the basics.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
You continue to misrepresent what went on:
<Acker> And if the research of these other groups is accurate, then it
would appear that Mann et al.'s is probably accurate, too.
<Schulin> 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.
> >> >> I have to comment, however, that you seem to be keeping your
> >> >> outrage rather close to Mann et al. I wonder where it's been when
> >> >> Spenser & Christy have been doing exactly what you decry for years.
> >> >> Why the selective outrage?
> >> >
> >> >I have no idea what parallels you imagine.
> >>
> >> ROTFL. Bet you do. You just aren't honest enough to admit it.
> >> S&C have been trying the MSU data by non-sequitur for years. They've
> >> attacked other's techniques rather than address the shortcomings in
> >> their own methodology. I imagine you find that doing the very thing
> >> that you decry above is consistent. There's another word for it,
> >> though: hypocritical.
> >
> >I'm glad you clarified. I figured it didn't have anything to with the
> >replicability isue. And I've never found your similar rants about S/C to
> >have any substance.
> >
> It has everything to do with approach, Troll. It's interesting
> that what you decry on the one hand, you tacitly support on the other.
> Like I said, hypocritical. A little consistency on your part would be
> nice.
Maybe you have some convoluted reasoning in mind, maybe not. Please feel
welcome to back up your blather with some specific example. Your
previous clarification helped me eliminate replicability as the subject
of the hypocrisy you charge, but you are still quite vague in what you
do mean. You say "S&C have been trying the MSU data by non-sequitur for
years. They've attacked other's techniques rather than address the
shortcomings in their own methodology." I know you can't reasonably be
referring to Christy's readme page where he describes recent
methodological matters and whatnot. I know you can't reasonably be
referring to S/C's acknowledgement of Wentz and Schabel's 1998 paper,
and their addressing of that shortcoming in their method (the same week
that W/S' paper was published in Nature, I might add). So point out what
you think I should decry, and what about it is parallel with something
I've decried about Mann et al.
Very truly,
Philip Felton
Steve Schulin wrote:
Spenser & Christy's data are measurements of microwaves not temperature anomalies
as shown in their plots, thus their plots of temperature anomalies are
"illustrations of hypothesis". Now do you see the connection?
Phil.
Steve Schulin
> There is nothing above but empty rhetoric, rehashing the previous rhetoric...
You said not one fact. Here's two:
* "the Mann et al 1998 paper's listing of fran003, ital015, ital015x,
spai026, and spai047"
* "Mann et al 1998 ... assertion (that all the data was available on the
recently publicized ftp site)
You said not one reference. Here's four:
* "the exchange in this week's Eos"
* "Mann's email (informing McIntyre that Mann would be unable to reply
to future inquiries)"
* "Mann et al 1998"
* [Mann et al's] "response to Soon et al"
You said not even a good piece of logic. See below.
As for the rhetoric. I try to be commensurate with he or she to whom I'm
replying.
> ...The next post is composed of more rhetoric, as is the one I am responding
> to. As I said, a masterful response worthy of a great troll. Not one fact,
> reference, or good piece of logic.
>
> > Several references, albeit no citations. Logic
> > included pretty incontrovertable contrast between Mann's ftp claim and
> > the list of series in Mann et al 1998. Any empty part you see, please
> > consider it a metaphor for Mann-made warming apologists.
>
> The usual 'argument from ignorance'. You do not try to track down the
> 'discrepancies' you see, or find the facts but instead deliberately avoid
> any serious investigation because you KNOW that this would weaken your
> arguments as the facts came to light.
You're quite mistaken. I hope Mann et al explain the fact of the matter.
I'm not hopeful that it'll happen any time soon, given their limited
scope of reply to Soon et al 2003 in the intervening months.
> > As always, very truly.
> >
> > BallB...@nuclear.com
>
> Cute. An ad-hominem worthy of your trollishness. I alway like a clever twist
> on the names. In this case it clearly shows that your trolling is directed
> at David Ball specifically. Most trolls just look for ANY response, whereas
> you have a targetted attack trying to wear him down with rhetorical posts of
> the 'bullshit baffles brains' variety whereby you want to trigger a long
> dissertation with facts and figures in response to your empty challenges
> that you can then ignore with more rhetoric. Eventually David will just give
> up in disgust and you will be able to claim 'victory'. Don't get me wrong.
> You are my hero. A sophisticated troll is rare.
I've seen him modify his behavior before. I'm hoping he'll do so again.
I tried polite. It didn't work.
Ian St. John
> In article <e2urb.174$IK2....@news20.bellglobal.com>,
<snip>----------------------------------------
> >
> > There is nothing above but empty rhetoric, rehashing the previous
rhetoric...
>
> You said not one fact.
Your first meanibgful and true statement.
> Here's two:
>
> * "the Mann et al 1998 paper's listing of fran003, ital015, ital015x,
> spai026, and spai047"
That is a sentence fragment, not even an assertion, much less a fact. I'm
beginning to suspect that you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass.
>
> * "Mann et al 1998 ... assertion (that all the data was available on the
> recently publicized ftp site)
That is an assertion about an assertion. Closer to a fact, but still
remotely connected..
>
> You said not one reference. Here's four:
>
> * "the exchange in this week's Eos"
That is not a reference.
Mann, et al 1998 would be a reference.
You might as well have said, "the mailman and the butchers wife, in a
freeflowing exchange of ideas, otherwise known as an arguument.."
>
> * "Mann's email (informing McIntyre that Mann would be unable to reply
> to future inquiries)"
Again, not a reference. It is, perhaps, an allegation.
>
> * "Mann et al 1998"
That is a reference, but not supporting anything since you had nothing to
support.
>
> * [Mann et al's] "response to Soon et al"
>
> You said not even a good piece of logic. See below.
And obviously there is no good logic, though you fake it well, using
recycled rhetoric to support further empty rhetoric.
>
> As for the rhetoric. I try to be commensurate with he or she to whom I'm
> replying.
Nice rhetoric. Now, you were saying about logic?
>
> > ...The next post is composed of more rhetoric, as is the one I am
responding
> > to. As I said, a masterful response worthy of a great troll. Not one
fact,
> > reference, or good piece of logic.
> >
> > > Several references, albeit no citations. Logic
> > > included pretty incontrovertable contrast between Mann's ftp claim and
> > > the list of series in Mann et al 1998. Any empty part you see, please
> > > consider it a metaphor for Mann-made warming apologists.
> >
> > The usual 'argument from ignorance'. You do not try to track down the
> > 'discrepancies' you see, or find the facts but instead deliberately
avoid
> > any serious investigation because you KNOW that this would weaken your
> > arguments as the facts came to light.
>
> You're quite mistaken. I hope Mann et al explain the fact of the matter.
Rather, you hope that you can muddy the waters enough that nobody notices
the response. Keep it up. You have only limited 'spin' time, so best not to
waste it.
> I'm not hopeful that it'll happen any time soon, given their limited
> scope of reply to Soon et al 2003 in the intervening months.
Given the limited credibility of the M&M article it is a wonder they need to
respond. But that is science. Ceredibility is part and parcel of
authoritative discussions so even cranks must be entertained politely until
their identity as cranks can be documented.
>
> > > As always, very truly.
> > >
> > > BallB...@nuclear.com
> >
> > Cute. An ad-hominem worthy of your trollishness. I alway like a clever
twist
> > on the names. In this case it clearly shows that your trolling is
directed
> > at David Ball specifically. Most trolls just look for ANY response,
whereas
> > you have a targetted attack trying to wear him down with rhetorical
posts of
> > the 'bullshit baffles brains' variety whereby you want to trigger a long
> > dissertation with facts and figures in response to your empty challenges
> > that you can then ignore with more rhetoric. Eventually David will just
give
> > up in disgust and you will be able to claim 'victory'. Don't get me
wrong.
> > You are my hero. A sophisticated troll is rare.
>
> I've seen him modify his behavior before. I'm hoping he'll do so again.
> I tried polite. It didn't work.
Sorry, but your kingdom is only relevant to the troll community.
Steve Schulin
Philip Felton <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
Yes, I've always seen the connection. And I've tried to answer the
questions that have been asked of me. I don't doubt that Ball was trying
to find the words to express a question similar to yours.
>
> Phil.
>
David Ball
LOL. There's no need to disclose anything. There's plainly
written. Again, the hypocrite in you just can't help itself. Imagine,
posturing about science, while playing the astrologer.
David Ball
<grin>Actually, I was waiting to see if you would make the
connection. Your bluster aside, you clearly didn't. Steve, you don't
understand thing-one about the science, that's why you have to waste
people's time with empty rhetoric.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
You're free to believe what you want. If you were a bit brighter, you
might often be able to formulate your questions better.
Very truly,
James Acker
: On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:20:18 +0000, James Acker wrote:
:> 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.
Are you ready to begin the discussion? Have you read the
references I supplied?
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
> Think Mann is getting pissed off enough to hire a lawyer?
From the vacuuming that has been done in recent days at the newly
publicized FTP site, perhaps it was the Rose Law Firm of Bill &
Hillary fame who was hired.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM-nov12-part1.pdf
You Mann-Made Warming apologists might want to read up on how Sisyphus
handled similar task.
Very truly,
Thomas Palm
news:feed81b2.03111...@posting.google.com:
> publicized FTP site, perhaps it was the Rose Law Firm of Bill &
> Hillary fame who was hired.
Anyone who is getting fed up with the M&M paper can instead have a look at
the article by Hans Jelbring in the same issue of Energy & Environment. In
it he misunderstands the second law of thermodynamics in a way that seems
to make it possible to build a perpetuum mobile. It is a bit hard to
discuss with him though since is not interested in responding to my
scientific complaints and insist on sending all replies to the climate
sceptics list, a list which I do not subscribe to. (He does send me copies,
but the idea of having a conversation where a large audience is only
reading his side of the story isn't very appealing).
James Acker
: In article <boh4rn$l7n$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
: James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
:> Response part 1. I expect three or four sections. No need to respond
:> until November 10.
[massive deletion]
:> ... 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.
: That clears that up. Your criticism of the Mann critics was intended to
: refer to a narrow subgroup of the Mann critics. And that subgroup is the
: op ed writers who have written articles published in these first few
: days after M&M paper was published. If I had accurately assessed your
: meaning, I certainly wouldn't have taken that opportunity to point out
: Soon et al. Here is a case where it would be correct to "guess [Jim]
: must have discombobulated [Steve] a bit."
In actuality, I didn't mean to do that. But it was clear
in the op-ed articles that the writers were happily piling innuendo
and implication on the supposed wrongness of Mann's data, while
either deliberately or through ignorance avoiding the apparent support
for Mann et al.'s research results that comes from temperature
reconstructions created by other research groups.
I've actually always been partial to the borehole reconstruction
curves because they are significantly different in methodology than
the other proxies. Unfortunately they only go back 500 years or so.
Jim Acker
:> (End part 1.)
:>
James Acker
: James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[deletions]
:> :> : 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.)
: When I say "The data, from the proxies, are not temperature anomalies",
: I mean that the data are ring width measurements, or density
: measurements, or oxygen isotope ratio measurements. They are not the
: temperature anomalies shown by the plots you cite. Thus, the plots of
: temperature anomalies are "illustration of hypothesis".
An interesting discussion ensued about this particular point.
Since I'm acquainted with remote sensing, let me add that most of
the quantities referred to as "data" from remote sensing are derived
from sensor observations via algorithm processing of the raw
quantities that the sensor measures. So we're splitting hairs when
we semantically distinguish a measured data quantity from a derived
data quantity.
I.e., a satellite sensor does not actually measure sea surface
temperature. It measures radiance in specific IR bands that can be
processed into a sea surface temperature data products. Most
oceanographers will just call this "sea surface temperature" and not
the "sea surface temperature data product".
So while it is true that the paleotemperatures or
paleotemperature anomalies are not observational data, they are
data products derived from the observational data. Most scientists
would still refer to the derived data products as data.
[deletions]
:> 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.
: What a silly thing to say.
As I said, I wasn't sure what you were asking for. Thus
my response was assumption-laden, as I tried to assume what you
might be asking for.
: All assumptions aren't accounted for by
: calculating sampling error. Or is there some other kind of uncertainty
: you imagine to be bounded by the "two standard error uncertainties". The
: uncertainty range cited by Mann et al. 1998 does not include any
: contribution from uncertainty in, for example, the appropriateness of
: using the 20th century calibration period for conditions hundreds of
: years earlier.
Let's go back to remote sensing for a minute.
Earth surface remote sensing to derive geophysical data
products requires atmospheric correction. The atmospheric correction
process makes some assumptions so that it can work. These assumptions
are not specifically assessed regarding the uncertainty that they
add to the measurement; rather, the error is assessed by comparing
the derived data product value to an in-situ value or by doing
statistics on a collection of the data products. The difference
between remotely-sensed variable and in-situ value, or the scatter
of the data around the theoretical distribution, both provide
a way to estimate the error in the methodology.
Having said that, I'm not sure if what you say above is
accurate. For me to truly evaluate it I would have to read
Mann et al.'s papers again to try to understand his error estimation
procedures (and not being a statistician, I readily expect that
I wouldn't grasp it very well).
[deletion]
:> : 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.
: All three papers use different datasets. Your conclusion seems to assume
: a (probable) homogeneity in the indvidual time series. That assumption
: seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Why arbitrary? The process of global temperature reconstruction
is predicated on the hope that some coalescent global temperature
signal can be extricated from the variability of regional temperature
patterns over time. If the individual time series were hopelessly
heterogeneous, then this would be a futile effort. (And I have
to state a derived observation: I think that the appearance of
this futility is what the Soon, Baliunas camp is trying to establish
in the public mind.)
:> :> 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. ...
: As long as those whose opinions they value don't give a hoot (1) whether
: they're replicable, or (2) whether they correct their apparent mistakes,
: or (3) whether they recalculate using the latest versions of their
: sources' data, I don't think they'll be very forthcoming about their own
: work, but will focus on aspects of M&M which disqualify the alternate
: construction graph. "Save Our Stick".
This is a _telling_ paragraph. DO those "whose opinions
they value" care if what Mann did/does is replicable, whether they
correct apparent mistakes, whether they recalculate... ??
The answer is: most frickin' definitely. The judgment of
correctness regarding anybody's results (particularly a result that
was as widely promulgated as Mann et al.'s) is based on a working
assumption of scientific integrity -- to whit, that the scientists
doing the research are attempting to get real and useful results
that are wholly without fabrication. If it turns out that those
results are spurious or fabrication, then the scientists responsible
will be slammed. And I can pretty much guarantee that the slamming
by the scientific community would be even more brutal than what the
skeptics are doing.
So why do I think Mann et al.'s scientific integrity is
probably going to be upheld? Primarily because of independent
corroboration. Mann et al.'s analyses are not the only data and
datasets that bear on the topic. A prime example is Esper's
data (which was not lost on the Idsos). But Esper's data still
shows the same general patterns, though with a wider range of
variability (and apparently a much shorter MWP).
:> ... 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?
: McIntyre mentions questions based on his use of it in his Sept 25 email
: to Mann. Mann et al's Supplementary Info is also mentioned several times
: in the body of the peer reviewed paper, as well. Nature makes the
: Supplementary Info freely available via abstract page on the web, BTW
Then this remains to be determined.
I've now responded to your initial replies to Responses 1 and
2, authored in separate parts due to the length (552 lines) of the
post that they addressed. I am now quite interested in seeing your
pending reply to Response 3.
Regards,
Jim Acker
Ian St. John
"James Acker" <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:bp136t$e3v$1...@news.umbc.edu...
> In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> : In article <boh68q$lkp$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
> : James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> So while it is true that the paleotemperatures or
> paleotemperature anomalies are not observational data, they are
> data products derived from the observational data. Most scientists
> would still refer to the derived data products as data.
I think that there is a point here that should be remembered. If the
resistance of a sensor can be shown to be a direct function of temperature,
then one can 'measure' the temperature by measuring the resistance. The two
have a direct equivalence.
However, the MSU is NOT so simple. The emissions are influenced not only by
temperature but also by uncontrolled factors such as humidity ( increasing
the number of oxygen atoms ). Thus data derived from the MSU is not
*measuring* the temperaure, but a combinion of the temperature and humidity
and other factors as well.
Thus it does not qualify as temperature data.
Steve Schulin
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
Hey pal, if you want to imagine that the temperature plots you cited
"demonstrate" something rather than illustrate a hypothesis, you're
sure free to do so. And I don't mind disagreeing with you about it.
And BTW, its not we who apparently were splitting hairs. You were the
one who presented the term 'data' as some notable contrast to my
previous mention of the phrase 'illustrate a hypothesis'.
> I.e., a satellite sensor does not actually measure sea surface
> temperature. It measures radiance in specific IR bands that can be
> processed into a sea surface temperature data products. Most
> oceanographers will just call this "sea surface temperature" and not
> the "sea surface temperature data product".
> So while it is true that the paleotemperatures or
> paleotemperature anomalies are not observational data, they are
> data products derived from the observational data. Most scientists
> would still refer to the derived data products as data.
Sounds like the folks who sell processed cheese food have a better
handle on honest language than you guys. No wonder you tolerate
exaggerations so readily. You can't even tell the difference between
what was measured and what was hypothesized.
I found you much more credible when you seemed to be keeping an open
mind. Was that a ruse?
> heterogeneous, then this would be a futile effort. ...
Based on this new info you provide, I'd like to correct my previous
statement. Where I said your assumption seems 'arbitrary', please
change that to 'arbitrary and self-serving'. And drop the 'seems' in
favor of a more certain expression.
> ... (And I have
I've heard of this defense. It's called the "It doesn't matter"
defense, and it goes like this: "It doesn't matter if Mann et al 1998
was unreplicable as published. It doesn't matter that there was an
error in the spatial analysis. It doesn't matter that JJA data was
used when annual data was available, inconsistent with the practice
used for other series. It doesn't matter that five time series were
said to have been analyzed but apparently were not. Mann et al were
apparently correct in their conclusions, so their method doesn't
matter."
>
> :> ... 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?
>
> : McIntyre mentions questions based on his use of it in his Sept 25 email
> : to Mann. Mann et al's Supplementary Info is also mentioned several times
> : in the body of the peer reviewed paper, as well. Nature makes the
> : Supplementary Info freely available via abstract page on the web, BTW
>
> Then this remains to be determined.
>
> I've now responded to your initial replies to Responses 1 and
> 2, authored in separate parts due to the length (552 lines) of the
> post that they addressed. I am now quite interested in seeing your
> pending reply to Response 3.
As best can tell, this reply clears the slate. Please let me know if
there's some question of yours I missed. I searched with google for
messages which include _Acker "Response 3"_ for example, and this was
the only one that came up.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim Acker
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I disagree with your conclusion that "Spenser and Christy's website"
>> >> > refers to the same thing as anything I've said.
>> >>
>> >> Spenser & Christy's data are measurements of microwaves not temperature
>> >> anomalies as shown in their plots, thus their plots of temperature
>> >> anomalies are "illustrations of hypothesis". Now do you see the connection?
>> >
>> >Yes, I've always seen the connection. And I've tried to answer the
>> >questions that have been asked of me. I don't doubt that Ball was trying
>> >to find the words to express a question similar to yours.
>> >
>> <grin>Actually, I was waiting to see if you would make the
>> connection. Your bluster aside, you clearly didn't. Steve, you don't
>> understand thing-one about the science, that's why you have to waste
>> people's time with empty rhetoric.
>
>You're free to believe what you want. If you were a bit brighter, you
>might often be able to formulate your questions better.
More flights of fancy from you, I'm afraid. If you were a
little brighter, you'd be able to understand simple science better.
LOL.
>
>Very truly,
Very dishonestly would be a better ending for your posts,
Steve.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
It seems unreasonable to expect me to take extraordinarily more care in
answering your questions than you take in asking them. You asked a
question which was answerable with a word. And the honest answer was no.
And guess what, bub? The honest answer to your question is still no.
>
> >
> >Very truly,
>
> Very dishonestly would be a better ending for your posts,
> Steve.
Speaking of endings and what not, I've noticed that your more lengthy
posts seem to follow a pattern: insults at beginning, muddle, and end.
Very truly,
James Acker
: James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:<bp136t$e3v$1...@news.umbc.edu>, in part...
[deletions]
Even though sometimes you can be prickly, this is a very
testy response.
I could say that the data "demonstrate" support for the
hypothesis, rather than "illustrate" support for it. There are shades
of difference in meaning between those two words. Demonstrate is
stronger.
If I have data that provide support for what I'm saying,
I'll just say it that way. In this case, the data presented support
the author's argument that there was regionable variability during
the warm period 1000-1400 and the colder period 1500-1850.
:> I.e., a satellite sensor does not actually measure sea surface
:> temperature. It measures radiance in specific IR bands that can be
:> processed into a sea surface temperature data products. Most
:> oceanographers will just call this "sea surface temperature" and not
:> the "sea surface temperature data product".
:> So while it is true that the paleotemperatures or
:> paleotemperature anomalies are not observational data, they are
:> data products derived from the observational data. Most scientists
:> would still refer to the derived data products as data.
: Sounds like the folks who sell processed cheese food have a better
: handle on honest language than you guys. No wonder you tolerate
: exaggerations so readily. You can't even tell the difference between
: what was measured and what was hypothesized.
I'm trying to be more specific here, and you're being either
cynical or sarcastic. That's hard to respond to.
"Hypothesized" is different from "derived". The sensor
is a radiometer; it senses radiances. The radiances are converted
via tested algorithms (which are not hypotheses) into derived data
products.
: I found you much more credible when you seemed to be keeping an open
: mind. Was that a ruse?
I am very aware of the shortcomings of global warming science.
In particular, model predictions are fraught with dependencies on
assumptions (even if the assumptions are demonstrably good ones) and
reliance on current understanding of complex climate processes.
