Response to claims made by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding MBH98 and the ‘hockey stick graph’
Posted: 02 November 2017 06:34 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1596
Joined  2016-12-24

Since many of mike’s delusions can be traced back to the malicious tricksters, er auditors McIntyre and McKitrick and the lies they spun about the dreaded hockey stick graph, which remains an apt description of what’s happening to Earth.  Everywhere you look the data is producing hockey stick graphs, from atmospheric GHG levels, to global population, to sea level rise, to ocean acidification, to cryosphere melt rates, to torrential rain events and other extreme extreme weather events, to biosphere destruction.
  It happens to be a reflection of reality, but the oligarch and GOP and their puppets can never cop to that.

In any event, this evening I happened across this interesting little document authored by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes in response to the attacks on the veracity of MBH98.

Quoting from the ‘note’: “The standard protocol for scientific journals receiving critical comments on a published paper is to provide the authors being criticized with an opportunity to review the criticism prior to publication, and offer them the chance to respond. Mann and colleagues were given no such opportunity.” 
MikeYohe, see how your side plays, dirty.  Got nothing to do with learning or constructive dialogue.

This is how science works, they get to the point and explain the issues.  Here are some highlights check the full note, it’s not too long, just to the point.
The way honest people are.

NOTE ON PAPER BY MCINTYRE AND MCKITRICK IN “ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT”
Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/EandEPaperProblem.pdf

The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771, 2003)
claims to be an “audit” of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998) or “MBH98”.

An audit involves a careful examination, using the same data and following the exact procedures used in the report or study being audited.
McIntyre and McKitrick (“MM”) have done no such thing, having used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98.

Thus, it is entirely understandable that they do not obtain the same result.

Their effort has no bearing on the work of MBH98, and is no way a “correction” of that study as they claim.

On the contrary, their analysis appears seriously flawed and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of the work of MBH98.

The standard protocol for scientific journals receiving critical comments on a published paper is to provide the authors being criticized with an opportunity to review the criticism prior to publication, and offer them the chance to respond. Mann and colleagues were given no such opportunity.

MM do not list the number of indicators in their putative version of the MBH network (which is based on an odd combination of data from MBH98 and other sources).  ...

MM appear to have eliminated key proxy indicators from the MBH98 network by the following actions:
1) MM (see their Figure 4) (using different proxy set)
2) MM appear to eliminate, without any justification, the entire dataset of 70 Western North American (WNA) tree-ring series available between 1400 and 1600. ...
3) MM appear to eliminate the entire dataset of Stahle and coworkers of Southwestern U.S./Mexican late wood ...
    (a) Use of Internally Inconsistent Surface Temperature Estimates ...
    (b) Incorrect representation of the MBH98 proxy data set ...
    (c) Lack of the use of an objective criterion in the determination of the number of retained instrumental PCs in the reconstruction: ...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2017 06:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1596
Joined  2016-12-24

Here’s another must read if you want to understand the depth (or source?) of the unhinged from reality hatred some harbor for Dr. Mann and his work.

How the Fossil Fuel Industry Harassed Climate Scientist Michael Mann
http://www.ucsusa.org/how-fossil-fuel-industry-harassed-climate-scientist-michael-mann#.WfvKQkyZNPs

A Koch-funded think tank tried to harass and discredit prominent climate scientist Michael Mann by suing for access to his private correspondence.
Mann defeated the effort—but fears the resulting “chill” could deter young climate scientists.

There was the envelope stuffed with cornstarch, meant to mimic anthrax. There were the thousands of hate-filled emails, laced with warnings and threats. There were the Congressional hearings, where presenting scientific evidence—and fighting off fact-free attacks by hostile members of Congress—was a torturous uphill battle.

Climate scientist Michael Mann hasn’t had it easy since first publishing his pioneering “hockey stick” graph in the 1998. Together with co-authors Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, the research indicated unprecedented global warming in the last century. In doing so, the graph also painted a bright red target on the authors’ backs for those intent on undermining public understanding of climate change. ...
... it’s remarkable how many attacks actually trace directly to involvement by the fossil fuel industry.