Improved understanding of those processes could provide substantial
modification of the models and subsequently altered predictions.
Is that open-minded? I am also aware that current observations
demonstrate support for a greenhouse gas warming that is in part due
to anthropogenic sources. To say otherwise would be to take a skeptical
position on current global warming science; I am not a skeptic.
What ruse do you think I was engaged in?
:> :> 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.
:>
:> : All three papers use different datasets. Your conclusion seems to assume
:> : a (probable) homogeneity in the indvidual time series. That assumption
:> : seems pretty arbitrary to me.
:>
:> Why arbitrary? The process of global temperature reconstruction
:> is predicated on the hope that some coalescent global temperature
:> signal can be extricated from the variability of regional temperature
:> patterns over time. If the individual time series were hopelessly
:> heterogeneous, then this would be a futile effort. ...
: Based on this new info you provide, I'd like to correct my previous
: statement. Where I said your assumption seems 'arbitrary', please
: change that to 'arbitrary and self-serving'. And drop the 'seems' in
: favor of a more certain expression.
I read this; it's rude. Just like your graphic depiction
of a raised middle finger in response to me was rude.
I'm sorry to be bothering you. Maybe you shouldn't take this
so seriously.
[deletions]
:> This is a _telling_ paragraph. DO those "whose opinions
To put it bluntly, but politely: go soak your head.
IT HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED that Mann et al. 1998 is
"unreplicable". Your basing that on your unabashed support for a
paper that has some apparent serious methodological problems, which
was published by two global warming skeptics in a global-warming-
skeptic friendly journal. They have not, in any sense, done what
needs to be done to demonstrate that the apparent problems you think
have occurred have actually occurred.
If the scientific community determines that Mann et al. have
not followed proper scientific procedures and demonstrated integrity
in their practice of science: even if his conclusions are demonstrated
to be correct, they (Mann et al.) will be under suspicion, they will be
required to exhaustively demonstrate the accuracy of their data and
methods, and they will have a black mark of unreliability and dishonesty
attached to any of their future work. In short, it DOES matter.
(They could also face reprimand, censure, or expulsion from
professional societies; they could be publically chastised in the
pages of scientific journals with the stature of Nature; they could
even lose salary, honors, positions, and even their jobs, IF it is
shown that they have been dishonest. But that remains to be seen;
and it certainly won't happen because of the assertions in the
McIntyre and McKitrick paper.)
:> Then this remains to be determined.
:>
:> I've now responded to your initial replies to Responses 1 and
:> 2, authored in separate parts due to the length (552 lines) of the
:> post that they addressed. I am now quite interested in seeing your
:> pending reply to Response 3.
: As best can tell, this reply clears the slate. Please let me know if
: there's some question of yours I missed. I searched with google for
: messages which include _Acker "Response 3"_ for example, and this was
: the only one that came up.
It's this one:
or
I headed it "Response part 3". It's dated November 7. If you
do an Advanced Groups Search on Google, with "James Acker" as author,
"sci.environment" as newsgroup, November 7 as search date, and "response
part 3" as the exact phrase to search on, you'll find it if these URLs
don't work for some reason.
It is very important that you read the section in which I
discuss Crowley and Lowery.
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> hypothesis, rather than "illustrate" support for it. ...
You'd probably be speaking of a different hypothesis, however. The
hypothesis to which I referred is the hypothesis that the
already-variously-processed reported individual measurements can serve
as measurements of temperature anomalies. The graphed "data" in no way
demonstrate support for that hypothesis. Rather, the graphed "data"
depends on the hypothesis.
> ... There are shades
> of difference in meaning between those two words. Demonstrate is
> stronger.
> If I have data that provide support for what I'm saying,
> I'll just say it that way. In this case, the data presented support
> the author's argument that there was regionable variability during
> the warm period 1000-1400 and the colder period 1500-1850.
>
> :> I.e., a satellite sensor does not actually measure sea surface
> :> temperature. It measures radiance in specific IR bands that can be
> :> processed into a sea surface temperature data products. Most
> :> oceanographers will just call this "sea surface temperature" and not
> :> the "sea surface temperature data product".
> :> So while it is true that the paleotemperatures or
> :> paleotemperature anomalies are not observational data, they are
> :> data products derived from the observational data. Most scientists
> :> would still refer to the derived data products as data.
>
> : Sounds like the folks who sell processed cheese food have a better
> : handle on honest language than you guys. No wonder you tolerate
> : exaggerations so readily. You can't even tell the difference between
> : what was measured and what was hypothesized.
>
> I'm trying to be more specific here, and you're being either
> cynical or sarcastic. That's hard to respond to.
I'm not being sarcastic. There's probably a bit of cynicism about the
prospects of eschewing exaggeration from your argument, although overall
I'm about as optimistic a fellow as you're likely to meet.
> "Hypothesized" is different from "derived". The sensor
> is a radiometer; it senses radiances. The radiances are converted
> via tested algorithms (which are not hypotheses) into derived data
> products.
>
> : I found you much more credible when you seemed to be keeping an open
> : mind. Was that a ruse?
>
> I am very aware of the shortcomings of global warming science.
> In particular, model predictions are fraught with dependencies on
> assumptions (even if the assumptions are demonstrably good ones) and
> reliance on current understanding of complex climate processes.
> Improved understanding of those processes could provide substantial
> modification of the models and subsequently altered predictions.
> Is that open-minded? ...
As far as it goes.
> ... I am also aware that current observations
> demonstrate support for a greenhouse gas warming that is in part due
> to anthropogenic sources. ...
That's broad enough that alarmists and skeptics alike could say it.
> ... To say otherwise would be to take a skeptical
> position on current global warming science; I am not a skeptic.
> What ruse do you think I was engaged in?
You seemed to be keeping an open mind at one time. Was that ruse
question really not clear to you?
>
> :> :> 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.
> :>
> :> : All three papers use different datasets. Your conclusion seems to assume
> :> : a (probable) homogeneity in the indvidual time series. That assumption
> :> : seems pretty arbitrary to me.
> :>
> :> Why arbitrary? The process of global temperature reconstruction
> :> is predicated on the hope that some coalescent global temperature
> :> signal can be extricated from the variability of regional temperature
> :> patterns over time. If the individual time series were hopelessly
> :> heterogeneous, then this would be a futile effort. ...
>
> : Based on this new info you provide, I'd like to correct my previous
> : statement. Where I said your assumption seems 'arbitrary', please
> : change that to 'arbitrary and self-serving'. And drop the 'seems' in
> : favor of a more certain expression.
>
> I read this; it's rude. ...
When I get more data, I'm willing, as I did in this case, to change my
mind. Your assumption is arbitrary and self-serving.
> ... Just like your graphic depiction
> of a raised middle finger in response to me was rude.
> I'm sorry to be bothering you. Maybe you shouldn't take this
> so seriously.
You challenged me to spin in your mud. I took you up on the offer, with
good humor as a tempering factor. Calling it merely rude is very much in
keeping with your satisfaction with glancing at graphical info in that
matter we were discussing at the point of this particular rudeness, BTW.
I respectfully disagree with your notion about what polite is.
>
> IT HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED that Mann et al. 1998 is
> "unreplicable". ....
LOL - you sure are all over the place on your use of "demonstrated".
> ... Your basing that on your unabashed support for a
> paper that has some apparent serious methodological problems, ...
McIntyre's methodology was quite straightforward: he set out to
understand what Mann et al 1998 did. He read the paper. He read the
supplemental info. He followed the ftp links identified in the paper. He
even contacted Mann with the pretty straightforward question of whether
the data for Mann et al 1998 was available like he had found the data
for Mann et al 1999 to be. In my humble opinion, you are
mischaracterizing the replicability problems of Mann et al 1998 as
methodological problems of McIntyre and McKitrick.
> ... which
> was published by two global warming skeptics in a global-warming-
> skeptic friendly journal. ...
If Nature and its peer review process were so great, why does Mann et al
1998 list fran003, ital015, ital015x, spai026, and spai047 as having
been used when they are not amongst the data available at the newly
announced ftp site which Mann unabashedly claims to contain all the data
used by Mann et al 1998? Go soak your own head, bub.
> ... They have not, in any sense, done what
> needs to be done to demonstrate that the apparent problems you think
> have occurred have actually occurred.
I respectfully disagree. Even if the recently announced ftp site had
been publicly announced months or years ago, it contained the very same
ballocksed pcproxy.txt file as Rutherford provided to McIntyre. As an
aside, I think it stinks that this particular file has been deleted from
the Mann et al ftp directory in recent days. I also think it stinks that
it is now clear that the pcproxy.txt file was not a product of some
custom format allegedly requested by McIntyre as Mann's initial reply
stated.
On replicability:
* Would you agree that, to be replicable, Mann et al 1998 would have to
provide the weighting factors they used? This is just an example. Bear
with me please. They did provide weighting factors for the 112 time
series in the roster of proxies -- at
ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/PCS/multiproxy.inf --
but Mann et al now say there are 159 separately analyzed columns of
data. I've previously welcomed the prospect of anybody identifying what
those extra 47 sets of data are, and now I'll similarly welcome the
prospect of anybody identifying what weighting factors were used on the
mysterious 47.
* In Mann et al's "NOTE ON PAPER BY MCINTYRE AND MCKITRICK IN 'ENERGY
AND ENVIRONMENT'", the authors note that they used a stepwise principal
component approach. I'm told that that's pretty essential info,
replicability-wise. And you'll not find it mentioned in any previous
publicly available document associated with Mann et al 1998. There has
been no discosure by Mann et al on even the number of principal
components by region and time period.
>
> If the scientific community determines that Mann et al. have
> not followed proper scientific procedures and demonstrated integrity
> in their practice of science: even if his conclusions are demonstrated
> to be correct, they (Mann et al.) will be under suspicion, they will be
> required to exhaustively demonstrate the accuracy of their data and
> methods, and they will have a black mark of unreliability and dishonesty
> attached to any of their future work. In short, it DOES matter.
It'll never get to that point as long as the focus is on, as you so
pithily put it, two global warming skeptics in a global-warming-skeptic
friendly journal".
>
> (They could also face reprimand, censure, or expulsion from
> professional societies; they could be publically chastised in the
> pages of scientific journals with the stature of Nature; they could
> even lose salary, honors, positions, and even their jobs, IF it is
> shown that they have been dishonest. But that remains to be seen;
> and it certainly won't happen because of the assertions in the
> McIntyre and McKitrick paper.)
I suspect you're right. M&M will be ignored by the consensus crowd. Mann
et al will reap unabashed accolades. Nature will publish more
politically-charged cartoons and whatnot. And we'll never, ever see Mann
et al 1998 replicated on the basis of info available even at this late
date, much less on the basis of info available when the paper was
published.
>
> :> Then this remains to be determined.
> :>
> :> I've now responded to your initial replies to Responses 1 and
> :> 2, authored in separate parts due to the length (552 lines) of the
> :> post that they addressed. I am now quite interested in seeing your
> :> pending reply to Response 3.
>
> : As best can tell, this reply clears the slate. Please let me know if
> : there's some question of yours I missed. I searched with google for
> : messages which include _Acker "Response 3"_ for example, and this was
> : the only one that came up.
>
> It's this one:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3951089008d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe
> =off&selm=boh99r%24mtp%241%40news.umbc.edu
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/vd1p
>
> I headed it "Response part 3". It's dated November 7. If you
> do an Advanced Groups Search on Google, with "James Acker" as author,
> "sci.environment" as newsgroup, November 7 as search date, and "response
> part 3" as the exact phrase to search on, you'll find it if these URLs
> don't work for some reason.
>
> It is very important that you read the section in which I
> discuss Crowley and Lowery.
I'll be happy to look at that.
Very truly,
James Acker
In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
: In article <bpb0ri$iva$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
: James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[deletions]
:> : Hey pal, if you want to imagine that the temperature plots you cited
:> : "demonstrate" something rather than illustrate a hypothesis, you're
:> : sure free to do so. And I don't mind disagreeing with you about it.
:>
:> : And BTW, its not we who apparently were splitting hairs. You were the
:> : one who presented the term 'data' as some notable contrast to my
:> : previous mention of the phrase 'illustrate a hypothesis'.
:>
:> Even though sometimes you can be prickly, this is a very
:> testy response.
:> I could say that the data "demonstrate" support for the
:> hypothesis, rather than "illustrate" support for it. ...
: You'd probably be speaking of a different hypothesis, however. The
: hypothesis to which I referred is the hypothesis that the
: already-variously-processed reported individual measurements can serve
: as measurements of temperature anomalies. The graphed "data" in no way
: demonstrate support for that hypothesis. Rather, the graphed "data"
: depends on the hypothesis.
Here's the sequence:
1. Measurement of proxy variable (tree ring width, 180/160 ratio,
etc.)
2. Conversion of proxy variable value to temperature equivalent
3. Establishment of mean temperature value for anomaly generation
4. Calculation of temperature anomalies referring to mean value
So, were you addressing whether or not temperature anomalies
are measured vs. derived? Is the establishment of the mean reference
value what you are referring to as a hypothesis? If so, I think I
understand what you're getting at.
Perhaps I can rephrase: the derived temperature anomalies
demonstrate the regional variability of warmer and cooler episodes
during the 1000-1400 and the 1450-1800 periods.
:> ... There are shades
:> of difference in meaning between those two words. Demonstrate is
:> stronger.
:> If I have data that provide support for what I'm saying,
:> I'll just say it that way. In this case, the data presented support
:> the author's argument that there was regionable variability during
:> the warm period 1000-1400 and the colder period 1500-1850.
[deletions]
:> : I found you much more credible when you seemed to be keeping an open
:> : mind. Was that a ruse?
:>
:> I am very aware of the shortcomings of global warming science.
:> In particular, model predictions are fraught with dependencies on
:> assumptions (even if the assumptions are demonstrably good ones) and
:> reliance on current understanding of complex climate processes.
:> Improved understanding of those processes could provide substantial
:> modification of the models and subsequently altered predictions.
:> Is that open-minded? ...
: As far as it goes.
:> ... I am also aware that current observations
:> demonstrate support for a greenhouse gas warming that is in part due
:> to anthropogenic sources. ...
: That's broad enough that alarmists and skeptics alike could say it.
And isn't it literally what the IPCC report distills to?
:> ... To say otherwise would be to take a skeptical
:> position on current global warming science; I am not a skeptic.
:> What ruse do you think I was engaged in?
: You seemed to be keeping an open mind at one time. Was that ruse
: question really not clear to you?
I'm not clear as to what issue I was supposed to be open-
minded about. I think anthropogenically-enhanced global warming
is taking place. I always have, and I don't think that I've hidden
that position. However, I also don't think that there's much
support for the higher-end temperature increase scenarios (5+ C)
that the media picks up on; I tend to think that the global
temp will rise 2-3 C +/- 1 C (2 sigma) by 2100. I think that makes me
a "realist", not an alarmist. That means that my range of possibility
is 1-4 C. (Visualize a Gaussian distribution around 2 C.)
[deletion]
:> :> Why arbitrary? The process of global temperature reconstruction
:> :> is predicated on the hope that some coalescent global temperature
:> :> signal can be extricated from the variability of regional temperature
:> :> patterns over time. If the individual time series were hopelessly
:> :> heterogeneous, then this would be a futile effort. ...
:>
:> : Based on this new info you provide, I'd like to correct my previous
:> : statement. Where I said your assumption seems 'arbitrary', please
:> : change that to 'arbitrary and self-serving'. And drop the 'seems' in
:> : favor of a more certain expression.
:>
:> I read this; it's rude. ...
: When I get more data, I'm willing, as I did in this case, to change my
: mind. Your assumption is arbitrary and self-serving.
I accidentally deleted the assumption to which I think you
were referring. It was: a probable homogeneity in the individual
time-series. Looking back, I believe that you were referring to the
full Mann et al. time-series, not the regional time-series.
:> ... Just like your graphic depiction
:> of a raised middle finger in response to me was rude.
:> I'm sorry to be bothering you. Maybe you shouldn't take this
:> so seriously.
: You challenged me to spin in your mud. I took you up on the offer, with
: good humor as a tempering factor. Calling it merely rude is very much in
: keeping with your satisfaction with glancing at graphical info in that
: matter we were discussing at the point of this particular rudeness, BTW.
I'm willing to drop it.
:> : I've heard of this defense. It's called the "It doesn't matter"
:> : defense, and it goes like this: "It doesn't matter if Mann et al 1998
:> : was unreplicable as published. It doesn't matter that there was an
:> : error in the spatial analysis. It doesn't matter that JJA data was
:> : used when annual data was available, inconsistent with the practice
:> : used for other series. It doesn't matter that five time series were
:> : said to have been analyzed but apparently were not. Mann et al were
:> : apparently correct in their conclusions, so their method doesn't
:> : matter."
:>
:> To put it bluntly, but politely: go soak your head.
: I respectfully disagree with your notion about what polite is.
How 'bout "go jump in a lake". I.e., what you're saying
is all wet. It's not true; it's an exaggeration of my position, and
what the response of the scientific community response would be.
:> IT HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED that Mann et al. 1998 is
:> "unreplicable". ....
: LOL - you sure are all over the place on your use of "demonstrated".
OK, if you prefer, "it has not been shown", or "it has
not been proven", the latter probably being the best statement.
:> ... Your basing that on your unabashed support for a
:> paper that has some apparent serious methodological problems, ...
: McIntyre's methodology was quite straightforward: he set out to
: understand what Mann et al 1998 did. He read the paper. He read the
: supplemental info. He followed the ftp links identified in the paper. He
: even contacted Mann with the pretty straightforward question of whether
: the data for Mann et al 1998 was available like he had found the data
: for Mann et al 1999 to be. In my humble opinion, you are
: mischaracterizing the replicability problems of Mann et al 1998 as
: methodological problems of McIntyre and McKitrick.
No, Steve, I'm not. Mann didn't try to hold M&M's hand on
this, nor was he required to. Their reconstruction methodology that
led to the plot appears to be scientifically untenable. Maybe he
was arrogant about responding to them in the same manner as a
scientist with a recognized reputation, which would be a human
failing, but it doesn't mean that Mann et al.'s study has
"replicability problems".
If the scientific equivalent of a "Board of Inquiry"
is convened to examine Mann et al.'s methods, with the possible threat
of penalties if scientific fraud is determined, I'm reasonably
confident that Mann et al. could lay out what they've done,
step-by-step-by-step, dataset-by-dataset-by-dataset, assumption-by-
decision-by-conclusion, and explain it.
:> ... which
:> was published by two global warming skeptics in a global-warming-
:> skeptic friendly journal. ...
: If Nature and its peer review process were so great, why does Mann et al
: 1998 list fran003, ital015, ital015x, spai026, and spai047 as having
: been used when they are not amongst the data available at the newly
: announced ftp site which Mann unabashedly claims to contain all the data
: used by Mann et al 1998? Go soak your own head, bub.
As I have noted, I don't think that this is a problem.
You do. Let's leave it at that until the parties involved address it
(and in "Response Part 3", I say something more about it).
For the record, if Mann et al. used the data sets but they aren't
on the FTP site, then Mann made a mistake when he said they were on
the FTP site. Does that mean the Nature paper was inaccurate or
fraudulent? Nope.
:> ... They have not, in any sense, done what
:> needs to be done to demonstrate that the apparent problems you think
:> have occurred have actually occurred.
: I respectfully disagree. Even if the recently announced ftp site had
: been publicly announced months or years ago, it contained the very same
: ballocksed pcproxy.txt file as Rutherford provided to McIntyre. As an
: aside, I think it stinks that this particular file has been deleted from
: the Mann et al ftp directory in recent days. I also think it stinks that
: it is now clear that the pcproxy.txt file was not a product of some
: custom format allegedly requested by McIntyre as Mann's initial reply
: stated.
Perhaps it does stink. Perhaps Mann ill-treated M&M's inquiries.
That's still a long, long way from scientific dishonesty or fraud in
a published paper.
: On replicability:
: * Would you agree that, to be replicable, Mann et al 1998 would have to
: provide the weighting factors they used? This is just an example. Bear
: with me please. They did provide weighting factors for the 112 time
: series in the roster of proxies -- at
: ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/PCS/multiproxy.inf --
: but Mann et al now say there are 159 separately analyzed columns of
: data. I've previously welcomed the prospect of anybody identifying what
: those extra 47 sets of data are, and now I'll similarly welcome the
: prospect of anybody identifying what weighting factors were used on the
: mysterious 47.
Yes, I agree, provided the goal is the exact replication of
what Mann et al. did.
: * In Mann et al's "NOTE ON PAPER BY MCINTYRE AND MCKITRICK IN 'ENERGY
: AND ENVIRONMENT'", the authors note that they used a stepwise principal
: component approach. I'm told that that's pretty essential info,
: replicability-wise. And you'll not find it mentioned in any previous
: publicly available document associated with Mann et al 1998. There has
: been no discosure by Mann et al on even the number of principal
: components by region and time period.
What's essential? The "stepwise" aspect? Mann et al. 1998
states that they used PCA.
:> If the scientific community determines that Mann et al. have
:> not followed proper scientific procedures and demonstrated integrity
:> in their practice of science: even if his conclusions are demonstrated
:> to be correct, they (Mann et al.) will be under suspicion, they will be
:> required to exhaustively demonstrate the accuracy of their data and
:> methods, and they will have a black mark of unreliability and dishonesty
:> attached to any of their future work. In short, it DOES matter.
: It'll never get to that point as long as the focus is on, as you so
: pithily put it, two global warming skeptics in a global-warming-skeptic
: friendly journal".
Exactly. Proper procedures must be followed to establish
a claim of scientific fraud. The path that M&M have followed won't
do it.
:> (They could also face reprimand, censure, or expulsion from
:> professional societies; they could be publically chastised in the
:> pages of scientific journals with the stature of Nature; they could
:> even lose salary, honors, positions, and even their jobs, IF it is
:> shown that they have been dishonest. But that remains to be seen;
:> and it certainly won't happen because of the assertions in the
:> McIntyre and McKitrick paper.)
: I suspect you're right. M&M will be ignored by the consensus crowd.
And rightly so, if their paper is as lousy as it appears to
be.
: Mann et al will reap unabashed accolades. Nature will publish more
: politically-charged cartoons and whatnot. And we'll never, ever see Mann
: et al 1998 replicated on the basis of info available even at this late
: date, much less on the basis of info available when the paper was
: published.
I actually think that you're wrong. I think that Mann is
probably trying to address if the data he's got available is what he
thinks it is. It wouldn't surprise me if there are some clarifications
forthcoming from Mann on that.
[deletion of inconsequential remainder]
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"
Ian St. John
I'm admiring how you handled the task of hyperbole and innuendo without a
single statement of fact on which they might hang a lawsuit. Well done.
>
> Very truly,
You are never true or sincere. I guess this is parody or sarcasm?
>
> BallB...@nuclear.com
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote, in part:
> ... if scientific fraud is determined, I'm reasonably ...
> ...
> ... fraudulent? Nope.
> ...
> ... a long, long way from scientific dishonesty or fraud in
> a published paper.
> ...
> ... Proper procedures must be followed to establish
> a claim of scientific fraud. The path that M&M have followed won't
> do it...
Regarding the authors, you speak of fraud. I respectfully note that
amongst their many quite specific criticisms of Mann et al 1998,
McIntyre and McKitrick have not alleged that Mann et al engaged in
fraud. Nor have I, as best I recall.
I do believe there has been a fraud perpetrated upon the public in this
matter, but one need not assume that Mann et al were the ones who
engaged in the fraud.
David Ball
LOL. More innuendo from a guy who can't even understand the
basics.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
Oops - you're ballocksing yet again. That's not iuendo, its a reference
to previous explanation. You can find details by searching for my
mention of fraud and "the large print giveth and the small print taketh
away".
And as for understanding the basics, I'd like to congratulate you, in
advance, for any acclaim you may receive for the inspiring nature of
your quite poetic concept of "as extreme as a gentle rain".
James Acker
Then what's the point of "auditing" Mann et al.'s research
if there is no suspicion of error, accidental or deliberate? If M&M
wanted to show that his research results were inaccurate, then they
should have done their own independent study. "Auditing" Mann's
research carries with it the implicit possibility of discovering either
data analysis mistakes or deliberate manipulation to achieve a
desired result.
Now, you may then say that the audit effort was done to
discover accidental errors or flawed statistical analysis methodology.
In which case, if the authors were truly concerned about these errors,
then they would have sent Mann a copy of their conclusions and
allowed him to a chance to respond before publishing a paper
claiming to have found serious errors in his research.
Now you can respond to "Response part 3".
Jim Acker
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> : In article <bpbm55$s3f$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
> : James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote, in part:
>
> :> ... if scientific fraud is determined, I'm reasonably ...
> :> ...
> :> ... fraudulent? Nope.
> :> ...
> :> ... a long, long way from scientific dishonesty or fraud in
> :> a published paper.
> :> ...
> :> ... Proper procedures must be followed to establish
> :> a claim of scientific fraud. The path that M&M have followed won't
> :> do it...
>
> : Regarding the authors, you speak of fraud. I respectfully note that
> : amongst their many quite specific criticisms of Mann et al 1998,
> : McIntyre and McKitrick have not alleged that Mann et al engaged in
> : fraud. Nor have I, as best I recall.
>
> : I do believe there has been a fraud perpetrated upon the public in this
> : matter, but one need not assume that Mann et al were the ones who
> : engaged in the fraud.
>
> Then what's the point of "auditing" Mann et al.'s research
> if there is no suspicion of error, accidental or deliberate? ...
You sound like error, to you, is equivalent to fraud. I don't share in
that perspective. An audit is a routine quality assurance tool.
> ... If M&M
> wanted to show that his research results were inaccurate, then they
> should have done their own independent study. ...
McIntyre started out merely wanting to understand what Mann et al did. A
quick look at the data in the pcproxy.txt file provided by Mann et al
revealed some unusual patterns, like repetition of long series of
numbers. This prompted McIntyre to go back to Mann et al's sources to
verify the unusual data. When McIntyre verified that the unusual
patterns were apparently not attributable to the source data, he delved
further into the data. At some point, he decided to compare every one of
Mann's 112 time seris with the source data.
> ... "Auditing" Mann's
> research carries with it the implicit possibility of discovering either
> data analysis mistakes or deliberate manipulation to achieve a
> desired result.
An implicit possibility? Y'think?
>
> Now, you may then say that the audit effort was done to
> discover accidental errors or flawed statistical analysis methodology.
> In which case, if the authors were truly concerned about these errors,
> then they would have sent Mann a copy of their conclusions and
> allowed him to a chance to respond before publishing a paper
> claiming to have found serious errors in his research.
Mann was quite clear in discouraging any further inquiries from
McIntyre. I find it abhorrant that anyone thinks it necessary to write a
publication-quality paper to elicit replicability info.
>
> Now you can respond to "Response part 3".
Stay tuned. Same BallBuster time. Same BallBuster station.
Peter Hearnden
So, M&M *isn't* publication-quality then? Exactly right!
James is right, M&M rubbished Mann and co without letting Mann and co see
their rubbishing before publication (as Mann and co pointed out that's not
the normal protocol). That's isn't science it's rubbishing. You stick with
the rubbish Steve, let others do the science.
>
> >
> > Now you can respond to "Response part 3".
>
> Stay tuned. Same BallBuster time. Same BallBuster station.
Yeah yeah, *very* funny.
James Acker
: James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
And it's usually done internally, not as a publication.
:> ... If M&M
:> wanted to show that his research results were inaccurate, then they
:> should have done their own independent study. ...
: McIntyre started out merely wanting to understand what Mann et al did. A
I can't swallow that one.
: quick look at the data in the pcproxy.txt file provided by Mann et al
: revealed some unusual patterns, like repetition of long series of
: numbers. This prompted McIntyre to go back to Mann et al's sources to
: verify the unusual data. When McIntyre verified that the unusual
: patterns were apparently not attributable to the source data, he delved
: further into the data. At some point, he decided to compare every one of
: Mann's 112 time seris with the source data.
:> ... "Auditing" Mann's
:> research carries with it the implicit possibility of discovering either
:> data analysis mistakes or deliberate manipulation to achieve a
:> desired result.
: An implicit possibility? Y'think?
Of course it is.
:> Now, you may then say that the audit effort was done to
:> discover accidental errors or flawed statistical analysis methodology.
:> In which case, if the authors were truly concerned about these errors,
:> then they would have sent Mann a copy of their conclusions and
:> allowed him to a chance to respond before publishing a paper
:> claiming to have found serious errors in his research.
: Mann was quite clear in discouraging any further inquiries from
: McIntyre. I find it abhorrant that anyone thinks it necessary to write a
: publication-quality paper to elicit replicability info.
Sending him a copy of the paper before submittal would have been
professional courtesy, even if Mann didn't read it. It would have allowed
M&M to say that they gave Mann a chance to review what they had apparently
found. If he didn't take that opportunity, the onus would have been
on him. Since they didn't give him the opportunity, the onus is
on them.
As for your "abhorrence"; imagine this inquiry arrives in
your email Inbox:
"Dear Mr. Schulin,
I've taken an interest in a research paper you published
six years ago. It appears to me that you made some mistakes, since
I can't seem to get the same results you did. So what I'd like to do
is exactly what you did, to make sure you did it right.
Can you send me every single one of your data sets, properly formatted
so that it's easy for me to understand, the analysis programs that
you used on the data, and an explanation of all of the special things
you did with the data (especially emphasizing the really hard to understand
stuff)? If I run into some trouble, I plan to keep sending you messages
asking for help, since I'm not very familiar with the scientific
field that you're in. I do know something about statistics, so I don't
think it will be very hard for you to help me.
Is that OK with you?"
How would you respond to that? Happily and politely?
Now imagine that you are a well-known researcher in the climate
community, a professor at a prestigious university. You're teaching
classes, advising students, performing research, corresponding with
colleagues on ongoing research work, going to meetings, writing
reports, writing proposals, participating on thesis committees,
attending faculty meetings, reading newly-published papers to try
to keep abreast of the field... and you got a message like this.
How would you respond to it?
In a reply to McIntyre, Mann suggests that he read
Zorita et al. 1998. Did McIntyre try to do that? There's no
evidence that he did. If not, why not?
:> Now you can respond to "Response part 3".
Jim Acker
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
Steve Schulin
"Peter Hearnden" <pe...@nospamhearnden.freeserve.co.uk> wrote, in part:
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote...
> >
> > Mann was quite clear in discouraging any further inquiries from
> > McIntyre. I find it abhorrant that anyone thinks it necessary to write a
> > publication-quality paper to elicit replicability info.
>
> So, M&M *isn't* publication-quality then? Exactly right!
You apparently misunderstand something I've written. If that Kyoto-
advocating Democrat presidential candidate Carol Mosely-Braun recognized
your error, she might say you're 360 degrees off.
> James is right, M&M rubbished Mann and co without letting Mann and co see
> their rubbishing before publication (as Mann and co pointed out that's not
> the normal protocol). That's isn't science it's rubbishing. ...
The lack of expresses curiosity as to why the Mann-made warmers are
vacuuming their ftp sites is interesting to me. That ballocksed
pcproxy.txt file, for example. What an interesting development to learn
that it wasn't created upon McIntyre's request. In retrospect, I'm glad
this has happened in the light of public scrutiny. Less deception is
possible. Well, except for the deception of the true believers.
> ... You stick with
> the rubbish Steve, let others do the science.
You don't mind if I still occasionally check out the "Workers World
Daily"-style cartoons in Nature, do you?
Ian St. John
> In article <bpbm55$s3f$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
> James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote, in part:
> I do believe there has been a fraud perpetrated upon the public in this
> matter, but one need not assume that Mann et al were the ones who
> engaged in the fraud.
Obviously M&M are perpetrating a fraud on the public in this matter with
their totally bogus 'paper' on the research. That IS what you meant, right?
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
The decision to formalize his findings in a publication came well after
McIntyre had compared many (and perhaps most, maybe even all of those
available) of the source files with the Mann et al pcproxy.txt file.
>
> :> ... If M&M
> :> wanted to show that his research results were inaccurate, then they
> :> should have done their own independent study. ...
>
> : McIntyre started out merely wanting to understand what Mann et al did. A
>
> I can't swallow that one.
You're free to believe what you want, on whatever imaginative basis you
choose. I followed McIntyre's numerous interesting postings long before
E&E editor encouraged him to write a paper.
Ah, the onus.
> As for your "abhorrence"; imagine this inquiry arrives in
> your email Inbox:
>
> "Dear Mr. Schulin,
>
> I've taken an interest in a research paper you published
> six years ago. It appears to me that you made some mistakes, since
> I can't seem to get the same results you did. So what I'd like to do
> is exactly what you did, to make sure you did it right.
> Can you send me every single one of your data sets, properly formatted
> so that it's easy for me to understand, the analysis programs that
> you used on the data, and an explanation of all of the special things
> you did with the data (especially emphasizing the really hard to understand
> stuff)? If I run into some trouble, I plan to keep sending you messages
> asking for help, since I'm not very familiar with the scientific
> field that you're in. I do know something about statistics, so I don't
> think it will be very hard for you to help me.
> Is that OK with you?"
>
> How would you respond to that? Happily and politely?
Why ask these hypothetical questions when you can read the exact email
request for Mann et al 1998 data, and the followup correspondence?
Please feel welcome to let me know if you would like my help in finding
them online.
>
> Now imagine that you are a well-known researcher in the climate
> community, a professor at a prestigious university. You're teaching
> classes, advising students, performing research, corresponding with
> colleagues on ongoing research work, going to meetings, writing
> reports, writing proposals, participating on thesis committees,
> attending faculty meetings, reading newly-published papers to try
> to keep abreast of the field... and you got a message like this.
> How would you respond to it?
>
> In a reply to McIntyre, Mann suggests that he read
> Zorita et al. 1998. Did McIntyre try to do that? There's no
> evidence that he did. ...
I've seen such evidence. I'm curious as to the methdology you have used
that enables you to voice such an absolutely stated conclusion. I'm also
curious if this is typical of the standard you use in what I would call
'jumping to conclusion'.
> ... If not, why not?
>
>
> :> Now you can respond to "Response part 3".
Now? Y'think?
Steve Schulin
Ian, I'm very glad to see you asking questions when you don't
understand. The answer to your question is no. If you'd like to learn
more, please don't hesitate to ask, or to check out my prior description
of the specific fraud referenced here. That description is contained in
my Oct 26, 2003 reply to, uh, you (in the thread titled "IPCC chair
Pachauri's pro-Kyoto bias revealed").
Thomas Palm
> you choose. I followed McIntyre's numerous interesting postings long
> before E&E editor encouraged him to write a paper.
The famous climatesceptics list strikes again! Maybe someone ought to make
it public. The few messages I've been allowed to see have been, well,
interesting.
James Acker
: James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[deletions]
:> : that perspective. An audit is a routine quality assurance tool.
:>
:> And it's usually done internally, not as a publication.
: The decision to formalize his findings in a publication came well after
: McIntyre had compared many (and perhaps most, maybe even all of those
: available) of the source files with the Mann et al pcproxy.txt file.
And the bearing of that on what I said is what, exactly?
:> :> ... If M&M
:> :> wanted to show that his research results were inaccurate, then they
:> :> should have done their own independent study. ...
:>
:> : McIntyre started out merely wanting to understand what Mann et al did. A
:>
:> I can't swallow that one.
: You're free to believe what you want, on whatever imaginative basis you
: choose. I followed McIntyre's numerous interesting postings long before
: E&E editor encouraged him to write a paper.
So would you say McIntyre was a fairly well-known skeptic
on global warming, based on your "following his numerous interesting
postings"? McKitrick is a well-known skeptic. Why did McIntyre
hook up with just him? Why not contact somebody like Esper, who's familar
with the way things like this are done? Why not have a climate
scientist work with you on an "audit" of climate science data?
"Merely wanting to understand..." like this?
"In 2003, Steven McIntyre, a Toronto business man who specialized
in mathematics at university, got interested in the process by which IPCC
Reports were being put together and used for driving major policy decisions.
Long experience in the mining industry, including close observation of the
delinquent accounting that led to the Bre-X scandal, gave him a good nose
for promotions based on unaudited claims. It also taught him that when big
investments are at stake, due diligence requires relentless testing and
independent verification of the data by all parties at every stage. Also,
attention must be paid to potential conflicts of interest - for instance the
author of a project feasibility study should not also be a major shareholder
in the project. These are rigorous requirements in the private sector, yet
in the case of the IPCC, chapter authors routinely promote their own
research. This makes it even more important that there be external
auditing of the reports' foundation."
[deletions]
:> Sending him a copy of the paper before submittal would have been
:> professional courtesy, even if Mann didn't read it. It would have allowed
:> M&M to say that they gave Mann a chance to review what they had apparently
:> found. If he didn't take that opportunity, the onus would have been
:> on him. Since they didn't give him the opportunity, the onus is
:> on them.
: Ah, the onus.
Yes. They didn't allow him a chance to respond to their
completed manuscript. Not as far as I can tell from what is
available on their Web site. They took Mann's "unable to respond"
comment about _inquiries_ as also meaning that he wouldn't
read or consider anything they produced.
They could have simply stuck a copy in an envelope and sent it
to him. If he didn't read it, then that would have been his fault
entirely. But they didn't give him that chance.
:> As for your "abhorrence"; imagine this inquiry arrives in
:> your email Inbox:
:>
:> "Dear Mr. Schulin,
:>
:> I've taken an interest in a research paper you published
:> six years ago. It appears to me that you made some mistakes, since
:> I can't seem to get the same results you did. So what I'd like to do
:> is exactly what you did, to make sure you did it right.
:> Can you send me every single one of your data sets, properly formatted
:> so that it's easy for me to understand, the analysis programs that
:> you used on the data, and an explanation of all of the special things
:> you did with the data (especially emphasizing the really hard to
:> understand
:> stuff)? If I run into some trouble, I plan to keep sending you messages
:> asking for help, since I'm not very familiar with the scientific
:> field that you're in. I do know something about statistics, so I don't
:> think it will be very hard for you to help me.
:> Is that OK with you?"
:>
:> How would you respond to that? Happily and politely?
: Why ask these hypothetical questions when you can read the exact email
: request for Mann et al 1998 data, and the followup correspondence?
: Please feel welcome to let me know if you would like my help in finding
: them online.
I did exactly that before I wrote my caricature above. I use
the word "caricature" because it is a sketch that emphasizes particular
aspects of something. In this case, I'm emphasizing the apparent
naivete and simple-mindedness of the inquiries that McIntyre made to
Mann.
Got this off the Web site:
"Part 3, now under way, will seek to resolve the outstanding
differences between our computational methods and those of MBH.
Completion of this part will be contingent on our receiving the
specific computer programs MBH used, and we are seeking this disclosure."
:> Now imagine that you are a well-known researcher in the climate
:> community, a professor at a prestigious university. You're teaching
:> classes, advising students, performing research, corresponding with
:> colleagues on ongoing research work, going to meetings, writing
:> reports, writing proposals, participating on thesis committees,
:> attending faculty meetings, reading newly-published papers to try
:> to keep abreast of the field... and you got a message like this.
:> How would you respond to it?
:>
:> In a reply to McIntyre, Mann suggests that he read
:> Zorita et al. 1998. Did McIntyre try to do that? There's no
:> evidence that he did. ...
: I've seen such evidence. I'm curious as to the methdology you have used
: that enables you to voice such an absolutely stated conclusion. I'm also
: curious if this is typical of the standard you use in what I would call
: 'jumping to conclusion'.
Sorry. There is no evidence in the email correspondence or
on the Web site that he did. If he said he did in an internet discussion
group, I'm not privy to that information.
:> ... If not, why not?
:>
:>
:> :> Now you can respond to "Response part 3".
: Now? Y'think?
Whenever you get the chance. I'm just making sure you don't
overlook it.
Jim Acker
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
ROTFL. Keep trying, Troll. Sooner or later you might just post
something worth reading.
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux1.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> : In article <bpdkg9$o9p$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
> : James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> [deletions]
>
> :> : that perspective. An audit is a routine quality assurance tool.
> :>
> :> And it's usually done internally, not as a publication.
>
> : The decision to formalize his findings in a publication came well after
> : McIntyre had compared many (and perhaps most, maybe even all of those
> : available) of the source files with the Mann et al pcproxy.txt file.
>
> And the bearing of that on what I said is what, exactly?
As best I recall, this part of the conversation stemmed from your
wondering about "what's the point of 'auditing' Mann et al.'s research
if there is no suspicion of error, accidental or deliberate?" My mention
of when the decision to formalize was made continues that discussion of
what was the point. I'm making clear that the point was not the
publication. The bearing that this has upon what you said, exactly, is
that your mention of publication is quite irrelevant to the question you
asked, which we were discussing.
>
> :> :> ... If M&M
> :> :> wanted to show that his research results were inaccurate, then they
> :> :> should have done their own independent study. ...
> :>
> :> : McIntyre started out merely wanting to understand what Mann et al did. A
> :>
> :> I can't swallow that one.
>
> : You're free to believe what you want, on whatever imaginative basis you
> : choose. I followed McIntyre's numerous interesting postings long before
> : E&E editor encouraged him to write a paper.
>
> So would you say McIntyre was a fairly well-known skeptic
> on global warming, based on your "following his numerous interesting
> postings"? ...
No.
> ... McKitrick is a well-known skeptic. ...
Yes.
> ... Why did McIntyre
> hook up with just him? ...
I don't know.
> ... Why not contact somebody like Esper, who's familar
> with the way things like this are done? Why not have a climate
> scientist work with you on an "audit" of climate science data?
The audit was not of Mann et al's approach to his research, it was an
audit of his data handling and analysis. None of the statistical tools
used by Mann et al originated in climate science. Lack of Esper's input
was probably more sorely evident in the Mann et al response to M&M, than
in M&M itself.
>
>
> "Merely wanting to understand..." like this?
>
> "In 2003, Steven McIntyre, a Toronto business man who specialized
> in mathematics at university, got interested in the process by which IPCC
> Reports were being put together and used for driving major policy decisions.
> Long experience in the mining industry, including close observation of the
> delinquent accounting that led to the Bre-X scandal, gave him a good nose
> for promotions based on unaudited claims. It also taught him that when big
> investments are at stake, due diligence requires relentless testing and
> independent verification of the data by all parties at every stage. Also,
> attention must be paid to potential conflicts of interest - for instance the
> author of a project feasibility study should not also be a major shareholder
> in the project. These are rigorous requirements in the private sector, yet
> in the case of the IPCC, chapter authors routinely promote their own
> research. This makes it even more important that there be external
> auditing of the reports' foundation."
You ask "... like this?" My answer: Very much so, although this passage
sounds like a retrospective explanation rather than the prospective
emphasis you and I were discussing. You object to due diligence?
>
> [deletions]
>
> :> Sending him a copy of the paper before submittal would have been
> :> professional courtesy, even if Mann didn't read it. It would have allowed
> :> M&M to say that they gave Mann a chance to review what they had apparently
> :> found. If he didn't take that opportunity, the onus would have been
> :> on him. Since they didn't give him the opportunity, the onus is
> :> on them.
>
> : Ah, the onus.
>
> Yes. They didn't allow him a chance to respond to their
> completed manuscript. Not as far as I can tell from what is
> available on their Web site. They took Mann's "unable to respond"
> comment about _inquiries_ as also meaning that he wouldn't
> read or consider anything they produced.