... In 2010, five years after Mann departed the state for a position at Penn State University, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued a civil Investigative demand under the state’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (generally used to prosecute Medicaid fraud) to attempt to access Mann’s correspondence. An editorial in Nature scathingly opined that “Given the lack of any evidence of wrongdoing, it’s hard to see Cuccinelli’s subpoena…as anything more than an ideologically motivated inquisition that harasses and intimidates climate scientists.”

State courts ultimately considered Cuccinelli’s efforts an abuse of power, with the Virginia Supreme Court rejecting the demands.  ...

... Almost 25 percent of ATI’s funding came from its sister group, American Tradition Partnership, which received funding from the fossil fuel industry. ATI also received a small contribution from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which is supported by significant funding from ExxonMobil, the Koch foundations, and the Pope foundation. Meanwhile, more than 75 percent of ATI’s funding came from Doug Lair and the Lair Family Foundation, a fortune that comes from Lair Petroleum, which was bought by William Koch in 1989. Additionally, Chris Horner, ATI’s director of litigation, was serving (and still serves) as a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative think tank that receives significant amounts of money from the fossil fuel industry and spends liberally on projects meant to undermine the science around global warming. Subsequent analysis of bankruptcy filings found that ATI and related institutions and individuals had also received significant funding from coal companies. ...

Now that’s what forcing politics into climate science looks like !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2017 02:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1596
Joined  2016-12-24

MikeYohe for your information I’m going to be using your quotes to examine the contrarian mind over at my blog.
I’ve posted about our dialogues in the past but never using your actual name, however considering you keep doubling down with your calumny towards Dr. Mann,

The term calumny means “the intentional and generally vicious false accusation of a crime or other offense designed to damage one’s reputation.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/calumny/

I’m going to start using your name and as time allows dissect your malicious bullshit in more detail over at my blog.  Today as a sort of conditioner I introduced you,

Friday, November 3, 2017
Considering the Contrarian Mindscape
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/11/considering-contrarian-mindscape.html

This is about Intellectual Confrontation and my pal ‘n sparing partner over at CFI, MikeYohe, who’s tenacity in the face of my steady stream of explanations, references, links, counter-questions has been impressive.  He stands his ground where other climate science contrarians have slunk away in silence.

I’m appreciative of the opportunity it allows me to unpeel his layers of self-deception.  He also makes a bad habit of slandering Dr. Michael Mann with outlandish, but widely believed fabricated nonsense. Thus I’ve promised myself to share that discussion over here, but it takes time he’s so good with the gish gallop.  In the meanwhile, I want to start the ball rolling with this recent exchange.  It’s a screen shot and not of the best quality but the link is there, come on down, join the discussion. wink  Food for thought. ...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2017 09:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 02 November 2017 06:34 PM

Since many of mike’s delusions can be traced back to the malicious tricksters, er auditors McIntyre and McKitrick and the lies they spun about the dreaded hockey stick graph, which remains an apt description of what’s happening to Earth.  Everywhere you look the data is producing hockey stick graphs, from atmospheric GHG levels, to global population, to sea level rise, to ocean acidification, to cryosphere melt rates, to torrential rain events and other extreme extreme weather events, to biosphere destruction.
  It happens to be a reflection of reality, but the oligarch and GOP and their puppets can never cop to that.

In any event, this evening I happened across this interesting little document authored by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes in response to the attacks on the veracity of MBH98.

Quoting from the ‘note’: “The standard protocol for scientific journals receiving critical comments on a published paper is to provide the authors being criticized with an opportunity to review the criticism prior to publication, and offer them the chance to respond. Mann and colleagues were given no such opportunity.” 
MikeYohe, see how your side plays, dirty.  Got nothing to do with learning or constructive dialogue.

This is how science works, they get to the point and explain the issues.  Here are some highlights check the full note, it’s not too long, just to the point.
The way honest people are.