> They could have simply stuck a copy in an envelope and sent it
> to him. If he didn't read it, then that would have been his fault
> entirely. But they didn't give him that chance.
Ah, the onus.
Caricature was exactly the word I thought of when reading your
distortion.
>
> Got this off the Web site:
>
> "Part 3, now under way, will seek to resolve the outstanding
> differences between our computational methods and those of MBH.
> Completion of this part will be contingent on our receiving the
> specific computer programs MBH used, and we are seeking this disclosure."
Ah, there's that onus you speak of rearing its ugly whatever. If Mann et
al 1998's methods are replicable without the sought disclosure, then M&M
don't hold the high ground on this. But, the Mann et al 1998 paper
referred to conventional PCA -- expressly referred to it. If Mann et al
hadn't recently announced that they had used a stepwise approach, these
additional questions might never have been raised, by anybody.
>
> :> Now imagine that you are a well-known researcher in the climate
> :> community, a professor at a prestigious university. You're teaching
> :> classes, advising students, performing research, corresponding with
> :> colleagues on ongoing research work, going to meetings, writing
> :> reports, writing proposals, participating on thesis committees,
> :> attending faculty meetings, reading newly-published papers to try
> :> to keep abreast of the field... and you got a message like this.
> :> How would you respond to it?
> :>
> :> In a reply to McIntyre, Mann suggests that he read
> :> Zorita et al. 1998. Did McIntyre try to do that? There's no
> :> evidence that he did. ...
>
> : I've seen such evidence. I'm curious as to the methdology you have used
> : that enables you to voice such an absolutely stated conclusion. I'm also
> : curious if this is typical of the standard you use in what I would call
> : 'jumping to conclusion'.
>
> Sorry. There is no evidence in the email correspondence or
> on the Web site that he did. ...
Actually, the evidence I'm referring to was on the web site. See my post
of October 30 that mentions Zorita for details. I'm still curious as to
the methdology you used that enabled you to voice such an absolutely
stated conclusion. But I guess you've now demonstrated (yes, real data)
a commitment to whatever low standard it was, so it's no big deal that
didn't see fit to elaborate on that matter.
> ... If he said he did in an internet discussion
> group, I'm not privy to that information.
>
> :> ... If not, why not?
> :>
> :>
> :> :> Now you can respond to "Response part 3".
>
> : Now? Y'think?
>
> Whenever you get the chance. I'm just making sure you don't
> overlook it.
I generally admire such diligence.
Very truly,
Josh Halpern
James Acker wrote:
>In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
SNIP.....
> So why do I think Mann et al.'s scientific integrity is
>probably going to be upheld? Primarily because of independent
>corroboration. Mann et al.'s analyses are not the only data and
>datasets that bear on the topic. A prime example is Esper's
>data (which was not lost on the Idsos). But Esper's data still
>shows the same general patterns, though with a wider range of
>variability (and apparently a much shorter MWP).
>
>
Esper's data was essentially all from high latitudes (a few were from high
altitudes). You would expext more variability.
>:> ... 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?
>
It's available at the UMass site, among others also
>: McIntyre mentions questions based on his use of it in his Sept 25 email
>: to Mann. Mann et al's Supplementary Info is also mentioned several times
>: in the body of the peer reviewed paper, as well. Nature makes the
>: Supplementary Info freely available via abstract page on the web, BTW
>
> Then this remains to be determined.
>
josh halpern
James Acker
: James Acker <jac...@linux1.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
:> [deletions]
:>
:> :> : that perspective. An audit is a routine quality assurance tool.
:> :>
:> :> And it's usually done internally, not as a publication.
:>
:> : The decision to formalize his findings in a publication came well after
:> : McIntyre had compared many (and perhaps most, maybe even all of those
:> : available) of the source files with the Mann et al pcproxy.txt file.
:>
:> And the bearing of that on what I said is what, exactly?
: As best I recall, this part of the conversation stemmed from your
: wondering about "what's the point of 'auditing' Mann et al.'s research
: if there is no suspicion of error, accidental or deliberate?" My mention
: of when the decision to formalize was made continues that discussion of
: what was the point. I'm making clear that the point was not the
: publication. The bearing that this has upon what you said, exactly, is
: that your mention of publication is quite irrelevant to the question you
: asked, which we were discussing.
OK. As an aside, Dave Appell on Quark Soup indicates that
the apparent (note qualifier) time from submission to publication
of M&M's paper in Energy&Environment seems quite short.
:> ... Why not contact somebody like Esper, who's familar
:> with the way things like this are done? Why not have a climate
:> scientist work with you on an "audit" of climate science data?
: The audit was not of Mann et al's approach to his research, it was an
: audit of his data handling and analysis. None of the statistical tools
: used by Mann et al originated in climate science. Lack of Esper's input
: was probably more sorely evident in the Mann et al response to M&M, than
: in M&M itself.
That's a good point. Musing on this issue overnight, I
thought about something. I was thinking "what would be the _best_
way to put forth this claim of data/analysis inaccuracy?" In my
opinion, the best way would be for a climate scientist to
validate your results. That's why I asked why he didn't have
a climate scientist working with him. When they first formulated
their results and conclusions, the climate scientist would weigh in
on whether or not it had scientific validity.
There are two separate issues regarding M&M's paper. The
first issue is Mann et al.'s methodology. The second is the
alternative result with the much higher temperature peaks ~1400
and ~1500 AD. That strong dip about about 1450 AD is really
striking; it's in everybody's temperature reconstruction. (Was
there a volcanic eruption at that time? Googling: YES!! It
was apparently a huge eruption in 1453 on the New Hebrides arc
(Vanuatu) that created the islands Tongoa and Epi as part of the
formerly much larger Kuwae.)
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/93/release_1993_1543.html
(I definitely learned something new today! And I am surprised
at how little is on the Web about this eruption, which clearly
had global climate consequences.)
And in everyone's temperature reconstruction, there's a "rebound" post-1450s,
but the rebound in M&M's reanalysis is a peak, and in everybody
else's reconstructions, (including Esper's) there's a period of
relatively stable temperatures through about 1600, and then cooling.
Actually, if you look at the reconstructions, temperatures were fairly
stable from about 1200-1600 with the eruption dip the only major
interruption.
That spike in M&M's reanalysis is the proverbial sore
thumb or red flag. It begs for explanation. The explanation offered
by Mann et al. is that it's due to faulty data analysis.
[deletions]
:> :> As for your "abhorrence"; imagine this inquiry arrives in
Caricatures are a famous aspect of political cartoons. They
serve to make points. I made mine. I'll state it more plainly:
McIntyre's inquiries were a flier out of nowhere. Mann probably
recognized them as such. He was/is under no obligation to tutor
a neophyte in the field (even one with good knowledge of statistics)
on how he did his research.
And I'll add: to prosecute a claim of inaccuracy in a
scientific publication (rather than fraud), the way to do it is to
start from the beginning and independently do it BETTER. Then
you publish, and you say "the previous results of Kilroy et al. are
laden with bogosity because a) they did such-and-such wrong, b) their
X method isn't sensitive to the Y effect, c) their Z method is sensitive to
the ABC effect, which throws everything off, and d) our super-duper
ZQ-double-T methodology is vastly superior to the antiquated
procedures employed by Kilroy et al."
In science, that's an in-your-face slam dunk.
:> Got this off the Web site:
:>
:> "Part 3, now under way, will seek to resolve the outstanding
:> differences between our computational methods and those of MBH.
:> Completion of this part will be contingent on our receiving the
:> specific computer programs MBH used, and we are seeking this disclosure."
: Ah, there's that onus you speak of rearing its ugly whatever. If Mann et
: al 1998's methods are replicable without the sought disclosure, then M&M
: don't hold the high ground on this. But, the Mann et al 1998 paper
: referred to conventional PCA -- expressly referred to it. If Mann et al
: hadn't recently announced that they had used a stepwise approach, these
: additional questions might never have been raised, by anybody.
And that may be an interesting aspect of this. Until more is
said, explained, and verified from the involved parties, I couldn't
make any useful comment.
:> :> In a reply to McIntyre, Mann suggests that he read
:> :> Zorita et al. 1998. Did McIntyre try to do that? There's no
:> :> evidence that he did. ...
:>
:> : I've seen such evidence. I'm curious as to the methdology you have used
:> : that enables you to voice such an absolutely stated conclusion. I'm also
:> : curious if this is typical of the standard you use in what I would call
:> : 'jumping to conclusion'.
:>
:> Sorry. There is no evidence in the email correspondence or
:> on the Web site that he did. ...
: Actually, the evidence I'm referring to was on the web site. See my post
: of October 30 that mentions Zorita for details. I'm still curious as to
In this thread? (URL or tinyurl would be appreciated)
: the methdology you used that enabled you to voice such an absolutely
: stated conclusion. But I guess you've now demonstrated (yes, real data)
: a commitment to whatever low standard it was, so it's no big deal that
: didn't see fit to elaborate on that matter.
I overstated my conclusions. I withdraw the "there is no
evidence that he did" statement and rephrase it as "I am unaware at
this point in time of any evidence that he did".
Now reply to "Response part 3" and comment on what I say
regarding Crowley and Lowery's response to the Soon and Baliunas
criticism.
Steve Schulin
news:<boh99r$mtp$1...@news.umbc.edu>...
> Response part 3.
>
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> : James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote, in part:
> ...
> :> :> ... 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...
>
> : 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.
>
> There is a legitimate question here. Can a large enough
> set of temperature data proxies be compiled to provide a record of
> regional, hemispheric, and global temperatures? The Mann et al.
> naysayers want the answer to be "no". The groups doing this kind of
> work would obviously contend "yes". I personally think that there's
> barely enough SH data to do the job for that hemisphere, and that
> uncertainty means that the global reconstructions are not as reliable
> as the NH reconstructions. And I think that the groups doing the
> actual research agree with that. But as long as you point out the
> potential problems, you go with what you have; giving up is somewhat
> useless.
>
> :> 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.
>
> I have not seen a specific response to the section about
> Crowley and Lowery (5.3). It would be appropriate for Crowley and
> Lowery to respond. Crowley has; read the author list of the Eos
> article. I believe that key point 2 addresses the criticisms
> directed at Crowley and Lowery (2000) in S&B section 5.3. ...
This claim of yours (that the key point 2 specified by you addresses
the section 5.3 identified by me), seems quite vacuous. Calibration
issues dominate the section 5.3, and there is no discussion of
calibration issues in the key point 2. I have taken the liberty of
posting both excerpts below, for ease of comparison:
Soon et al - E&E 2003 - section 5.3
5.3. On criticisms of the Crowley and Lowery (2000) composite proxy
curve
Although our approach and results are not directly comparable to those
of Mann et al. (1998, 1999, 2000a), they can be compared with the
results of Crowley and Lowery (2000). We have decided against a
superposition of these diverse indicators of climate proxies because
their individual sensitivities to temperature and other climatic
variabilities are not well defined. Thus, the calibration steps of
using a renormalization and an arbitrary arithmetic mean, and then
calibration with instrumental data for only selective time-intervals
(see below), as adopted by Crowley and Lowery (2000) to produce a
composite curve, are simply biased correlation exercises. A selective
set of proxy records, each with unequal spatial-temporal resolution
and differing in climate sensitivity cannot be combined to produce a
composite curve as readily as Crowley and Lowery (2000) assume.
The composite curve of Crowley and Lowery (2000) yields results
inconsistent with its underlying proxies as well as those discussed
here. The authors conclude that "[d]espite clear evidence for Medieval
warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new
hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier
hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum
Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20–30 year intervals
[identified by the authors as 1010–1040, 1070–1105, and 1155–1190
A.D.], with composite values during these times being only comparable
to the mid-20th century warm time interval."
Crowley and Lowery later proceed to recalibrate the composite,
non-dimensional curve to hemispheric-mean thermometer temperatures by
using selective intervals, namely 1856–1880 and 1925–1965 A.D. The
interval of 1880–1920 was claimed to be contaminated by "anomalous
tree-ring growth due to the 19th century rise in CO2." In contrast,
Bradley and Jones (1993) first produced their composite Northern
Hemisphere temperature curve and then proceeded to improve its
confidence by examining the potential problem of spatial sampling
because "there are still extremely large areas for which we have no
data." Bradley and Jones checked their composite results against the
entire record of available instrumental summer temperature anomalies
from about 1850 to 1980, as shown in Figure 7 of their paper. This
approach is in sharp contrast to that of Crowley and Lowery, who
calibrate their composite proxy curve based on limited areal coverage
to Northern-Hemisphere-wide averaged instrumental data for only
selective time-intervals and then claim the composite proxy
temperature to be valid or relevant for the whole Northern Hemisphere
and for the full time interval covered by the instrumental and proxy
records.
The omission of the 1880–1920 period in the instrumental calibration
is problematic and its explanation by Crowley and Lowery is
insufficient. The anthropogenic CO2 fertilization effect, suspected as
an influence after the 1960s, could not already have been occurring
between 1880 and 1920 and not afterward (see e.g., Knapp et al. 2001
for a discussion on the impact of the post-1960s CO2 rise on western
juniper growth rates under water-stressed conditions in Central Oregon
[20]). More puzzling, Crowley and Lowery claim that only five (from
the White Mountains of the Sierra Nevada, central Colorado, Ural
Mountains of western Siberia, Qilian Shan of western China, as well as
a ‘phenological' record from East China) out of 15 of their proxy
series were affected by this CO2 fertilization effect, while four
other tree ring proxy records (those from Jasper, Alberta; northern
Sweden; the Alps of southern France; and the Black Forest in Germany)
utilized in their composite curve were unaffected (see, however, the
notable examples of late-20th-century reduced tree growth in the
forests of interior central Alaska and western Canada by Jacoby and
D'Arrigo 1995; Barber et al. 2000)
A more promising explanation for a non-climatic growth response may be
related to land-use, landscape and soil nutrient changes, rather than
a direct and too early CO2 aerial fertilization effect in the late 19-
and early 20th century. Even more likely, the problem of the mismatch
between instrumental data and Crowley and Lowery's composite curve
around 1880–1920 could simply be a real difference between individual
local proxy change and Northern-Hemisphere-averaged temperature
variation that cannot be remedied by the ad hoc re-justification
scheme proposed in Crowley and Lowery (2000).
The composite curve of Crowley and Lowery was calibrated against
Northern Hemisphere-mean instrumental temperature anomalies and that
calibration suggests a Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction.
But equally well, the composite curve could be calibrated against
global temperature to produce a similar claim of statistical
association. After all, the correlation between the Northern
Hemisphere-mean and the global-mean annual temperatures over 1866–2000
is about 0.94.
However, such a process may shed no new information because modern
thermometer data, when averaged over hemispheric scales, are
relatively insensitive to regional details. Thus, the information from
the largest-scale of change has, ultimately, very limited value for
the practical problem of understanding local- and regional-scale
changes. (Both Briffa et al. 2001 and Esper et al. 2002a provide a
similar discussion on the difficulty of distinguishing among
large-scale spatial averages when calibrating regional proxy data).
As a result, the composite curve presented by Crowley and Lowery
(2000) contains little physical information, especially for objective
tests relative to the nature of the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm
Period and the 20th century warm period.
--- footnote
20 The evidence for anthropogenic CO 2 -fertilization seems to be much
weaker in Tasmania and New Zealand (see e.g., D'Arrigo et al. 1998).
--- END OF EXCERPT FROM SOON ET AL.
Mann et al - Eos 2003 - key point 2
(2) It is essential to distinguish [e.g. by compositing or otherwise
assimilating different proxy information in a consistent manner-- e.g.
Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Jones et al, 1998;
Mann et al, 1998;1999; Briffa et al, 2001] between regional
temperature anomalies and anomalies in hemispheric mean temperature
which must represent an average of temperature estimates over a
sufficiently large number of distinct regions [see e.g. Folland et al,
2001; Trenberth and Otto-Bliesner, 2003]. It is well known that
weather patterns have a wave-like character to them. This character
ensures that certain regions tend to warm (due, for example, to a
southerly flow in the Northern Hemisphere winter mid-latitudes) when
other regions cool (due to the corresponding northerly flow that must
occur elsewhere). The details of these waves (their position and
amplitude) are influenced, on climatic timescales, by processes such
as the El Niño/Southern Oscillation phenomenon. This past winter is a
case in point. January 2003 was about 2 degrees C below normal
(1961-90 base) on the east coast of the U.S., but about 4 degrees C
above normal in much of the west. Here Utah, Nevada and parts of
California and Alaska had their warmest January on record (the change
in location of the Iditarod dog sled race was a consequence of the
warmth in Alaska!). The mean temperature anomaly over the contiguous
U.S. was 1.1 C above normal, much less warm than the western U.S., and
of the opposite sign to temperature anomalies in the eastern U.S..
Global or hemispheric temperature variations over longer timescales,
in a similar manner, represent a small residual of much larger, often
canceling regional variations [e.g., Williams and Wigley, 1983;
Crowley and Lowery, 2000].
In a similar vein, it is important that to define a warm period, warm
anomalies in different regions should be synchronous and not merely
required to occur during any 50 year period within a very broad
interval in time, such as AD 800-1300, as in SB03. Figure 2
demonstrates the considerable spatial variability in temperature
variations of the past millennium, and the false impression one might
gain regarding hemispheric-scale temperature changes from the apparent
temperature changes in any particular region. The specific notions of
the 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' arose, understandably,
from the Eurocentric origins of historical climatology [e.g. Lamb,
1965]. While relative hemispheric warmth during the 10th, 11th and
12th centuries, and cool conditions during the 15th to the early 20th
century are evident from reconstructions of hemispheric-mean
temperature (Figure 1), the specific periods of coldness and warmth
apparent differ from region to region (Figure 2) from those for the
Northern Hemisphere as a whole. Rather than indicating inconsistency,
the difference between such regional and hemispheric-scale anomalies
follows naturally from the physics governing atmospheric variability.
--- END OF EXCERPT FROM MANN ET AL.
> ... To make
> this explicitly clear, one of the authors of the Crowley and Lowery
> (2000) paper criticized in S&B 2003 (E&E) is a co-author on the
> response to that paper in Eos which is first-authored by Michael
> Mann... ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/eos03.pdf ...
It's nice to agree with you on something.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux1.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> : In article <bpdtld$t0i$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
> : James Acker <jac...@linux1.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> :> [deletions]
> :>
> :> :> : that perspective. An audit is a routine quality assurance tool.
> :> :>
> :> :> And it's usually done internally, not as a publication.
> :>
> :> : The decision to formalize his findings in a publication came well after
> :> : McIntyre had compared many (and perhaps most, maybe even all of those
> :> : available) of the source files with the Mann et al pcproxy.txt file.
> :>
> :> And the bearing of that on what I said is what, exactly?
>
> : As best I recall, this part of the conversation stemmed from your
> : wondering about "what's the point of 'auditing' Mann et al.'s research
> : if there is no suspicion of error, accidental or deliberate?" My mention
> : of when the decision to formalize was made continues that discussion of
> : what was the point. I'm making clear that the point was not the
> : publication. The bearing that this has upon what you said, exactly, is
> : that your mention of publication is quite irrelevant to the question you
> : asked, which we were discussing.
>
> OK. As an aside, Dave Appell on Quark Soup indicates that
> the apparent (note qualifier) time from submission to publication
> of M&M's paper in Energy&Environment seems quite short.
As bubba pointed out (and provided supporting link) there -- Science
says it'll post important stuff within two weeks of initial receipt.
> :> ... Why not contact somebody like Esper, who's familar
> :> with the way things like this are done? Why not have a climate
> :> scientist work with you on an "audit" of climate science data?
>
> : The audit was not of Mann et al's approach to his research, it was an
> : audit of his data handling and analysis. None of the statistical tools
> : used by Mann et al originated in climate science. Lack of Esper's input
> : was probably more sorely evident in the Mann et al response to M&M, than
> : in M&M itself.
>
> That's a good point. Musing on this issue overnight, I
> thought about something. I was thinking "what would be the _best_
> way to put forth this claim of data/analysis inaccuracy?" In my
> opinion, the best way would be for a climate scientist to
> validate your results. That's why I asked why he didn't have
> a climate scientist working with him. When they first formulated
> their results and conclusions, the climate scientist would weigh in
> on whether or not it had scientific validity.
> There are two separate issues regarding M&M's paper. The
> first issue is Mann et al.'s methodology. The second is the
> alternative result ...
McIntyre and McKitrick make no claims that replicating Mann's methods
will produce a reliable product, climate-wise.
> ... with the much higher temperature peaks ~1400
> and ~1500 AD. That strong dip about about 1450 AD is really
> striking; it's in everybody's temperature reconstruction. (Was
> there a volcanic eruption at that time? Googling: YES!! It
> was apparently a huge eruption in 1453 on the New Hebrides arc
> (Vanuatu) that created the islands Tongoa and Epi as part of the
> formerly much larger Kuwae.)
>
> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/93/release_1993_1543.html
>
> (I definitely learned something new today! And I am surprised
> at how little is on the Web about this eruption, which clearly
> had global climate consequences.)
>
>
> And in everyone's temperature reconstruction, there's a "rebound" post-1450s,
> but the rebound in M&M's reanalysis is a peak, and in everybody
> else's reconstructions, (including Esper's) there's a period of
> relatively stable temperatures through about 1600, and then cooling.
> Actually, if you look at the reconstructions, temperatures were fairly
> stable from about 1200-1600 with the eruption dip the only major
> interruption.
> That spike in M&M's reanalysis is the proverbial sore
> thumb or red flag. It begs for explanation. The explanation offered
> by Mann et al. is that it's due to faulty data analysis.
Mann et al made quite a point over the effect on the early part of the
graph from M&M not including the first 71 years of series #56 - the TTHH
series by Jacoby. But it was Jacoby who withdrew those years from his
record, not M&M. If Mann et al 1998's findings were robust, they
wouldn't be so dependent on data deemed unworthy by the original
researcher.
The other two early series which Mann et al. now identify as vital to
the shape of the curve in those early years are the Stahle/SWM PC1 and
ITRDB/NOAMER PC1. I don't doubt that the different handling of these is
significant. But it stemmed from the lack of disclosure of principal
components analysis method used by Mann et al. [Aside - I'll be keeping
my ears open for Mann et al's discussion (if it comes) of whether they
disclosed the step-wise approach. Are you familiar with the movie "The
Sting"? I wouldn't be surprised to see a "Place it all on Lucky Dan"
kind of approach to the use of the word "step" somewhere. As in, "See,
we said that for this or that step, we did so and so. You didn't know
what a step meant?"] M&M used conventional PCA because there was no
other reasonable way to interpret Mann et al 1998's description of their
methodology.
> serve to make points. I made mine. ...
Ludicrous distortion has a fine tradition, yes. I hesitate to publicly
assess your aptitude for the art, based on this stab you took.
> ... I'll state it more plainly:
> McIntyre's inquiries were a flier out of nowhere. Mann probably
> recognized them as such. He was/is under no obligation to tutor
> a neophyte in the field (even one with good knowledge of statistics)
> on how he did his research.
I agree. And if Mann et al 1998 were replicable with publicly available
info by a scientist competent in the field, being indifferent to the
bothersome public would be as inconsequential for the scientist as it is
for a cop at a busy speed trap.
> And I'll add: to prosecute a claim of inaccuracy in a
> scientific publication (rather than fraud), the way to do it is to
> start from the beginning and independently do it BETTER. Then
> you publish, and you say "the previous results of Kilroy et al. are
> laden with bogosity because a) they did such-and-such wrong, b) their
> X method isn't sensitive to the Y effect, c) their Z method is sensitive to
> the ABC effect, which throws everything off, and d) our super-duper
> ZQ-double-T methodology is vastly superior to the antiquated
> procedures employed by Kilroy et al."
> In science, that's an in-your-face slam dunk.
McIntyre's audit was quite worthy of publication exactly as it was done.
I might have mentioned elsewhere that the very public vacuuming of the
Mann et al ftp site in recent days might never have been noticed if not
for the exact unfolding of events. And frankly, I think it says a lot
about Mann that instead of retracting his demonstrably, transparently
false charge (Mann's charge that the ballocksed pcproxy.txt file
provided to McIntyre was actually the product of a special compilation
attempt done after a special Excel-format request by McIntyre), Mann
chooses to remove without comment the evidence that proves his claim to
be bogus. That evidence, as has been discussed here previously, is the
existance of the very same pcproxy.txt file (and its MatLab source file,
_not_ Excel), with directory date long before McIntyre's request,
residing on the newly announced FTP site which Mann says McIntyre should
have consulted.
The thread was called "Kyoto debunked" -- the post is at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F50B52696
>
> : the methdology you used that enabled you to voice such an absolutely
> : stated conclusion. But I guess you've now demonstrated (yes, real data)
> : a commitment to whatever low standard it was, so it's no big deal that
> : didn't see fit to elaborate on that matter.
>
> I overstated my conclusions. I withdraw the "there is no
> evidence that he did" statement and rephrase it as "I am unaware at
> this point in time of any evidence that he did".
You've sure hit on an unimpeachable formulation. But I'm still curious,
given McIntyre and McKitrick's unambiguous reference to Zorita et al
1998 in one of their few public writings together, what method you used
to even warrant mention of this new and unimpeachable formulation.
> Now reply to "Response part 3" and comment on what I say
> regarding Crowley and Lowery's response to the Soon and Baliunas
> criticism.
OK - I made a point doing exactly that before hitting the post button
here.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin,
http://www.nuclear.com
Josh Halpern
Steve Schulin wrote:
>James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote,
>
SNIP.....
>This claim of yours (that the key point 2 specified by you addresses
>the section 5.3 identified by me), seems quite vacuous. Calibration
>issues dominate the section 5.3, and there is no discussion of
>calibration issues in the key point 2. I have taken the liberty of
>posting both excerpts below, for ease of comparison:
>
>Soon et al - E&E 2003 - section 5.3
>
>5.3. On criticisms of the Crowley and Lowery (2000) composite proxy
>curve
>
>Although our approach and results are not directly comparable to those
>of Mann et al. (1998, 1999, 2000a), they can be compared with the
>results of Crowley and Lowery (2000). We have decided against a
>superposition of these diverse indicators of climate proxies because
>their individual sensitivities to temperature and other climatic
>variabilities are not well defined. Thus, the calibration steps of
>using a renormalization and an arbitrary arithmetic mean, and then
>calibration with instrumental data for only selective time-intervals
>(see below), as adopted by Crowley and Lowery (2000) to produce a
>composite curve, are simply biased correlation exercises.
>
A curious argument for Baliunas and Soon given their 1995 ApJ adventure in
climate modeling, wouldn't you say?
josh halpern
James Acker
: James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote, in part, in message
: news:<boh99r$mtp$1...@news.umbc.edu>...
:> Response part 3.
:> :> : 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".
[deletions]
:> There is a legitimate question here. Can a large enough
OK. Number 1, you asked if I had seen a response. The
Mann et al. Eos article constitutes a response, because Crowley is
a co-author. Next I said you need to read the three key points,
which address how temperature reconstructions should be done.
Finally, I said, "I believe that key point 2 addresses the criticisms
directed at Crowley and Lowery (2000)...", with emphasis on "believe".
Now why did I say that? Read on, and thank you for the full
excerpts, which I will edit for emphasis.
: This claim of yours (that the key point 2 specified by you addresses
: the section 5.3 identified by me), seems quite vacuous. Calibration
: issues dominate the section 5.3, and there is no discussion of
: calibration issues in the key point 2. I have taken the liberty of
: posting both excerpts below, for ease of comparison:
: Soon et al - E&E 2003 - section 5.3
: 5.3. On criticisms of the Crowley and Lowery (2000) composite proxy
: curve
: Although our approach and results are not directly comparable to those
: of Mann et al. (1998, 1999, 2000a), they can be compared with the
: results of Crowley and Lowery (2000). We have decided against a
Emphasis on the "we", meaning Soon, Baliunas et al.
: superposition of these diverse indicators of climate proxies because
: their individual sensitivities to temperature and other climatic
: variabilities are not well defined. Thus, the calibration steps of
: using a renormalization and an arbitrary arithmetic mean, and then
: calibration with instrumental data for only selective time-intervals
: (see below), as adopted by Crowley and Lowery (2000) to produce a
: composite curve, are simply biased correlation exercises.
This is an assertion, as is the point below. It is not
backed up by any analysis. The authors just say "hey, sorry, that
doesn't work."
: A selective
: set of proxy records, each with unequal spatial-temporal resolution
: and differing in climate sensitivity cannot be combined to produce a
: composite curve as readily as Crowley and Lowery (2000) assume.
: The composite curve of Crowley and Lowery (2000) yields results
: inconsistent with its underlying proxies as well as those discussed
: here. The authors conclude that "[d]espite clear evidence for Medieval
: warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new
: hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier
: hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum
: Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20-30 year intervals
: [identified by the authors as 1010-1040, 1070-1105, and 1155-1190
: A.D.], with composite values during these times being only comparable
: to the mid-20th century warm time interval."
This would be the part of Crowley and Lowery (2000) that
they don't like.
: Crowley and Lowery later proceed to recalibrate the composite,
: non-dimensional curve to hemispheric-mean thermometer temperatures by
: using selective intervals, namely 1856-1880 and 1925-1965 A.D. The
: interval of 1880-1920 was claimed to be contaminated by "anomalous
: tree-ring growth due to the 19th century rise in CO2." In contrast,
: Bradley and Jones (1993) first produced their composite Northern
: Hemisphere temperature curve and then proceeded to improve its
: confidence by examining the potential problem of spatial sampling
: because "there are still extremely large areas for which we have no
: data." Bradley and Jones checked their composite results against the
: entire record of available instrumental summer temperature anomalies
: from about 1850 to 1980, as shown in Figure 7 of their paper. This
: approach is in sharp contrast to that of Crowley and Lowery, who
: calibrate their composite proxy curve based on limited areal coverage
: to Northern-Hemisphere-wide averaged instrumental data for only
: selective time-intervals and then claim the composite proxy
: temperature to be valid or relevant for the whole Northern Hemisphere
: and for the full time interval covered by the instrumental and proxy
: records.
[remainder of that section deleted]
: Mann et al - Eos 2003 - key point 2
: (2) It is essential to distinguish [e.g. by compositing or otherwise
: assimilating different proxy information in a consistent manner-- e.g.
: Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Jones et al, 1998;
: Mann et al, 1998;1999; Briffa et al, 2001] between regional
: temperature anomalies and anomalies in hemispheric mean temperature
: which must represent an average of temperature estimates over a
: sufficiently large number of distinct regions [see e.g. Folland et al,
: 2001; Trenberth and Otto-Bliesner, 2003].
[remainder of excerpt deleted]
Now let's go back and see what Soon, Baliunas et al.
say that Crowley and Lowery did.
"The composite curve of Crowley and Lowery (2000) yields results..."
"Crowley and Lowery later proceed to recalibrate the composite,
non-dimensional curve to hemispheric-mean thermometer temperatures by
using selective intervals, ..."
I read the beginning of key part 2 as describing the
methodology that must be used to produce long-term hemispheric
temperature records. Soon and Baliunas criticize the methodology
employed by Crowley and Lowery (without backing up their criticism
with an analysis indicating why the procedures employed by Crowley
and Lowery aren't appropriate) to produce their composite record.
Though Crowley and Lowery (2000) are not explicitly mentioned here,
the way that they did their reconstruction is one way of "compositing
or otherwise assimilating different proxy information in a
consistent manner." That's why I said that this point addressed
the criticism of Crowley and Lowery in the Soon, Baliunas et al.
paper.
It is certainly true that a more detailed response directly
addressing the points raised by Soon, Baliunas et al. against
Crowley and Lowery (2000) could be formulated by Crowley and Lowery.
However, given the general disdain for the Soon, Baliunas et al.
paper in the climate science community, I doubt that they would
want to give it that much regard.
And then let's remember the final statement of the Mann et al.
Eos paper, which is likely supported by all of the co-authors:
"Nevertheless, the conclusion that the late-20th century hemispheric-
scale warmth is anomalous in a long-term (at least millenial) context,
and that anthropogenic factors likely play an important role in
explaining the anomalous recent warmth, is a robust consensus view."
Consider that another response from Crowley to Soon,
Baliunas et al.'s criticism of their methods.
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Since you apparently think this line of reasoning is good enough for
you, please apply similar reasoning before you request my reply in the
future. Instead, just look at a random response of mine to, say, Ian,
and imagine that its your proclivity to strained explanations to which
I'm referring.
Ian St. John
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-477...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> In article <4ltub.7569$ZF1.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote:
>
> > "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> > news:steve.schulin-3AB...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> > > In article <bpbm55$s3f$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
> > > James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote, in part:
> > <snip>
> > > I do believe there has been a fraud perpetrated upon the public in
this
> > > matter, but one need not assume that Mann et al were the ones who
> > > engaged in the fraud.
> >
> > Obviously M&M are perpetrating a fraud on the public in this matter with
> > their totally bogus 'paper' on the research. That IS what you meant,
right?
>
> Ian, I'm very glad to see you asking questions when you don't
> understand.
It is always a good idea. M&M ought to have tried it but seem to have let
their 'agenda' drive their 'amateur research'.
> The answer to your question is no. If you'd like to learn
> more, please don't hesitate to ask, or to check out my prior description
> of the specific fraud referenced here.
Well that's a problem since you really don't show any fraud, other than your
references to the M&M distortions. It isn't clear yet if their paper is a
true fraud or merely amateur in nature.
> That description is contained in
> my Oct 26, 2003 reply to, uh, you (in the thread titled "IPCC chair
> Pachauri's pro-Kyoto bias revealed").
I actually don't have that post. It's missing between my Oct 24th and Oct
27'th responses. Not sure how I responded on the 27th to a message I can't
find now.. However, I gather you mean..
[Steve]
They used to include a link to USHCN. But during a quick peek today, I
didn't see such a link. So I apologize for passing along formerly true
info as if I were sure of its truthfulness still.
I don't see the application..Did you mean the distorted 'analysis' of
climate trends from selective and inappropriate treatment of single station
weather data?
Or is this about the criticisms of the USHCN that didn't stand up?
James Acker
: In article <bpga7p$stk$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
: James Acker <jac...@linux1.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[deletions]
: As bubba pointed out (and provided supporting link) there -- Science
: says it'll post important stuff within two weeks of initial receipt.
:> :> ... Why not contact somebody like Esper, who's familar
:> :> with the way things like this are done? Why not have a climate
:> :> scientist work with you on an "audit" of climate science data?
:>
:> : The audit was not of Mann et al's approach to his research, it was an
:> : audit of his data handling and analysis. None of the statistical tools
:> : used by Mann et al originated in climate science. Lack of Esper's input
:> : was probably more sorely evident in the Mann et al response to M&M, than
:> : in M&M itself.
:>
:> That's a good point. Musing on this issue overnight, I
:> thought about something. I was thinking "what would be the _best_
:> way to put forth this claim of data/analysis inaccuracy?" In my
:> opinion, the best way would be for a climate scientist to
:> validate your results. That's why I asked why he didn't have
:> a climate scientist working with him. When they first formulated
:> their results and conclusions, the climate scientist would weigh in
:> on whether or not it had scientific validity.
:> There are two separate issues regarding M&M's paper. The
:> first issue is Mann et al.'s methodology. The second is the
:> alternative result ...
: McIntyre and McKitrick make no claims that replicating Mann's methods
: will produce a reliable product, climate-wise.
And yet they publish a paper claiming that "mistakes were
made", which might have the result of casting doubt on the legitimacy of
Mann et al.'s analysis with respect to paleoclimate and global
temperature patterns.
This is why I think that they should have allied themselves
with a legitimate climate scientist before rushing to publication.
A climate scientist would/should have looked at the results of
their reconstructed reanalysis (or whatever it should be called) and
said, "Wait a minute. There's a problem here. Those big excursions
around 1400 and 1500 don't make sense. They aren't in anyone
else's reconstructions. Before we go claiming that Mann et al.
made some serious mistakes, we should back up that claim by showing
that the reanalysis is more valid than his published results."
A climate scientist would/should want to know why the changes
in the analysis resulted in such a big change in the pattern of
climate variability, and a climate scientists should also want to
know if there's a reasonable cause for such patterns. I wanted
to know the cause of that big decrease in temperature around
1450, and to my surprise, I found an explanation.
It's somewhat axiomatic in science that if you are about
to claim a major revision in understanding in a particular field is in
order, you check, double-check, and then re-check before you
submit your publication. Backfilling of the sort that McIntyre
and McKitrick are engaged in now is not a hallmark of good science.
But there are many ways to argue that what McIntyre and McKitrick
are doing is not scientific anyway. I've already done that.
:> ... with the much higher temperature peaks ~1400
:> and ~1500 AD. That strong dip about about 1450 AD is really
:> striking; it's in everybody's temperature reconstruction. (Was
:> there a volcanic eruption at that time? Googling: YES!! It
:> was apparently a huge eruption in 1453 on the New Hebrides arc
:> (Vanuatu) that created the islands Tongoa and Epi as part of the
:> formerly much larger Kuwae.)
:>
:> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/93/release_1993_1543.html
:>
:> (I definitely learned something new today! And I am surprised
:> at how little is on the Web about this eruption, which clearly
:> had global climate consequences.)
:>
:>
:> And in everyone's temperature reconstruction, there's a "rebound"
:> post-1450s,
:> but the rebound in M&M's reanalysis is a peak, and in everybody
:> else's reconstructions, (including Esper's) there's a period of
:> relatively stable temperatures through about 1600, and then cooling.
:> Actually, if you look at the reconstructions, temperatures were fairly
:> stable from about 1200-1600 with the eruption dip the only major
:> interruption.
:> That spike in M&M's reanalysis is the proverbial sore
:> thumb or red flag. It begs for explanation. The explanation offered
:> by Mann et al. is that it's due to faulty data analysis.
: Mann et al made quite a point over the effect on the early part of the
: graph from M&M not including the first 71 years of series #56 - the TTHH
: series by Jacoby. But it was Jacoby who withdrew those years from his
: record, not M&M. If Mann et al 1998's findings were robust, they
: wouldn't be so dependent on data deemed unworthy by the original
: researcher.
: The other two early series which Mann et al. now identify as vital to
: the shape of the curve in those early years are the Stahle/SWM PC1 and
: ITRDB/NOAMER PC1. I don't doubt that the different handling of these is
: significant. But it stemmed from the lack of disclosure of principal
: components analysis method used by Mann et al. [Aside - I'll be keeping
: my ears open for Mann et al's discussion (if it comes) of whether they
: disclosed the step-wise approach. Are you familiar with the movie "The
: Sting"? I wouldn't be surprised to see a "Place it all on Lucky Dan"
: kind of approach to the use of the word "step" somewhere. As in, "See,
: we said that for this or that step, we did so and so. You didn't know
: what a step meant?"] M&M used conventional PCA because there was no
: other reasonable way to interpret Mann et al 1998's description of their
: methodology.
I really don't know. If you have Mann et al. 1998 handy, in
the Methods section, in the paragraph on page 786, column 2, beginning:
"Proxy-reconstructed patterns are thus obtained...", that sentence
continues "during the pre-calibration interval by the year-by-year
solution of the overdetermined matrix equation Gz=ysub(j), where ysub(j)
is the predictor vector of values of each of the P proxy indicators
during year j. The predictand solution vector z=U contains the
least-squares optimal values of each of the Nsub(eofs) PCs for
a given year."
Because I'm not a statistician, I can't tell if they're
discussing the stepwise PCA here. PCs are obviously principal
components, so it's possible that they are. If so, then this
year-by-year method as described might be the "stepwise" PCA
that has been mentioned elsewhere. The method sounds like it's
an "iterative" method, which can be termed "stepwise".
In the body of the paper, on page 781, their PCA method
is described in a long paragraph starting about the middle of
column 1, and in a second paragraph starting at the bottom of
the first column. That second paragraph ends "The details of
the entire statistical approach are described in the Methods
section." I assumed that if they used a stepwise PCA method,
that it should therefore be in the Methods section. The
"year-by-year" phrase is the closest thing to "stepwise" that
I can find.
Throwing aside all invective for a paragraph, what
do you think? Is this where Mann et al. are describing the
stepwise PCA method they used? Or is stepwise PCA something
entirely different?
[deletions]
:> McIntyre's inquiries were a flier out of nowhere. Mann probably
:> recognized them as such. He was/is under no obligation to tutor
:> a neophyte in the field (even one with good knowledge of statistics)
:> on how he did his research.
: I agree. And if Mann et al 1998 were replicable with publicly available
: info by a scientist competent in the field, being indifferent to the
: bothersome public would be as inconsequential for the scientist as it is
: for a cop at a busy speed trap.
I don't quite get the analogy. It seems to me that you're
saying that Mann et al.'s results aren't replicable with publically
available info by a scientist competent in the field. That hasn't
been demonstrated.
:> And I'll add: to prosecute a claim of inaccuracy in a
:> scientific publication (rather than fraud), the way to do it is to
:> start from the beginning and independently do it BETTER. Then
:> you publish, and you say "the previous results of Kilroy et al. are
:> laden with bogosity because a) they did such-and-such wrong, b) their
:> X method isn't sensitive to the Y effect, c) their Z method is sensitive to
:> the ABC effect, which throws everything off, and d) our super-duper
:> ZQ-double-T methodology is vastly superior to the antiquated
:> procedures employed by Kilroy et al."
:> In science, that's an in-your-face slam dunk.
: McIntyre's audit was quite worthy of publication exactly as it was done.
That's a strong statement, considering that it's apparent
they didn't know the reasons that their reanalysis didn't agree with
Mann et al.'s results and disagreed with temperature reconstructions
from other groups. Furthermore, I think it's possible that I've
found the section in Mann et al. 1998 where the stepwise PCA method
is described; if I did, and if they missed it, then to put it
charitably, they screwed the pooch.
: I might have mentioned elsewhere that the very public vacuuming of the
: Mann et al ftp site in recent days might never have been noticed if not
: for the exact unfolding of events. And frankly, I think it says a lot
: about Mann that instead of retracting his demonstrably, transparently
: false charge (Mann's charge that the ballocksed pcproxy.txt file
: provided to McIntyre was actually the product of a special compilation
: attempt done after a special Excel-format request by McIntyre), Mann
: chooses to remove without comment the evidence that proves his claim to
: be bogus. That evidence, as has been discussed here previously, is the
: existance of the very same pcproxy.txt file (and its MatLab source file,
: _not_ Excel), with directory date long before McIntyre's request,
: residing on the newly announced FTP site which Mann says McIntyre should
: have consulted.
As I noted somewhere else, I expect to see some clarifications
from Mann's side eventually. But for them to react precipitously would
be giving too much weight to McIntyre and McKitrick's paper. As he
said, the proper forum for the discussion is in the peer-reviewed
literature.
It doesn't change the fact that the course of action pursued
by McIntyre and McKitrick is not proper scientific practice. If
the file was bad, they should have made more effort to find out
why.
[deletions]
I'm going to end this here and make a briefer reply to
the end of the previous posting.
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"
James Acker
: In article <bpga7p$stk$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
: James Acker <jac...@linux1.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[deletions to here]
:> :> Got this off the Web site:
:> :>
:> :> "Part 3, now under way, will seek to resolve the outstanding
:> :> differences between our computational methods and those of MBH.
:> :> Completion of this part will be contingent on our receiving the
:> :> specific computer programs MBH used, and we are seeking this disclosure."