NOTE ON PAPER BY MCINTYRE AND MCKITRICK IN “ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT”
Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/EandEPaperProblem.pdf

The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771, 2003)
claims to be an “audit” of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998) or “MBH98”.

An audit involves a careful examination, using the same data and following the exact procedures used in the report or study being audited.
McIntyre and McKitrick (“MM”) have done no such thing, having used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98.

Thus, it is entirely understandable that they do not obtain the same result.

Their effort has no bearing on the work of MBH98, and is no way a “correction” of that study as they claim.

On the contrary, their analysis appears seriously flawed and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of the work of MBH98.

The standard protocol for scientific journals receiving critical comments on a published paper is to provide the authors being criticized with an opportunity to review the criticism prior to publication, and offer them the chance to respond. Mann and colleagues were given no such opportunity.

MM do not list the number of indicators in their putative version of the MBH network (which is based on an odd combination of data from MBH98 and other sources).  ...

MM appear to have eliminated key proxy indicators from the MBH98 network by the following actions:
1) MM (see their Figure 4) (using different proxy set)
2) MM appear to eliminate, without any justification, the entire dataset of 70 Western North American (WNA) tree-ring series available between 1400 and 1600. ...
3) MM appear to eliminate the entire dataset of Stahle and coworkers of Southwestern U.S./Mexican late wood ...
    (a) Use of Internally Inconsistent Surface Temperature Estimates ...
    (b) Incorrect representation of the MBH98 proxy data set ...
    (c) Lack of the use of an objective criterion in the determination of the number of retained instrumental PCs in the reconstruction: ...


CC, you are missing a key point, you should try and keep the story balanced. Telling just one side is not the way we want Americans to handle science. Mann would not release his data to MM. Professor Richard Muller, PHD said Mann was also hiding a decline. Meaning Mann took the data from 1961 onward and erased the peak. Mann’s data would not have survived any peer review by any good science journal. Then we have Dr. Mia Hubert who looked into Mann’s claims of independent studies of the hockey stick and concluded that they were not independent studies at all. They involved at least one of the Hockey Team, Mann, Johes, Briffa and Bradley. And it turned out that these independent studies were not checked by any sources.
 
Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, a Dutch magazine looked into MM claim against the Hockey Stick said - The effect is that tree ring series with a hockey stick shape no longer have a mean of zero and end up dominating the first principal component (PC1); in effect, Mann’s program mines for series with a hockey stick shape. In the crucial period of 1400-1450, in the critical PC1 of the North American network, the top-weighted Sheep Mountain series, with a hockey stick shape gets over 390 times the weight of the least weighted series, which does not have a hockey stick shape.
 
What that means is that if you examine ten trees, and two have dramatic hockey sticks but eight show no curve at all, the combined graph would show a very slight rise. But, under Mann’s weighting, the graph of all ten trees would still be rocketing into the stratosphere.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2017 10:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 02 November 2017 06:47 PM

Here’s another must read if you want to understand the depth (or source?) of the unhinged from reality hatred some harbor for Dr. Mann and his work.

How the Fossil Fuel Industry Harassed Climate Scientist Michael Mann
http://www.ucsusa.org/how-fossil-fuel-industry-harassed-climate-scientist-michael-mann#.WfvKQkyZNPs

A Koch-funded think tank tried to harass and discredit prominent climate scientist Michael Mann by suing for access to his private correspondence.
Mann defeated the effort—but fears the resulting “chill” could deter young climate scientists.

There was the envelope stuffed with cornstarch, meant to mimic anthrax. There were the thousands of hate-filled emails, laced with warnings and threats. There were the Congressional hearings, where presenting scientific evidence—and fighting off fact-free attacks by hostile members of Congress—was a torturous uphill battle.

Climate scientist Michael Mann hasn’t had it easy since first publishing his pioneering “hockey stick” graph in the 1998. Together with co-authors Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, the research indicated unprecedented global warming in the last century. In doing so, the graph also painted a bright red target on the authors’ backs for those intent on undermining public understanding of climate change. ...
... it’s remarkable how many attacks actually trace directly to involvement by the fossil fuel industry.