:>
:> : Ah, there's that onus you speak of rearing its ugly whatever. If Mann et
:> : al 1998's methods are replicable without the sought disclosure, then M&M
:> : don't hold the high ground on this. But, the Mann et al 1998 paper
:> : referred to conventional PCA -- expressly referred to it. If Mann et al
:> : hadn't recently announced that they had used a stepwise approach, these
:> : additional questions might never have been raised, by anybody.
Having read the Mann et al. 1998 paper again, at no point is
the phrase "conventional PCA" used. The first time I can find it
is in the September 9, 2003 email message from McIntyre to Mann, where
it is McIntyre that says, "In MBH98, you say that you carried out
"conventional" PCA, but there is so much missing data that conventional
PCA failed when I tried." Why did McIntyre put "conventional" in
quotes? Here's what the Mann et al. 1998 paper says:
"We isolate the dominant patterns of the instrumental
surface-temperature data through principal component analysis
(PCA)" with reference 25 to Preisendorfer.
Now here's the key part. At the end of the following
paragraph, they write:
"Following this calibration, we apply an overdetermined
optimization procedure to determine the best combination of
eigenvectors represented by the multiproxy network back in
time on a year-by-year basis" (pause to allow rereading of
that phrase) "with a spatial coverage dictated only by the spatial
extent of the instrumental training data."
Now, follow my reasoning. PCA expresses the dominant
patterns of variability as "empirical eigenvectors".
The year-by-year procedure determines the best combination of
eigenvectors for each year where the multiproxy network is being
used to calculate temperature. Thus, it would appear that this section
describes the utilization of PCA to analyze the multiproxy network
"year-by-year". More on this appears in the Methods section,
which I mention in my previous post.
So, again, does "year-by-year" equate with
"stepwise"? Did McIntyre think that what Mann described was
"conventional" PCA, and did he not understand the year-by-year
calculation procedure? (Did McIntyre's use of quotes act as a
referent for a well-known standard statistical procedure?)
:> And that may be an interesting aspect of this. Until more is
:> said, explained, and verified from the involved parties, I couldn't
:> make any useful comment.
:>
:> :> :> In a reply to McIntyre, Mann suggests that he read
:> :> :> Zorita et al. 1998. Did McIntyre try to do that? There's no
:> :> :> evidence that he did. ...
:> :>
:> :> : I've seen such evidence. I'm curious as to the methdology you have used
:> :> : that enables you to voice such an absolutely stated conclusion. I'm also
:> :> : curious if this is typical of the standard you use in what I would call
:> :> : 'jumping to conclusion'.
:> :>
:> :> Sorry. There is no evidence in the email correspondence or
:> :> on the Web site that he did. ...
:>
:> : Actually, the evidence I'm referring to was on the web site. See my post
:> : of October 30 that mentions Zorita for details. I'm still curious as to
:>
:> In this thread? (URL or tinyurl would be appreciated)
: The thread was called "Kyoto debunked" -- the post is at
: http://makeashorterlink.com/?F50B52696
I've now read that. It sheds little light, unfortunately.
If Mann thinks that Zorita did it correctly, then somehow Zorita
figured out how to do it correctly.
:> : the methdology you used that enabled you to voice such an absolutely
:> : stated conclusion. But I guess you've now demonstrated (yes, real data)
:> : a commitment to whatever low standard it was, so it's no big deal that
:> : didn't see fit to elaborate on that matter.
:>
:> I overstated my conclusions. I withdraw the "there is no
:> evidence that he did" statement and rephrase it as "I am unaware at
:> this point in time of any evidence that he did".
: You've sure hit on an unimpeachable formulation. But I'm still curious,
: given McIntyre and McKitrick's unambiguous reference to Zorita et al
: 1998 in one of their few public writings together, what method you used
: to even warrant mention of this new and unimpeachable formulation.
The first time I saw Zorita et al. mentioned was in Mann's
email reply to McIntyre, which I saw via accessing the Quark Soup
links. I hope that clears it up.
Nigel Persaud
> the phrase "conventional PCA" used.
Better read carefully before making such categorical statements. See
page 786 of MBH98, left column
"For each grid-point, the mean was removed, and the series was
normalized by its standard deviation. A standardized data matrix Tof
the data is formed by weighting each grid-point by the cosine of its
central latitude to ensure areally proportional contributed variance,
and a conventional Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is performed..."
James Acker
:> Having read the Mann et al. 1998 paper again, at no point is
Thanks greatly, Nigel, I did indeed miss that. However, it should
be pointed out that this conventional PCA was not performed on the
multiproxy network of temperature indicators, it was performed on
the calibration data set of instrumental temperature records from
1902-1995. I can see that this could be where McIntyre and McKitrick
made the mistaken assumption that Mann et al. performed conventional
PCA on the multiproxy network (the data from the "pre-calibration
interval").
Very interesting indeed. Thanks again for providing this
clarification.
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...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Yes they do. And that's an entirely independent matter than the one to
which you're replying. There is no "And yet" sort of inconsistency
between the two positions they take.
>
> This is why I think that they should have allied themselves
> with a legitimate climate scientist before rushing to publication.
Ah, rushing. Quite an imagination you've got there, Jim. If they would
have followed all your unsolicited advice, we might never have seen the
UVa ftp directory get vacuumed like we did. I for one am glad to know
for a fact that Mann is quite capable of removing contrary evidence
before, or even possibly in lieu of, retracting the accusations he made
which the evidence flatly contradicts. The only rushing I've seen of any
import in this exchange of ideas has been that rush to vacuum by Mann or
his designee. So, I'm glad M&M did things as they did. I don't claim to
know what Mann et al 1998's famous graph looks like when their same
method is used and data errors are corrected. I hope that someday we
will find out.
> A climate scientist would/should have looked at the results of
> their reconstructed reanalysis (or whatever it should be called) and
> said, "Wait a minute. There's a problem here. Those big excursions
> around 1400 and 1500 don't make sense. ...
You continue to seem to think that M&M are defending the Mann et al
method. That is not the case.
> ... They aren't in anyone
> else's reconstructions. Before we go claiming that Mann et al.
> made some serious mistakes, we should back up that claim by showing
> that the reanalysis is more valid than his published results."
> A climate scientist would/should want to know why the changes
> in the analysis resulted in such a big change in the pattern of
> climate variability, and a climate scientists should also want to
> know if there's a reasonable cause for such patterns. I wanted
> to know the cause of that big decrease in temperature around
> 1450, and to my surprise, I found an explanation.
>
> It's somewhat axiomatic in science that if you are about
> to claim a major revision in understanding in a particular field is in
> order, you check, double-check, and then re-check before you
> submit your publication. Backfilling of the sort that McIntyre
> and McKitrick are engaged in now is not a hallmark of good science.
I respectfully disagree. Replication is a very important part of
science. I continue to be amazed that so many folks who appear to be
formally trained in science express similar sentiments as you.
The use of stepwise PCA for tree ring data is not even hinted at in the
Mann et al al 1998 paper or supplementary info. Both conventional and
stepwise PCA would yield annual time series, so the "year-by-year"
phrase is not a clue in that regard. The p. 786 paragraph you quote is a
description of linear regression -- nothing to do with the form of the
PCA. Stepwise in this case means using different site rosters in
different periods. Mann et al's recent disclosure that they changed the
number of PCs for their tree ring regions over time begs the question of
how many PCs were used in each region in each period. McIntyre's
background has involved similar detective work on other data, and his
claim about this particular unreplicable part of the Mann et al 1998
methodology is a serious one. But I'd like to stress that it may turn
out to be a very minor part of the difference between the curves shown
in M&M Fig. 8. Of course, we'll never know for sure unless Mann et al.
complete their disclosure.
>
> [deletions]
>
> :> McIntyre's inquiries were a flier out of nowhere. Mann probably
> :> recognized them as such. He was/is under no obligation to tutor
> :> a neophyte in the field (even one with good knowledge of statistics)
> :> on how he did his research.
>
> : I agree. And if Mann et al 1998 were replicable with publicly available
> : info by a scientist competent in the field, being indifferent to the
> : bothersome public would be as inconsequential for the scientist as it is
> : for a cop at a busy speed trap.
>
> I don't quite get the analogy. It seems to me that you're
> saying that Mann et al.'s results aren't replicable with publically
> available info by a scientist competent in the field. That hasn't
> been demonstrated.
There's no analogy. And M&M are not going beyond their scientific
competence in the audit they performed. M&M don't presume to assess
whether Mann et al's choice of datasets is appropriate for the task.
>
> :> And I'll add: to prosecute a claim of inaccuracy in a
> :> scientific publication (rather than fraud), the way to do it is to
> :> start from the beginning and independently do it BETTER. Then
> :> you publish, and you say "the previous results of Kilroy et al. are
> :> laden with bogosity because a) they did such-and-such wrong, b) their
> :> X method isn't sensitive to the Y effect, c) their Z method is sensitive
> :> to
> :> the ABC effect, which throws everything off, and d) our super-duper
> :> ZQ-double-T methodology is vastly superior to the antiquated
> :> procedures employed by Kilroy et al."
> :> In science, that's an in-your-face slam dunk.
>
> : McIntyre's audit was quite worthy of publication exactly as it was done.
>
> That's a strong statement, considering that it's apparent
> they didn't know the reasons that their reanalysis didn't agree with
> Mann et al.'s results and disagreed with temperature reconstructions
> from other groups. ...
Your choice to use the word "reanalysis" reflects your confusion. M&M
attempted to "replicate". A replication is a much narrower task than a
reanalysis. A replication would use the same methods. I agree that M&M
were not able to replicate Mann et al, but this does not convert their
effort into a reanalysis.
> ... Furthermore, I think it's possible that I've
> found the section in Mann et al. 1998 where the stepwise PCA method
> is described; if I did, and if they missed it, then to put it
> charitably, they screwed the pooch.
"Place it on Lucky Pooch."
>
> : I might have mentioned elsewhere that the very public vacuuming of the
> : Mann et al ftp site in recent days might never have been noticed if not
> : for the exact unfolding of events. And frankly, I think it says a lot
> : about Mann that instead of retracting his demonstrably, transparently
> : false charge (Mann's charge that the ballocksed pcproxy.txt file
> : provided to McIntyre was actually the product of a special compilation
> : attempt done after a special Excel-format request by McIntyre), Mann
> : chooses to remove without comment the evidence that proves his claim to
> : be bogus. That evidence, as has been discussed here previously, is the
> : existance of the very same pcproxy.txt file (and its MatLab source file,
> : _not_ Excel), with directory date long before McIntyre's request,
> : residing on the newly announced FTP site which Mann says McIntyre should
> : have consulted.
>
> As I noted somewhere else, I expect to see some clarifications
> from Mann's side eventually. But for them to react precipitously would
> be giving too much weight to McIntyre and McKitrick's paper. As he
> said, the proper forum for the discussion is in the peer-reviewed
> literature.
> It doesn't change the fact that the course of action pursued
> by McIntyre and McKitrick is not proper scientific practice. If
> the file was bad, they should have made more effort to find out
> why.
I respectfully disagree. McIntyre went to the source data. He found out
things he wouldn't otherwise have found. Very proper practice. As for
whether he should have continued to correspond with Mann after Mann said
he wouldn't respond to more inquiries, well, you're sure entitled to
your opinion. I respectfully disagree with you on that, too, if that's
what you mean about "more effort to find out why ... the file was [if]
bad".
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Mann et al 1998 do not disclose enough information to replicate their
PCA of the tree ring data. As another poster has highlighted, the phrase
"conventional Principal Component Analysis" is used by Mann et al 1998.
But I'd like to stress that this phrase in the discussion of calibration
methods is not a contradiction with Mann et al's recent disclosure about
stepwise PCA of the tree ring data. But it does highlight the lack of
disclosure about the stepwise PCA of the tree ring data.
>
> :> And that may be an interesting aspect of this. Until more is
> :> said, explained, and verified from the involved parties, I couldn't
> :> make any useful comment.
> :>
> :> :> :> In a reply to McIntyre, Mann suggests that he read
> :> :> :> Zorita et al. 1998. Did McIntyre try to do that? There's no
> :> :> :> evidence that he did. ...
> :> :>
> :> :> : I've seen such evidence. I'm curious as to the methdology you have
> :> :> : used
> :> :> : that enables you to voice such an absolutely stated conclusion. I'm
> :> :> : also
> :> :> : curious if this is typical of the standard you use in what I would
> :> :> : call
> :> :> : 'jumping to conclusion'.
> :> :>
> :> :> Sorry. There is no evidence in the email correspondence or
> :> :> on the Web site that he did. ...
> :>
> :> : Actually, the evidence I'm referring to was on the web site. See my post
> :> : of October 30 that mentions Zorita for details. I'm still curious as to
> :>
> :> In this thread? (URL or tinyurl would be appreciated)
>
> : The thread was called "Kyoto debunked" -- the post is at
> : http://makeashorterlink.com/?F50B52696
>
> I've now read that. It sheds little light, unfortunately.
> If Mann thinks that Zorita did it correctly, then somehow Zorita
> figured out how to do it correctly.
Mann did not say that Zorita replicated Mann et al. The "did it
correctly" notion you voice is thus quite misleading, as was Mann's
reference to what Zorita did.
>
> :> : the methdology you used that enabled you to voice such an absolutely
> :> : stated conclusion. But I guess you've now demonstrated (yes, real data)
> :> : a commitment to whatever low standard it was, so it's no big deal that
> :> : didn't see fit to elaborate on that matter.
> :>
> :> I overstated my conclusions. I withdraw the "there is no
> :> evidence that he did" statement and rephrase it as "I am unaware at
> :> this point in time of any evidence that he did".
>
> : You've sure hit on an unimpeachable formulation. But I'm still curious,
> : given McIntyre and McKitrick's unambiguous reference to Zorita et al
> : 1998 in one of their few public writings together, what method you used
> : to even warrant mention of this new and unimpeachable formulation.
>
> The first time I saw Zorita et al. mentioned was in Mann's
> email reply to McIntyre, which I saw via accessing the Quark Soup
> links. I hope that clears it up.
Yes it does. You could have phrased your meaning as a simple question
reflecting your lack of any factchecking, or you could have phrased it
as you variously did. I do appreciate your forthright answers to my
contentious questions on this matter.
James Acker
: James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
As noted, the Methods discussion indicates precisely where
conventional PCA was performed, and on what data. The question
that is unanswered -- by you, by McIntyre -- is whether the paragraph
on page 786, right column, beginning "Proxy-reconstructed patterns..."
provides a sufficient description of the method used to enable
replication. If M&M completely missed the fact that this is what
is being described here, i.e., a "non-conventional" PCA, then M&M
haven't shown that Mann didn't provide enough information. (Neither
have you.)
I'll also note that if you read McIntyre's September 9
email message to Mann, he's asking why his conventional PCA analysis
of the 1902-1995 data failed; he asks Mann to explain certain
aspects of the data analysis.
In his reply to McIntyre and McKitrick's paper, Mann uses the term
stepwise PCA. I wish I could ask him if the "year-by-year solution of
the overdetermined matrix equation" is what he meant by stepwise
PCA. Since I don't know, I can't agree with you that Mann et al.
1998 did not disclose enough information about their stepwise PCA
method. (This is separate from data series issues, but you are on
record as saying that Mann et al. expressly used conventional
PCA. As far as I can tell by a straightforward reading of the text,
the only place it is clear that they used conventional PCA is on
the instrumental data record between 1902-1995, the calibration
interval.)
: But I'd like to stress that this phrase in the discussion of calibration
: methods is not a contradiction with Mann et al's recent disclosure about
: stepwise PCA of the tree ring data. But it does highlight the lack of
: disclosure about the stepwise PCA of the tree ring data.
If the paragraph I've highlighted describes a stepwise PCA method,
then there is NO issue about disclosure here. I don't think you will
or can dispute that there is a data analysis method described there.
The repeated references to PCs (and he's not talking about Political
Correctnesses) indicate to me that this a PCA method. And if
"year-by-year" isn't essentially equivalent to "stepwise", I would
be mightily surprised.
So I'd have to say that M&M's conclusions regarding
point (i) in their paper are particularly shaky.
:> I've now read that. It sheds little light, unfortunately.
:> If Mann thinks that Zorita did it correctly, then somehow Zorita
:> figured out how to do it correctly.
: Mann did not say that Zorita replicated Mann et al. The "did it
: correctly" notion you voice is thus quite misleading, as was Mann's
: reference to what Zorita did.
Shall we quote?
"Other researchers have successfully implemented our
methodology based on the information provided in our articles
(see e.g. Zorita, E. ...")"
OK. Mann doesn't say that Zorita et al. "did it correctly",
he says that Zorita et al. "successfully implemented our methodology".
I don't think that I claimed Zorita et al. replicated Mann.
I think I wondered if McIntyre had consulted that paper for
additional information to understand Mann et al.'s methods. Maybe
he should even have consulted Zorita.
:> :> : the methdology you used that enabled you to voice such an absolutely
:> :> : stated conclusion. But I guess you've now demonstrated (yes, real data)
:> :> : a commitment to whatever low standard it was, so it's no big deal that
:> :> : didn't see fit to elaborate on that matter.
:> :>
:> :> I overstated my conclusions. I withdraw the "there is no
:> :> evidence that he did" statement and rephrase it as "I am unaware at
:> :> this point in time of any evidence that he did".
:>
:> : You've sure hit on an unimpeachable formulation. But I'm still curious,
:> : given McIntyre and McKitrick's unambiguous reference to Zorita et al
:> : 1998 in one of their few public writings together, what method you used
:> : to even warrant mention of this new and unimpeachable formulation.
:>
:> The first time I saw Zorita et al. mentioned was in Mann's
:> email reply to McIntyre, which I saw via accessing the Quark Soup
:> links. I hope that clears it up.
: Yes it does. You could have phrased your meaning as a simple question
: reflecting your lack of any factchecking, or you could have phrased it
: as you variously did. I do appreciate your forthright answers to my
: contentious questions on this matter.
Likewise. How about answering this contentious question?
-- Does the paragraph on page 786, right column, beginning
"Proxy-reconstructed patterns..." describe a stepwise Principal
Components Analysis method?"
"Yes", "No", or "I don't have sufficient knowledge of
statistical analysis to answer that" are all acceptable responses.
Jim Acker
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
Nigel Persaud
> In sci.environment Nigel Persaud <pers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :> Having read the Mann et al. 1998 paper again, at no point is
> :> the phrase "conventional PCA" used.
>
> : Better read carefully before making such categorical statements. See
> : page 786 of MBH98, left column
>
> : "For each grid-point, the mean was removed, and the series was
> : normalized by its standard deviation. A standardized data matrix Tof
> : the data is formed by weighting each grid-point by the cosine of its
> : central latitude to ensure areally proportional contributed variance,
> : and a conventional Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is performed..."
>
> Thanks greatly, Nigel, I did indeed miss that. However, it should
> be pointed out that this conventional PCA was not performed on the
> multiproxy network of temperature indicators, it was performed on
> the calibration data set of instrumental temperature records from
> 1902-1995. I can see that this could be where McIntyre and McKitrick
> made the mistaken assumption that Mann et al. performed conventional
> PCA on the multiproxy network (the data from the "pre-calibration
> interval").
>
> Very interesting indeed. Thanks again for providing this
> clarification.
>
No trouble. BTW it's not at all clear that Mann performed
"conventional" PCA on the temperature data. There's usually a lot of
missing data in these datasets, so I'd be very doubtful that Mann has
accurately described his methods here.
If Mann's PCA procedure was not "conventional" for the tree rings,
then I would say that it was Mann's obligation to disclose what he
did, including all the parameters - all the stuff that M&M are
demanding. In the absence of explicit disclosure otherwise, I don't
see that M&M's use of conventional PCA is unreasonable. If the whole
disputes turns on this fairly subtle issue, then M&M may have done a
service in bringing this to light. As I understand the to-and-fro,
Mann has still not disclosed exactly what he did.
David Ball
wrote:
First of all, who are M&M to demand anything? Secondly, what
they need to do is do the number crunching themselves. If they are
unhappy with the results that MBH came up with, don't try to do a
simplified analysis using a partial dataset then claim that they are
right when the preponderance of data says otherwise. Do some original
work with the data and PROVE that MBH - and all the other independent
research that supports their conclusions - is wrong.
James Acker
I think there's a phrase in one of the email messages from
McIntyre to Mann where he notes that the Methods description is
"necessarily terse". There are only very rare cases where that is
_not_ true of any scientific paper. It is extraordinarily rare
for all but some very simple papers for the "Methods" section to allow
researchers to exactly duplicate what was done without some form
of clarification.
In my exchanges with Steve Schulin, the paper by Zorita et
al. has been mentioned. Mann says that Zorita et al. "successfully
implemented our methodology". If it was so hard to figure out and
understand, I would like to know how Zorita et al. were able to do that.
It may be that Mann or someone else very familiar with the methodology
coached them in its use.
Finally, what M&M did and are doing is simply not the normal
way of conducting science. Unless there is a significant suspicion
of actual fraud, data sets are not "audited", explicit and detailed
methodology is not requested, and people certainly do not publish
papers claiming errors in other researcher's work unless they have
a comprehensive understanding of what those errors are.
Science is truly conducted as an iterative process of
thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The thesis/antithesis aspect
of it can go on for years and decades in some cases. In essence
the dialogue goes like this: "You did that; we did this;
you did it wrong; we did it right; our results are much more
meaningful than yours; now its your turn to prove that
you're right and we're wrong. Until you do that, we're right."
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> : James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> replication. ...
This section you cite isn't discussing the same part of the work as the
newly-disclosed stepwise PCA was used for. What's your beef?
> ... If M&M completely missed the fact that this is what
> is being described here, i.e., a "non-conventional" PCA, then M&M
> haven't shown that Mann didn't provide enough information. (Neither
> have you.)