... In 2010, five years after Mann departed the state for a position at Penn State University, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued a civil Investigative demand under the state’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (generally used to prosecute Medicaid fraud) to attempt to access Mann’s correspondence. An editorial in Nature scathingly opined that “Given the lack of any evidence of wrongdoing, it’s hard to see Cuccinelli’s subpoena…as anything more than an ideologically motivated inquisition that harasses and intimidates climate scientists.”

State courts ultimately considered Cuccinelli’s efforts an abuse of power, with the Virginia Supreme Court rejecting the demands.  ...

... Almost 25 percent of ATI’s funding came from its sister group, American Tradition Partnership, which received funding from the fossil fuel industry. ATI also received a small contribution from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which is supported by significant funding from ExxonMobil, the Koch foundations, and the Pope foundation. Meanwhile, more than 75 percent of ATI’s funding came from Doug Lair and the Lair Family Foundation, a fortune that comes from Lair Petroleum, which was bought by William Koch in 1989. Additionally, Chris Horner, ATI’s director of litigation, was serving (and still serves) as a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative think tank that receives significant amounts of money from the fossil fuel industry and spends liberally on projects meant to undermine the science around global warming. Subsequent analysis of bankruptcy filings found that ATI and related institutions and individuals had also received significant funding from coal companies. ...

Now that’s what forcing politics into climate science looks like !

 
There are literally thousands of scientists working with Climate Change and Global Warming. Where would we be if all those scientists had lawsuits and congressional hearings. Mann is no Einstein, he has no major theories. Al Gore used his chart and Mann got rich. What has been going on with Mann is not the way science works. You need to ask yourself why are all these scientists disagreeing with Mann and what they are disagreeing about. Why people are writing books about Mann if he has no major input for Global Warming. His famous graft only lasted one year.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2017 07:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4162
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 03 November 2017 10:14 PM

You need to ask yourself why are all these scientists disagreeing with Mann and what they are disagreeing about. Why people are writing books about Mann if he has no major input for Global Warming. His famous graft only lasted one year.

I have asked those questions. I’ve asked you those questions. The answer is always the same; the scientists you refer to do not meet the definition of scientist. When you name names, which is rare, I can trace them to oil money or I can simply look them up and see they got mad because someone didn’t publish their paper, so they self-published a book or something. On the other hand, being balanced as you suggest, I can look up the hockey stick graph on the IPCC website https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html.

You want to pick out 2 trees and some complicated math from decades of study and say it debunks the entire theory. You want to pick one guy’s personality and say it discredits the entire consensus. You want to use an isolated factoid about how long a particular version of the data had one guy’s name associated with it. I don’t know how you live with yourself.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2017 07:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1596
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 03 November 2017 09:56 PM

Mann would not release his data to MM.

Mike, it is you who should stop feeding off the Alt-right’s propaganda tit and try giving the other side and reality a hearing.
For instance, MM wanted every scrap of paper Mike Mann ever wrote during his research - that is bull shit.

December 1, 2015
Discovered and revealed! - Where the climate codes and data have been hiding
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/12/discovered-revealed-manns-codes.html

(In the actual blog post the items are linked to original sources.)

A lot of folks have been convinced climatologists are hiding data - that’s why it was interesting to came across this list while I was compiling my previous post.  It doesn’t quite jive with the steady stream of accusations and innuendo folks like, Ivar Gaiever and ClimateAudit’s Mr. McIntyre keep sending out:

“I have an ongoing campaign to improve standards of data archiving, disclosure and due diligence - which are independent of any particular substantive points on paleoclimate studies. I have no idea why the “Hockey Team”, as they styled themselves, have elected to withhold data and methods from scrutiny; it’s an unwinnable position, but they’ve done so and I’ll continue to criticize them on this point.” (ClimateAudit, Blog Rules and Road Map)

I think a review of the following list makes clear that such talk is political dirty tricks - and not a reflection of reality or the situation within the climate science community.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Data Sources
Filed under: — group @ 27 November 2009
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science.
Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed.

Climate data (raw)
Climate data (processed)

Paleo-data
Auxiliary data
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
Large-scale model (GCM) output
Model codes (GCMs)
Model codes (other)
Data Visualisation and Analysis
Master Repositories of climate and other Earth Science data
Climate data (raw)
GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
World Monthly Surface Station Climatology UCAR
Antarctic weather stations
European weather stations (ECA)
Italian Meterological Society IMS
Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train, Ocean Color)
Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
World Glacier Monitoring Service
Argo float data
International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations)
AERONET Aerosol information
Arctic data from the Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service (CADIS)
Climate data (processed)
Surface temperature anomalies (GISTEMP (see also Clear Climate Code), HadCRU (alternate site), NOAA NCDC, JMA, Berkeley Earth)
Satellite temperatures (MSU) (UAH, RSS, Zou et al)
Sea surface temperatures (Reynolds et al, OI)
Stratospheric temperature
Sea ice (Cryosphere Today, NSIDC, JAXA, Bremen, Arctic-Roos, DMI)
Radiosondes (RAOBCORE, HadAT, U. Wyoming, RATPAC, IUK, Sterin (CDIAC), Angell (CDIAC) )
Cloud and radiation products (ISCCP, CERES-ERBE)
Sea level (U. Colorado, NOAA)
Aerosols (AEROCOM, GACP)
Greenhouse Gases (AGGI at NOAA, CO2 Mauna Loa, World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases, AIRS CO2 data (2003+))
AHVRR data as used in Steig et al (2009)
Snow Cover (Rutgers)
GLIMS glacier database
Ocean Heat Content: NODC, PMEL
Ocean CO2 (CDIAC)
GCOS Essential Climate Variables Index
NOAA Climate Indicators State of the Climate 2009
Paleo-data
NOAA Paleoclimate
Pangaea
GRIP/NGRIP Ice cores (Denmark)
GISP2 (note that the age model has been updated)
National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)
Insolation (i.e. Milankovitch cycles): Lasker (2004), Berger and Loutre (1991), Huybers (2006)
Auxiliary data
Solar System Calculations (JPL Horizons)
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
Reconstructions index and data (NOAA)
Mann et al (2008) (also here, Mann et al (2009))
Kaufmann et al (2009)
Wahl and Ammann (2006)
Mann et al (1998/1999)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
These are weather models which have the real world observations assimilated into the solution to provide a ‘best guess’ of the evolution of weather over time (although pre-satellite era estimates (before 1979) are less accurate).
ERA40 (1957-2001, from ECMWF)
ERA-Interim (1989 – present, ECMWF’s latest project)
NCEP (1948-present, NOAA), NCEP-2
MERRA NASA GSFC
JRA-25 (1979-2004, Japanese Met. Agency)
North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR)
20th Century Reanalysis (1871-2008)
Large-scale model (GCM) output
These is output from the large scale global models used to assess climate change in the past, and make projections for the future. Some of this output is also available via the Data Visualisation tools linked below.
CMIP3 output (~20 models, as used by IPCC AR4) at PCMDI
GISS ModelE output (includes AR4 output as well as more specific experiments)
GFDL Model output
Model codes (GCMs)
Downloadable codes for some of the GCMs.
GISS ModelE (AR4 version, current snapshot)
NCAR CCSM(Version 3.0, CCM3 (older vintage))
EdGCM Windows based version of an older GISS model.
Uni. Hamburg (SAM, PUMA and PLASIM)
NEMO Ocean Model
GFDL Models
MIT GCM
Model codes (other)
This category include links to analysis tools, simpler models or models focussed on more specific issues.
Radiative Transfer models (AER RRTM)
Rahmstorf (2007) Sea Level Rise Code
Vermeer & Rahmstorf (2009) Sea Level Rise Code and Data
ModTran (atmospheric radiation calculations and visualisations)
Various climate-related online models (David Archer)
Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) (FUND, FAIR, DICE, RICE)
CliMT a Python-based software component toolkit
Pyclimate Python tools for climate analysis
CDAT Tools for analysing climate data in netcdf format (PCMDI)
RegEM (Tapio Schneider)
Time series analysis (MTM-SVD, SSA-MTM toolkit, Mann and Lees (1996))
MAGICC
Data Visualisation and Analysis
These sites include some of the above data (as well as other sources) in an easier to handle form.
ClimateExplorer (KNMI)
Dapper (PMEL, NOAA)
Ingrid (IRI/LDEO Climate data library)
Giovanni (GSFC)
Wood for Trees: Interactive graphics (temperatures)
IPCC Data Visualisations
Regional IPCC model output
Climate Wizard
Master Repositories of Climate Data
Much bigger indexes of data sources:
Global Change Master Directory (GSFC)
PAGES data portal
NCDC (National Climate Data Center)
IPCC Data
NCAR’s ClimateDataGuide
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Lab: Atmospheric trace gas concentrations, historical carbon emissions, and more
CRU Data holdings
Hadley Centre Observational holdings
UCAR Climate Data Guide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2017 07:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1596
Joined  2016-12-24