I respectfully note that the "fact" you offer as possibly being
completely missed is a completely _irrelevant fact_ when it comes to
understanding how the tree ring data was transformed into the time
series that were placed into the columns eventually ballocksed in
pcproxy.txt.
>
> I'll also note that if you read McIntyre's September 9
> email message to Mann, he's asking why his conventional PCA analysis
> of the 1902-1995 data failed; ...
Yes. And in the M&M paper, the authors describe their best attempt to
replicate this part of the project. Since we're talking about the tree
ring PCA in this exchange, I'd like to stress that the Sept 9 email was
about the temperature PCs, and has absolutely nothing to do with
transforming diverse tree ring data into the ring width time series.
> ... he asks Mann to explain certain
> aspects of the data analysis.
>
> In his reply to McIntyre and McKitrick's paper, Mann uses the term
> stepwise PCA. I wish I could ask him if the "year-by-year solution of
> the overdetermined matrix equation" is what he meant by stepwise
> PCA. Since I don't know, I can't agree with you that Mann et al.
> 1998 did not disclose enough information about their stepwise PCA
> method. (This is separate from data series issues, but you are on
> record as saying that Mann et al. expressly used conventional
> PCA. ...
You appear to be traveling down a trail which says that it doesn't
matter what kind of disclosure was made about the specifics of the
stepwise PCA used in one part of the work if there's a hint that a
stepwise PCA was used in another part of the work. You're certainly free
to hold such an opinion, but I'd note that this position gains you
nothing in terms of replicability. I also think that this position would
be quite unreasonable. Mann et al 1998 were quite explicit when they
referred to one part of their work as conventional PCA. There is no
detail provided about the construction of the tree ring series which
suggests anything other than conventional PCA. If a replicator were to
choose to use a stepwise approach, how would he or she decide on how
many PCs to use in each region in each period? We still don't know the
answer to that question, and it wasn't until the last 30 days that we
even learned it was an important question to ask.
> ... As far as I can tell by a straightforward reading of the text,
> the only place it is clear that they used conventional PCA is on
> the instrumental data record between 1902-1995, the calibration
> interval.)
Yes. And it turns out that they didn't do that conventionally either.
>
> : But I'd like to stress that this phrase in the discussion of calibration
> : methods is not a contradiction with Mann et al's recent disclosure about
> : stepwise PCA of the tree ring data. But it does highlight the lack of
> : disclosure about the stepwise PCA of the tree ring data.
>
> If the paragraph I've highlighted describes a stepwise PCA method,
> then there is NO issue about disclosure here. ...
I guess I was right about the path you were on.
> ... I don't think you will
> or can dispute that there is a data analysis method described there.
> The repeated references to PCs (and he's not talking about Political
> Correctnesses) indicate to me that this a PCA method. And if
> "year-by-year" isn't essentially equivalent to "stepwise", I would
> be mightily surprised.
It was very clear to McIntyre and McKitrick that Mann et al could not
have used conventional PCA in the proxy-to-temperature conversion. How
you imagine this applies to the recent tree ring revelation is something
you've not shared here.
> So I'd have to say that M&M's conclusions regarding
> point (i) in their paper are particularly shaky.
Here's their point (i) in section 2. They summarize it on p. 753 as "(i)
incorrect calculation of all 28 tree ring principal components." Is this
what you mean?
"2. ERRORS AND DEFECTS IN THE MBH98 PROXY DATA BASE
...
(a) ...
p. 760
"(i) Of the 112 proxies in MBH98, 28 are principal components calculated
by MBH98 from International Tree Ring Data Base (ITRDB) site
chronologies stored at WDCP for the sites listed in MBH98 Supplementary
Information (see http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/data_supp.html) for
the following five different regions: Texas-Oklahoma, Texas-Mexico,
North America, South America and Australia-New Zealand. The principal
component calculations have two types of problems: first, MBH98 does not
establish consistent rules for inclusion or exclusion of sites in
regional aggregates and, second, the MBH98 principal components fail to
maximize explained variances.
"As to the first problem, MBH98 do not provide justification for
excluding the Texas-Oklahoma and Texas-Mexico sites from the North
American compilation. Similarly puzzling are the occurrences of other
sites as individual proxies rather than being incorporated into the
regional PC groups. Series #106 occurs within the Texas-Mexico region;
series #49-64 are all North American sites or reconstructions; series
#46-47 are within the South American region and series #43 and #45 are
reconstructions within the Australia-New Zealand region.
"The second problem was determined indirectly as the MBH98 principal
component calculations are unpublished. We collated the source data from
WDCP for all sites listed in MBH98 (except, immaterially, one MBH98 US
site which could not be identified in the WDCP database). The collations
are available in Supplementary Information. The start dates of the MBH98
PCｹs are not consistent with those of available data. In 12 cases, MBH98
commenced their calculation after the date in which all records were
available (e.g. Australia-New Zealand region where MBH98 commenced in
1750, although a start date of 1625 was possible.) In 16 cases, MBH98
commenced their PC index in a period prior to that available in the data
(e.g. Texas-Mexico). Because standard PC algorithms fail in the presence
of missing data, an important part of the methodology杵amely how missing
data were treated in the PC calculation脚emains unexplained in MBH98.
"We computed all 28 PCs, together with their explained variances, using
a standard principal component algorithm for the maximum period in which
all records were available within each region. For comparison, weighting
factors for the MBH98 PCs eigenvectors were computed which maximized the
explained variance of the underlying ITRDB data, and the resulting
explained variance was compared to our own computations using a standard
algorithm. In all cases, explained variance for the recomputed PCs
exceeded that for the MBH98 PCs (see Table 7). Indeed it was the
observation of the unusually poor fit between the MBH98 Texas-Mexico PCs
and the underlying ITRDB data that led to the detailed audit undertaken
in this paper."
--- END OF EXCERPT re "point (i) ---
>
> :> I've now read that. It sheds little light, unfortunately.
> :> If Mann thinks that Zorita did it correctly, then somehow Zorita
> :> figured out how to do it correctly.
>
> : Mann did not say that Zorita replicated Mann et al. The "did it
> : correctly" notion you voice is thus quite misleading, as was Mann's
> : reference to what Zorita did.
>
> Shall we quote?
>
> "Other researchers have successfully implemented our
> methodology based on the information provided in our articles
> (see e.g. Zorita, E. ...")"
>
> OK. Mann doesn't say that Zorita et al. "did it correctly",
> he says that Zorita et al. "successfully implemented our methodology".
> I don't think that I claimed Zorita et al. replicated Mann.
> I think I wondered if McIntyre had consulted that paper for
> additional information to understand Mann et al.'s methods. Maybe
> he should even have consulted Zorita.
Zorita et al never compiled tree ring data into a time series for their
paper, nor does their paper provide any insight into how Mann et al. did
this. Their modeling study was interesting, but it was not a replication
of Mann et al. I repeat my contention that the "did it correctly" notion
you voiced was thus quite misleading, as was Mann's reference (thanks,
BTW, for providing the exact quote) to what Zorita did.
Actually, I offer yet another acceptable response, one which is exactly
appropriate: The paragraph you cite is dealing with how to convert the
proxy info to temperature. That is an altogether different matter than
how the tree ring data within each region was combined to come up with
the time series to be transformed in the way described, in part, in the
pararaph you cite.
Nigel Persaud
> al. has been mentioned. Mann says that Zorita et al. "successfully
> implemented our methodology". If it was so hard to figure out and
> understand, I would like to know how Zorita et al. were able to do that.
> It may be that Mann or someone else very familiar with the methodology
> coached them in its use.
If you actually look at Zorita's paper "Testing the Mann et al. (1998)
Approach to Paleoclimate Reconstructions in the Context of a 1000-Yr
Control Simulation with the ECHO-G Coupled Climate Model" conveniently
at <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/Ross03-d/Zoritaetal03onMann98.pdf>
(ironically courtesy of Willie Soon) rather than Mann's
characterization of it, you will see that Zorita's paper is about a
simulation using the ECHO-G climate model and doesn't have anything to
do with trying to replicate or implement Mann's work. For example, I
don't see anything in the Zorita paper that points to an attempt to
sort out the conundrums of Mann's stepwise principal components.
There's no evidence in the paper itself that Zorita et al
"successfully implemented [Mann's] methodology".
Nigel Persaud
>
> -- Does the paragraph on page 786, right column, beginning
> "Proxy-reconstructed patterns..." describe a stepwise Principal
> Components Analysis method?"
>
> "Yes", "No", or "I don't have sufficient knowledge of
> statistical analysis to answer that" are all acceptable responses.
>
> Jim Acker
>
The long and short answer is "No". This absolutely does not describe a
stepwise principal components analysis method. These paragraphs are
implemented more or less adequately by M&M. Mann divides his
reconstruction into 11 or so periods, which he calls "calibration
exercises" - see Supplementary Information. The number of available
proxies drops off over time and for each period. It seems that Mann
carries out the page 786 right column procedure stepwise for each
period. M&M seem to have picked that up okay.
A stepwise principal components approach for the tree ring regions is
not discussed in MBH98. Anything that's not conventional should be
discussed either in Methods or Supplementary Information and I have
seen no references prior to Mann's response to M&M on this. An example
is the now famous 159 series. There's no mention of 159 series in any
document prior to Mann's reply to M&M. There's no mention of 159
series in Mann's dog-breakfast FTP site. So I think that you're being
much too harsh on M&M here.
James Acker
Thanks for this answer. If you are indeed correct, then
I will await further information from Mann et al. regarding their
procedures and how they disclosed them in the literature.
James Acker
Persaud.
In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
: In article <bplqms$6id$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
: James Acker <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[deletions]
:> :> Now, follow my reasoning. PCA expresses the dominant
:> :> patterns of variability as "empirical eigenvectors".
:> :> The year-by-year procedure determines the best combination of
:> :> eigenvectors for each year where the multiproxy network is being
:> :> used to calculate temperature. Thus, it would appear that this section
:> :> describes the utilization of PCA to analyze the multiproxy network
:> :> "year-by-year". More on this appears in the Methods section,
:> :> which I mention in my previous post.
:> :>
:> :> So, again, does "year-by-year" equate with
:> :> "stepwise"? Did McIntyre think that what Mann described was
:> :> "conventional" PCA, and did he not understand the year-by-year
:> :> calculation procedure? (Did McIntyre's use of quotes act as a
:> :> referent for a well-known standard statistical procedure?)
:>
:> : Mann et al 1998 do not disclose enough information to replicate their
:> : PCA of the tree ring data. As another poster has highlighted, the phrase
:> : "conventional Principal Component Analysis" is used by Mann et al 1998.
:>
:> As noted, the Methods discussion indicates precisely where
:> conventional PCA was performed, and on what data. The question
:> that is unanswered -- by you, by McIntyre -- is whether the paragraph
:> on page 786, right column, beginning "Proxy-reconstructed patterns..."
:> provides a sufficient description of the method used to enable
:> replication. ...
: This section you cite isn't discussing the same part of the work as the
: newly-disclosed stepwise PCA was used for. What's your beef?
I misunderstood the importance of what Mann et al. 1998 says
at the top of page 781, right column. I took another look at what they say
there, and also I re-read the "EandEPaperProblem.pdf" technical point b
and the point in the PDF where that is referenced.
From the rest of page 781-782, Mann et al. 1998 discuss several
different intervals of time, in sections numbered 1-6. Each of these
intervals has a different number of applicable indicators.
In technical point (b), they say, "This requires 159 independent
time-series to represent all indicators required for all reconstructions
of all possible sub-intervals, even though the maximum number ever used
for a particular sub-interval is 112."
I know that one of the main facets of this controversy has
been (and still is) where the 159 comes from. That is beyond my
capacity to explain. However, based on your comments and Nigel's,
and the paragraph numbered (2) at the beginning of the referenced
PDF, it appears now that it is this part of the paper that describes
where the stepwise PCA was done. In reading that section of the paper,
it is not clear that an independent PCA was performed for each of
these intervals. Combining that section with what he says in the PDF
indicates to me that must be what was done.
Now, in technical point (b), they say something very interesting,
to whit, "This is the only sensible approach, as it allows all data
available over each sub-interval to be used." This makes me wonder:
if it's sensible, is it "sensible" to climate scientists? I.e.,
is it not as sensible to persons who are primarily statisticians?
So it comes back to something that was very apparent to me when
this first started out: Mann wasn't very helpful to McIntyre when
the email inquiries started. I wonder if the inquiries would have
been better received, and better answered, if they had come from a
more recognizable source.
One other question, though. In Scott Rutherford's reply
of September 11, 2003, he says:
"As trees drop out of the network, the PCs are recalculated
every 50 or 100 years."
That appears similar to the intervals described in sections
1-6. Was Rutherford referring to the stepwise PCA approach here?
Did McIntyre and McKitrick not follow up on that?
In McIntyre's message of September 25, he asks several
questions, indicating incomplete comprehension. Did they write and
submit the paper to E&E with all these questions still unresolved
only a few weeks after that? Yes, I know that Mann said he wouldn't
be responding to further queries. But having this much uncertainty
about something this important... well, I'm not McIntyre and
McKitrick, but at that point I would have probably tried to get
more guidance from someone else to make sure that I'd figured it
all out.
:> ... If M&M completely missed the fact that this is what
:> is being described here, i.e., a "non-conventional" PCA, then M&M
:> haven't shown that Mann didn't provide enough information. (Neither
:> have you.)
: I respectfully note that the "fact" you offer as possibly being
: completely missed is a completely _irrelevant fact_ when it comes to
: understanding how the tree ring data was transformed into the time
: series that were placed into the columns eventually ballocksed in
: pcproxy.txt.
Yes, I agree. See my discussion above.
:> I'll also note that if you read McIntyre's September 9
:> email message to Mann, he's asking why his conventional PCA analysis
:> of the 1902-1995 data failed; ...
: Yes. And in the M&M paper, the authors describe their best attempt to
: replicate this part of the project. Since we're talking about the tree
: ring PCA in this exchange, I'd like to stress that the Sept 9 email was
: about the temperature PCs, and has absolutely nothing to do with
: transforming diverse tree ring data into the ring width time series.
I was aware of that.
:> ... he asks Mann to explain certain
:> aspects of the data analysis.
:>
:> In his reply to McIntyre and McKitrick's paper, Mann uses the term
:> stepwise PCA. I wish I could ask him if the "year-by-year solution of
:> the overdetermined matrix equation" is what he meant by stepwise
:> PCA. Since I don't know, I can't agree with you that Mann et al.
:> 1998 did not disclose enough information about their stepwise PCA
:> method. (This is separate from data series issues, but you are on
:> record as saying that Mann et al. expressly used conventional
:> PCA. ...
: You appear to be traveling down a trail which says that it doesn't
: matter what kind of disclosure was made about the specifics of the
: stepwise PCA used in one part of the work if there's a hint that a
: stepwise PCA was used in another part of the work. You're certainly free
No, that's not what I was doing. I thought the "year-by-year"
calculation method referred to stepwise PCA. In a nice clear reply,
Nigel Persaud explained that it was not, which is why I went back and
read some sections and the correspondence again.
: to hold such an opinion, but I'd note that this position gains you
: nothing in terms of replicability. I also think that this position would
: be quite unreasonable. Mann et al 1998 were quite explicit when they
: referred to one part of their work as conventional PCA. There is no
Yes, they were.
: detail provided about the construction of the tree ring series which
: suggests anything other than conventional PCA. If a replicator were to
: choose to use a stepwise approach, how would he or she decide on how
: many PCs to use in each region in each period? We still don't know the
: answer to that question, and it wasn't until the last 30 days that we
: even learned it was an important question to ask.
That, however, may not be that hard to answer. How would
they decide? Mann says, "The only sensible approach..." maximizes
the amount of data from each sub-interval that can be used. That
appears to be a good answer; the researcher attempts to use all
of the data from each sub-interval that are available. But
apparently not all that data can be used in each sub-interval.
:> ... As far as I can tell by a straightforward reading of the text,
:> the only place it is clear that they used conventional PCA is on
:> the instrumental data record between 1902-1995, the calibration
:> interval.)
: Yes. And it turns out that they didn't do that conventionally either.
Why do you say that?
:> : But I'd like to stress that this phrase in the discussion of calibration
:> : methods is not a contradiction with Mann et al's recent disclosure about
:> : stepwise PCA of the tree ring data. But it does highlight the lack of
:> : disclosure about the stepwise PCA of the tree ring data.
:>
:> If the paragraph I've highlighted describes a stepwise PCA method,
:> then there is NO issue about disclosure here. ...
: I guess I was right about the path you were on.
You were, and it was an incorrect path. I think I've straightened
myself out now.
:> ... I don't think you will
:> or can dispute that there is a data analysis method described there.
:> The repeated references to PCs (and he's not talking about Political
:> Correctnesses) indicate to me that this a PCA method. And if
:> "year-by-year" isn't essentially equivalent to "stepwise", I would
:> be mightily surprised.
: It was very clear to McIntyre and McKitrick that Mann et al could not
: have used conventional PCA in the proxy-to-temperature conversion. How
: you imagine this applies to the recent tree ring revelation is something
: you've not shared here.
I think it's better now.
:> So I'd have to say that M&M's conclusions regarding
:> point (i) in their paper are particularly shaky.
: Here's their point (i) in section 2. They summarize it on p. 753 as "(i)
: incorrect calculation of all 28 tree ring principal components." Is this
: what you mean?
Yes, that's correct, and thanks for copying it in. I'm
deleting it because it's not relevant now.
The summmary is: McIntyre and McKitrick did it differently
than Mann et al. 1998. And they got different results. Mann is
fairly strong in his responses as indicating why and where M&M
are wrong. I think that the paper describes, with some ambiguity,
the stepwise PCA method. If there was ambiguity, and M&M were as
unsure about what they were doing as indicated by the message of
September 25, then they should have done more work to figure out what
they were doing before going to publication.
What's going to happen now? My prediction: someone is going
to do a better job of what M&M tried to do, and submit it to a
legitimate journal. It's possible that Mann et al. may try to
anticipate this and beat it to the punch, so to speak. But what it
will take now to really get to the bottom of the issue is a
climate-science paper that has significant discrepancies with
Mann et al. 1998 (and their subsequent work).
If that doesn't happen, then this whole teapot tempest will
subside very rapidly.
:> :> I've now read that. It sheds little light, unfortunately.
:> :> If Mann thinks that Zorita did it correctly, then somehow Zorita
:> :> figured out how to do it correctly.
:>
:> : Mann did not say that Zorita replicated Mann et al. The "did it
:> : correctly" notion you voice is thus quite misleading, as was Mann's
:> : reference to what Zorita did.
:>
:> Shall we quote?
:>
:> "Other researchers have successfully implemented our
:> methodology based on the information provided in our articles
:> (see e.g. Zorita, E. ...")"
:>
:> OK. Mann doesn't say that Zorita et al. "did it correctly",
:> he says that Zorita et al. "successfully implemented our methodology".
:> I don't think that I claimed Zorita et al. replicated Mann.
:> I think I wondered if McIntyre had consulted that paper for
:> additional information to understand Mann et al.'s methods. Maybe
:> he should even have consulted Zorita.
: Zorita et al never compiled tree ring data into a time series for their
: paper, nor does their paper provide any insight into how Mann et al. did
: this. Their modeling study was interesting, but it was not a replication
: of Mann et al. I repeat my contention that the "did it correctly" notion
: you voiced was thus quite misleading, as was Mann's reference (thanks,
: BTW, for providing the exact quote) to what Zorita did.
Without reading the paper, I don't know.
[deletions]
:> Likewise. How about answering this contentious question?
:>
:> -- Does the paragraph on page 786, right column, beginning
:> "Proxy-reconstructed patterns..." describe a stepwise Principal
:> Components Analysis method?"
:>
:> "Yes", "No", or "I don't have sufficient knowledge of
:> statistical analysis to answer that" are all acceptable responses.
: Actually, I offer yet another acceptable response, one which is exactly
: appropriate: The paragraph you cite is dealing with how to convert the
: proxy info to temperature. That is an altogether different matter than
: how the tree ring data within each region was combined to come up with
: the time series to be transformed in the way described, in part, in the
: pararaph you cite.
I agree. Everything makes a lot more sense now.
(If I could keep my four-year-old daughter from waking up
at 3:30 AM, this may have made a lot more sense last week.)
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux1.gl.umbc.edu> wrote, in part:
> ...
> One other question, though. In Scott Rutherford's reply
> of September 11, 2003, he says:
> "As trees drop out of the network, the PCs are recalculated
> every 50 or 100 years."
> That appears similar to the intervals described in sections
> 1-6. Was Rutherford referring to the stepwise PCA approach here?
> ...
The Sept 11 reply was decribing why series 73-83, 86-92 and 106-107 had
start dates that did not seem likely to McKitrick to correspond with the
start of the source data. When M&M attempted to replicate, they retained
the start and stop dates for these series. The recent MBH disclosure
about stepwise methods mentions that M&M's failure to use stepwise
approach resulted in omission of some 100 time series between 1400-1600.
I don't see any way that Rutherford's Sept 11 answer can be seen as
hinting at these hundred.
James Acker
The EandEPaperProblem.pdf indicates that the time-series between
1400-1600 were "represented by MBH98 in terms of a smaller number of
representative Principal Component (PC) time series for each
interval". The paper on pages 781-782 seems to be describing these
intervals. As I noted before, I think this is the main section about
"stepwise" PCA.
Rutherford's reply also seems to be describing a stepwise
approach, and I asked because I wasn't sure if he was describing the
same thing. The "indicators" are temperature proxy records, I
believe, and they are attenuated the further they go back in time
to analyze. I am wondering if Rutherford's "every 50-100 years"
is an email shortcut way of describing the same process that is
described in more detail on pages 781-782.