It’s morbidly, grossly, disgustingly fascinating how you can simply ignore stuff like this.
Your Mc ‘n Mc hero’s (the only ones who every claimed Mann committed fraud) - are given a free pass to commit fraud, by the Inhofe, the GOP and wanna-know-nothing like you.
        downer

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 02 November 2017 06:34 PM

In any event, this evening I happened across this interesting little document authored by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes in response to the attacks on the veracity of MBH98.

Quoting from the ‘note’: “The standard protocol for scientific journals receiving critical comments on a published paper is to provide the authors being criticized with an opportunity to review the criticism prior to publication, and offer them the chance to respond. Mann and colleagues were given no such opportunity.” 
MikeYohe, see how your side plays, dirty.  Got nothing to do with learning or constructive dialogue.

This is how science works, they get to the point and explain the issues.  Here are some highlights check the full note, it’s not too long, just to the point.
The way honest people are.

NOTE ON PAPER BY MCINTYRE AND MCKITRICK IN “ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT”
Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/EandEPaperProblem.pdf

The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771, 2003)
claims to be an “audit” of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998) or “MBH98”.

An audit involves a careful examination, using the same data and following the exact procedures used in the report or study being audited.
McIntyre and McKitrick (“MM”) have done no such thing, having used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98.

Thus, it is entirely understandable that they do not obtain the same result.

Their effort has no bearing on the work of MBH98, and is no way a “correction” of that study as they claim.

On the contrary, their analysis appears seriously flawed and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of the work of MBH98.

The standard protocol for scientific journals receiving critical comments on a published paper is to provide the authors being criticized with an opportunity to review the criticism prior to publication, and offer them the chance to respond. Mann and colleagues were given no such opportunity.

MM do not list the number of indicators in their putative version of the MBH network (which is based on an odd combination of data from MBH98 and other sources).  ...

MM appear to have eliminated key proxy indicators from the MBH98 network by the following actions:
1) MM (see their Figure 4) (using different proxy set)
2) MM appear to eliminate, without any justification, the entire dataset of 70 Western North American (WNA) tree-ring series available between 1400 and 1600. ...
3) MM appear to eliminate the entire dataset of Stahle and coworkers of Southwestern U.S./Mexican late wood ...
    (a) Use of Internally Inconsistent Surface Temperature Estimates ...
    (b) Incorrect representation of the MBH98 proxy data set ...
    (c) Lack of the use of an objective criterion in the determination of the number of retained instrumental PCs in the reconstruction: ...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2017 07:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1596
Joined  2016-12-24

All other come along claims, such an the baloney MikeYohe repeats, stem from Mc/Mc.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 01:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1596
Joined  2016-12-24

Since I like the science and there’s so much of it to share, here’s another that’s directly related to how Mann’s papers actually Mann,Bradley,Hughes, scientific papers
have stood the test of time.

While some have convinced themselves that those pioneering papers have been trashed - in actuality it isn’t so.