McIntyre asks about the "disproportionate" number of
series that start with either *99 or *49 years. Could some or many of
these series be starting in: 1699, 1599, 1449, and 1399? (See MBH98 for
the reason I picked those years.)
I can't tell. However, my thesis is that MBH98 does describe
the stepwise PCA method, but the description may have been inadequate
for the purposes of exact replicative duplication of what they did;
which was the apparent goal of M&M. I've commented previously that
exact replicative duplication of research work from the "Methods"
description of most scientific papers would probably be quite
difficult.
Steve Schulin
James Acker <jac...@linux1.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
The recent disclosure of stepwise method related not to the
proxy-to-temperature part of the work, but to the combining of the
various tree ring width series. The discussion on 781-782 you cite
relates to the proxy-to-temperature part of the work.
>
> Rutherford's reply also seems to be describing a stepwise
> approach, and I asked because I wasn't sure if he was describing the
> same thing. The "indicators" are temperature proxy records, I
> believe, and they are attenuated the further they go back in time
> to analyze. I am wondering if Rutherford's "every 50-100 years"
> is an email shortcut way of describing the same process that is
> described in more detail on pages 781-782.
>
> McIntyre asks about the "disproportionate" number of
> series that start with either *99 or *49 years. Could some or many of
> these series be starting in: 1699, 1599, 1449, and 1399? (See MBH98 for
> the reason I picked those years.)
>
> I can't tell. However, my thesis is that MBH98 does describe
> the stepwise PCA method, but the description may have been inadequate
> for the purposes of exact replicative duplication of what they did;
> which was the apparent goal of M&M. ...
You're acting as if knowing how Mann et al 1998 performed the PCA for
the proxy-to-temperature part of the work gives any insight into how
they analyzed the tree ring width data.
> ... I've commented previously that
> exact replicative duplication of research work from the "Methods"
> description of most scientific papers would probably be quite
> difficult.
Without replicability, science is indistinguishable from art.
Nigel Persaud
> the stepwise PCA method, but the description may have been inadequate
> for the purposes of exact replicative duplication of what they did;
> which was the apparent goal of M&M. I've commented previously that
> exact replicative duplication of research work from the "Methods"
> description of most scientific papers would probably be quite
> difficult.
>
We discussed the stepwise proxy-to-temperature (PC) procedure before
and I think that you're still conflating two different matters here.
The periods for proxy-to-temperature steps are set out in the Nature
SI: commencing 1400,1450,1500,1600,1700, 1730, 1750, 1760, 1780, 1800,
1820,... These steps can be discerned in the SI (and M&M did so).
However, the FTP directory periods for the tree ring principal
components are all over the place: 1700 for Stahle/OK,
1400,1450,1500,1600 and 1700 for Stahle/SWM; 1400,1450,1600 and 1750
for NOAMER; 1450 and 1600 for SOAMER; 1600,1700 and 1750 for AUSTRAL
and 1450, 1600 and 1750 for VAganov. The steps are not consistent and
are not described in any literature. Also the number of PC series used
by Mann decreases from 31 in 1820 on to 2 or 3 in the 1400 period.
You can't fully implement MBH without this data and it's nowhere to be
found.
Somewhere in these are the 78 PC series needed to make up the 159
series - reported recently by Mann. Even if one knows the location of
Mann's PC series at the FTP site, I don't see how you can figure out
the exact ones that he uses.
I think that you're casting the Nature description in much too rosy a
light. I don't see a breath of disclosure about the tree-ring
procedures. I do agree with your comment that the Rutherford email is
a clue - after the fact. But you certainly couldn't deduce the actual
directory structure from this throwaway comment. And why wouldn't
Rutherford simply have pointed M&M to the FTP site? Also why would
Rutherford have originally said (see M&M chronology) that the data
wasn't in any one FTP site? It's all very bizarre. It's more that
Mann should have turned himself inside out for M&M; it's that Mann
should have had adequate public disclosure in the first place,
especially when it was used by IPCC.
Ian St. John
"Nigel Persaud" <pers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2860b88e.03112...@posting.google.com...
>
Nigel.
I've posted the fact that the IPCC TAR is *derived* from *Mann, et all, 1999
published in the geophysical journal, NOT the Mann, et all 1998 published in
Nature. I repeated it a few dozen times. Anyone can look at the IPCC Tar
and confirm this.
What part of this is so hard to understand??????
The Mann, et al 1998 was a relatively early study by Mann, and seems to have
been targetted as likely to have the weakest documentation due to the length
of time since publication and the less organised and systematic work that
would have characterised the learning process.
It is a transparent scam, even without the failure to make a serious effort
to understand, give Mann, et all a chance to clarify before publication, and
the rush to publish in an effort to put it on the table before the errors in
the 'audit' are resolved.
> It's more that
> Mann should have turned himself inside out for M&M; it's that Mann
> should have had adequate public disclosure in the first place,
> especially when it was used by IPCC.
I find your claims to be weaker than M&Ms.
David Ball
wrote:
>> I can't tell. However, my thesis is that MBH98 does describe
>> the stepwise PCA method, but the description may have been inadequate
>> for the purposes of exact replicative duplication of what they did;
>> which was the apparent goal of M&M. I've commented previously that
>> exact replicative duplication of research work from the "Methods"
>> description of most scientific papers would probably be quite
>> difficult.
>>
>
>We discussed the stepwise proxy-to-temperature (PC) procedure before
>and I think that you're still conflating two different matters here.
>The periods for proxy-to-temperature steps are set out in the Nature
>SI: commencing 1400,1450,1500,1600,1700, 1730, 1750, 1760, 1780, 1800,
>1820,... These steps can be discerned in the SI (and M&M did so).
>However, the FTP directory periods for the tree ring principal
>components are all over the place: 1700 for Stahle/OK,
>1400,1450,1500,1600 and 1700 for Stahle/SWM; 1400,1450,1600 and 1750
>for NOAMER; 1450 and 1600 for SOAMER; 1600,1700 and 1750 for AUSTRAL
>and 1450, 1600 and 1750 for VAganov. The steps are not consistent and
>are not described in any literature. Also the number of PC series used
>by Mann decreases from 31 in 1820 on to 2 or 3 in the 1400 period.
>You can't fully implement MBH without this data and it's nowhere to be
>found.
Not really. The available PC's are determined by the data. If
I have 20 datasets spanning the period in question, I will get 20
PC's. I have to. I'm calculating the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a
real symmetric matrix. The real question is how many of those 20 are
statistically significant and you have to be very careful in
determining that, something that MBH does very effectively with the N
rule. The reason there is a drop in the number of PC series is that
there is a drop in the number of data series that go back that far.
Simple as that. If I've only got three series, my covariance matrix is
3X3. How significant each is is determined by the relationship between
the data.
>
>Somewhere in these are the 78 PC series needed to make up the 159
>series - reported recently by Mann. Even if one knows the location of
>Mann's PC series at the FTP site, I don't see how you can figure out
>the exact ones that he uses.
Yes, you can. All you need to do is what you and I have both
done. I know exactly what three PC's he uses for the OK data and I can
tell you that he is mathematically correct in choosing those three and
only those three. The answer is out there. The fun lies in figuring
out what it is.
More to the point, does this mean that someone who doesn't
understand the nature of working with PCA is going to be able to
follow what is going on? Of course not. Is there any requirement that
MBH provide a roadmap that will let the inexperienced eye follow every
step in their work? Of course not. I'll say it again, if you were to
look at my development system, you wouldn't have a clue what you were
looking at. Why should MBH be expected to be any different? What's
next? Are we going to expect every researcher to open his research to
every fool out there? I can see it now. Scientist says A, and anyone
with an agenda can come along and say B. If I issue a severe
thunderstorm warning, I sure as hell don't want the likes of Schulin
second-guessing me. That, quite frankly, scares the living hell out of
me.
>
>I think that you're casting the Nature description in much too rosy a
>light. I don't see a breath of disclosure about the tree-ring
>procedures.
And would you be any farther ahead if you'd been told? Would
you have learned anything? Did you learn more by simply taking the
data and having at it? I did. And at the end of the day, what happens
if we go through the data and discover that there is nothing nefarious
going on? Does this mean that Mr. Schulin is going to believe a
rigorous mathematical treatment of the MBH data that proves M&M are
wrong? I doubt it. He's already decided what the answer is even though
he wouldn't know a EOF if he tripped over it.
> I do agree with your comment that the Rutherford email is
>a clue - after the fact. But you certainly couldn't deduce the actual
>directory structure from this throwaway comment. And why wouldn't
>Rutherford simply have pointed M&M to the FTP site? Also why would
>Rutherford have originally said (see M&M chronology) that the data
>wasn't in any one FTP site? It's all very bizarre. It's more that
>Mann should have turned himself inside out for M&M; it's that Mann
>should have had adequate public disclosure in the first place,
>especially when it was used by IPCC.
Instead of playing he said/she said, which is what much of
this commentary amounts to, why not go through the data and see what
can be seen?
Nigel Persaud
> "Nigel Persaud" <pers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2860b88e.03112...@posting.google.com...
> >
>
> Nigel.
>
> I've posted the fact that the IPCC TAR is *derived* from *Mann, et all, 1999
> published in the geophysical journal, NOT the Mann, et all 1998 published in
> Nature. I repeated it a few dozen times. Anyone can look at the IPCC Tar
> and confirm this.
>
> What part of this is so hard to understand??????
In MBH99, the 1400-1980 data from MBH98 was spliced onto the 1300-1399
data from MBH99, so MBH98 is incorporated into MBH98. You can confirm
this by inspecting the graphics side-by-side. Accordingly,
consideration of MBH99 cannot be done without examining MBH98. So you
can chill a little on this point.
Nigel Persaud
> statistically significant and you have to be very careful in
> determining that, something that MBH does very effectively with the N
> rule.
I'm not at all sure that MBH used the N rule for selecting tree ring
PCs (as opposed to temperature PCs). For example, post 1820, they use
9 PCs from 11 SWM sites (22 series), 9 PCs from over 200 NOAMER sites
and 3 PCs from 60 Russian (Vaganov) sites. But it's possible.
> The reason there is a drop in the number of PC series is that
> there is a drop in the number of data series that go back that far.
> Simple as that. If I've only got three series, my covariance matrix is
> 3X3. How significant each is is determined by the relationship between
> the data.
Fair enough. But in the earliest period, there are about 70 NOAMER
series and only 1 (?) PC. So this isn't being treated consistently
with the Stahle/SWM dataset.
> >
> >Somewhere in these are the 78 PC series needed to make up the 159
> >series - reported recently by Mann. Even if one knows the location of
> >Mann's PC series at the FTP site, I don't see how you can figure out
> >the exact ones that he uses.
>
> Yes, you can. All you need to do is what you and I have both
> done. I know exactly what three PC's he uses for the OK data and I can
> tell you that he is mathematically correct in choosing those three and
> only those three. The answer is out there. The fun lies in figuring
> out what it is.
It takes an odd sense of values to describe this as fun (but I agree).
I 've tried to figure out the 78 series, but I haven't been able to
figure it out. It's not as easy as it sounds.
[snip]
>
>
> Instead of playing he said/she said, which is what much of
> this commentary amounts to, why not go through the data and see what
> can be seen?
I've done some PC analyses and tried to figure out the 78 series, so I
plead not guilty.
James Acker
:> the stepwise PCA method, but the description may have been inadequate
:> for the purposes of exact replicative duplication of what they did;
:> which was the apparent goal of M&M. I've commented previously that
:> exact replicative duplication of research work from the "Methods"
:> description of most scientific papers would probably be quite
:> difficult.
:>
: We discussed the stepwise proxy-to-temperature (PC) procedure before
: and I think that you're still conflating two different matters here.
Could be. What I'm trying to figure out is Mann's comment
(2) in this:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/EandEPaperProblem.pdf
Particularly the sentence that begins "The authors
eliminate all of these data..." Now, we could clear this up
real quick, and I'll shut up, if "stepwise reconstruction approach"
is not the same as "stepwise PCA".
I searched the whole document and there are only two
occurrences of "stepwise"; in the paragraph numbered (2) and
in technical point (b). So if "stepwise PCA" is something else,
where does he talk about that?
: The periods for proxy-to-temperature steps are set out in the Nature
: SI: commencing 1400,1450,1500,1600,1700, 1730, 1750, 1760, 1780, 1800,
: 1820,... These steps can be discerned in the SI (and M&M did so).
: However, the FTP directory periods for the tree ring principal
: components are all over the place: 1700 for Stahle/OK,
: 1400,1450,1500,1600 and 1700 for Stahle/SWM; 1400,1450,1600 and 1750
: for NOAMER; 1450 and 1600 for SOAMER; 1600,1700 and 1750 for AUSTRAL
: and 1450, 1600 and 1750 for VAganov. The steps are not consistent and
: are not described in any literature. Also the number of PC series used
: by Mann decreases from 31 in 1820 on to 2 or 3 in the 1400 period.
: You can't fully implement MBH without this data and it's nowhere to be
: found.
Since you can read the SI and I can't, I have to talk your
word for it.
: Somewhere in these are the 78 PC series needed to make up the 159
: series - reported recently by Mann. Even if one knows the location of
: Mann's PC series at the FTP site, I don't see how you can figure out
: the exact ones that he uses.
: I think that you're casting the Nature description in much too rosy a
: light. I don't see a breath of disclosure about the tree-ring
: procedures. I do agree with your comment that the Rutherford email is
When you say "tree-ring procedures", do you mean the choice
of tree-ring series for each interval, or a different kind of
procedure?
: a clue - after the fact. But you certainly couldn't deduce the actual
: directory structure from this throwaway comment. And why wouldn't
: Rutherford simply have pointed M&M to the FTP site? Also why would
: Rutherford have originally said (see M&M chronology) that the data
: wasn't in any one FTP site? It's all very bizarre. It's more that
: Mann should have turned himself inside out for M&M; it's that Mann
: should have had adequate public disclosure in the first place,
: especially when it was used by IPCC.
Your final comment reflects ideal vs. reality. In an ideal
world, all of everybody's data and procedures would be readily accessible
and easy to understand. But this is the real world, and things
are much messier.
If you want to read an interesting article in that regard:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8730-2003Nov23.html
It's about the perils of referencing URLs in research
papers; they disappear without warning.
James Acker
: James Acker <jac...@linux1.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
As I noted to Nigel Persaud, in the EandEPaperProblem.pdf,
there are only two instances of the term "stepwise"; in the paragraph
numbered (2) on the first page, and in technical point (b). I
agree that this is about the proxy-to-temperature part of the work
(or seems to be). If "stepwise" was used by Mann et al. to describe
the combining of tree ring width series, I don't see where in
any of the correspondence. That's why I'm confused about what
you say wasn't disclosed about the "stepwise" method, when what
Mann appears to be calling a "stepwise" method appears to be
described (with some ambiguity) in the paper.
:> Rutherford's reply also seems to be describing a stepwise
:> approach, and I asked because I wasn't sure if he was describing the
:> same thing. The "indicators" are temperature proxy records, I
:> believe, and they are attenuated the further they go back in time
:> to analyze. I am wondering if Rutherford's "every 50-100 years"
:> is an email shortcut way of describing the same process that is
:> described in more detail on pages 781-782.
:>
:> McIntyre asks about the "disproportionate" number of
:> series that start with either *99 or *49 years. Could some or many of
:> these series be starting in: 1699, 1599, 1449, and 1399? (See MBH98 for
:> the reason I picked those years.)
:>
:> I can't tell. However, my thesis is that MBH98 does describe
:> the stepwise PCA method, but the description may have been inadequate
:> for the purposes of exact replicative duplication of what they did;
:> which was the apparent goal of M&M. ...
: You're acting as if knowing how Mann et al 1998 performed the PCA for
: the proxy-to-temperature part of the work gives any insight into how
: they analyzed the tree ring width data.
No. _You_ said that the stepwise PCA wasn't disclosed.
I'm trying to figure out what wasn't disclosed, when it looks like
the "stepwise" procedure that Mann is referring to is described in
the paper.
Nigel Persaud indicates that this is about how the tree-ring
series were combined. That would be a different issue than the
stepwise PCA procedure.
:> ... I've commented previously that
:> exact replicative duplication of research work from the "Methods"
:> description of most scientific papers would probably be quite
:> difficult.
: Without replicability, science is indistinguishable from art.
And there's a difference between doing repeated experiments to
see if similar results are obtained, and providing a "Methods"
description in a research paper that would allow other researchers
to perform the exact same experiments the exact same way.
Ian St. John
"Nigel Persaud" <pers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2860b88e.03112...@posting.google.com...
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:<FJBwb.8640$dt2.6...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > "Nigel Persaud" <pers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2860b88e.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> >
> > Nigel.
> >
> > I've posted the fact that the IPCC TAR is *derived* from *Mann, et all,
1999
> > published in the geophysical journal, NOT the Mann, et all 1998
published in
> > Nature. I repeated it a few dozen times. Anyone can look at the IPCC
Tar
> > and confirm this.
> >
> > What part of this is so hard to understand??????
>
> In MBH99, the 1400-1980 data from MBH98 was spliced onto the 1300-1399
> data from MBH99, so MBH98 is incorporated into MBH98. You can confirm
> this by inspecting the graphics side-by-side.
MBH99 was indeed an 'extension' of MBH98 but the IPCC study was "derived"
and thus is NOT MBH98 or MBH99 so much as using the same data ( as do all
such studies ) and presumably a very similar methodology. There is just so
much data and so many ways to properly process them.
It remains that taking an early study that may ( or may not ) have some
weakness or oversights does not in any way diminish the IPCC summary. The
most M&M can hope for is some quibbles on how well MBH documented the MBH98
procedures and it is well known that even the most professional scientist
does not detail studies to the point that laymen can reproduce them. The
whines over when files were accessible and who knew just illustrates how
little this has to do with the science.
Again, unless M&M can provide some LEGITIMATE criticism of either the DATA
or METHODOLOGY that is being used by the IPCC, Mann, Jone, Crowley, etc then
they have nothing but a political exercise designed to try to 'cast
aspersion' rather than actually discover the facts.
> Accordingly,
> consideration of MBH99 cannot be done without examining MBH98. So you
> can chill a little on this point.
Or you could wise up. This is not raising any serious questions on the
actual MBH studies but rather on the 'amateur attempt' of M&M. It would be
better to criticise THEIR reconstruction than even worry how 'closely' they
were able to follow MBH. Obviously their reconstructions are in stark
contrasts to those of every qualified researcher, so the question is not
what MBH did wrong, but more what M&M did wrong.
David Ball
wrote:
>> The real question is how many of those 20 are
>> statistically significant and you have to be very careful in
>> determining that, something that MBH does very effectively with the N
>> rule.
>
>I'm not at all sure that MBH used the N rule for selecting tree ring
>PCs (as opposed to temperature PCs). For example, post 1820, they use
>9 PCs from 11 SWM sites (22 series), 9 PCs from over 200 NOAMER sites
>and 3 PCs from 60 Russian (Vaganov) sites. But it's possible.
You have to be careful here. Some method has to be used to
determine which PC's to retain. The author's state that they use the N
rule, a rather sophisticated method, but rigorous. In the case of the
SWM sites, they used 22 series to go back to 1700. They used 18 series
to go back to 1600 and so on. If you look at the raw SWM data you will
see that 4 of the series begin after 1600. Each step back in time
requires them drop a certain number of series as they don't span the
full period being considered. In the case of the data going back to
1700, only 5 PC's were needed - at least according to Kaiser's
criterion. Each step back in time, reduced the number of relevent
series and hence the number of possible PC's. I'm not sure where the
number 9 comes from, but I suspect if I look at each step back, I'll
find fewer retainable PC's, the total for ALL of the retained PC's
being 9.
>
>
>> The reason there is a drop in the number of PC series is that
>> there is a drop in the number of data series that go back that far.
>> Simple as that. If I've only got three series, my covariance matrix is
>> 3X3. How significant each is is determined by the relationship between
>> the data.
>
>Fair enough. But in the earliest period, there are about 70 NOAMER
>series and only 1 (?) PC. So this isn't being treated consistently
>with the Stahle/SWM dataset.
All that says is that there is only one principle component
that is distinguishable above the noise in the data, or that the data
are very highly correlated so that the amount of variance explained by
the single PC is very high. Again, the consistency is determined by
the data, not by arbitrary conditions that say that X number of PC's
will be retained.
For example, I do a lot of work with PCA imaging of data
coming from the GOES imager - 5 channels. At any given time, I may be
able to extract 3 PC's from the 5 images. At another, I will only get
2. Sometimes, the data share very common traits and I will only get 1
PC. It's situation dependent.
>
>
>> >
>> >Somewhere in these are the 78 PC series needed to make up the 159
>> >series - reported recently by Mann. Even if one knows the location of
>> >Mann's PC series at the FTP site, I don't see how you can figure out
>> >the exact ones that he uses.
>>
>> Yes, you can. All you need to do is what you and I have both
>> done. I know exactly what three PC's he uses for the OK data and I can
>> tell you that he is mathematically correct in choosing those three and
>> only those three. The answer is out there. The fun lies in figuring
>> out what it is.
>
>It takes an odd sense of values to describe this as fun (but I agree).
>I 've tried to figure out the 78 series, but I haven't been able to
>figure it out. It's not as easy as it sounds.
It is fun. That's science. Asking a question and then going
out and finding the answer. That's what I love about weather and
climate: every time you get complacent and think you've got the
answers, Mother Nature turns around and swats you on the nose with a
rolled-up newspaper.
>
>[snip]
>>
>>
>> Instead of playing he said/she said, which is what much of
>> this commentary amounts to, why not go through the data and see what
>> can be seen?
>
>I've done some PC analyses and tried to figure out the 78 series, so I
>plead not guilty.
How many of the posters here, other than the handful that are
legitimately interested in sorting this mess out can make the same
claim?