Not that they were perfect, but no one ever claimed they were.  They were accurate to within an established error margin.  The important point, contrary to what the GOP and their Yohes keep screaming at us, is that it was good scientific work.  The computational mistakes were minimal and inevitable for pioneering work, in fact they are the learning process that every branch of science and life for that matter engages in all the time.  Nothing sinister going on except in the minds of politicized contrarian bent on mischief. 

MBH98/99 even pointed out the flaws and where more research was needed, nothing about the paper or the work speaks of fraud.  When evaluated objectively they are revealed to be a valid scientific stepping stones, improvements on the past and pointing the way to a more accurate future
as the subsequence two decades of increased understanding make clear,
for those interested in learning.

However as MikeYohe has made crystal clear at his ‘science, science,science’ thread,
we are not dealing with people interested in objectively weighing and learning and understanding the known science about this Earth that envelops us and that we depend on for everything.

They don’t want to hear bad news, they don’t want to take any responsibility for anything.  Take and deny, misdirected and take, self interest and profits…

Not sure what good explicit knowing and understanding that dynamic in action is - but I still believe it’s important to do just that.
Intellectual Confrontations is what I’m talking about.

This is what a constructive scientific discourse looks like!

New Research on Tree Rings as Indicators of Past Climate
Posted on December 17, 2014 by Greg Laden
http://gregladen.com/blog/2014/12/17/new-research-on-tree-rings-as-indicators-of-past-climate/

I asked Malcolm Hughes, who was an author on that earlier hockey stick work and an author on the recent study discussed here, how his recent work informs us of the validity of Mann et al, especially in relation to bristlecone pine data used in that early seminal study. He said, “Back in 1999 we (Mann et al) made the best available choices with the information and data we had. Now, more than 15 years later, with a Bristlecone Pine record that extends back 5000 years, the original results hold up remarkably well.”

New Research on Tree Rings as Indicators of Past Climate

In 2009, Matthew Salzar, Malcolm Hughes, Andrew Bunn, and Kurt Kipfmueller published a paper that looked at a possible divergence problem in bristlecone pines at three sites the American Great Basin. ...

More recently an overlapping set of authors have published an important study (“Changing climate response in near-treeline bristlecone pine with elevation and aspect”) that looks at this problem in more detail. From the abstract:

In the White Mountains of California, eight bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) tree-ring width chronologies were developed from trees at upper treeline and just below upper treeline along North- and South-facing elevational transects from treeline to ~90 m below. There is evidence for a climate-response threshold between approximately 60–80 vertical m below treeline, above which trees have shown a positive growth-response to temperature and below which they do not. Chronologies from 80 m or more below treeline show a change in climate response and do not correlate strongly with temperature-sensitive chronologies developed from trees growing at upper treeline. Rather, they more closely resemble lower elevation precipitation-sensitive chronologies. At the highest sites, trees on South-facing slopes grow faster than trees on North-facing slopes. High growth rates in the treeline South-facing trees have declined since the mid-1990s. This suggests the possibility that the climate-response of the highest South-facing trees may have changed and that temperature may no longer be the main limiting factor for growth on the South aspect. These results indicate that increasing warmth may lead to a divergence between tree growth and temperature at previously temperature-limited sites.

Generally, trees from higher latitudes (farther north) and higher altitudes both make better temperature proxies, because the two factors (altitude and latitude) both have temperature as a common thread. You learned this in your middle school Earth Science class. Altitude and latitude mimic each other to a large degree, which is why mountain glaciers can be found on the equator (or, at least, were found there before global warming mostly melted them away). But this new research also shows that topographical position in relation to the sun (south facing vs. north facing) further modify the microenvironment the trees are growing in. ...

There a lot more, check out the full article.
Final thoughts,

Science Denialists Can’t See The Forest Through The Tree Rings

Even as the tree-ring proxyindicator expands in size (more samples) and is better understood (from the above mentioned studies) climate science denialists remain entrenched with their assertion that tree rings are bad proxies, or are being used incorrectly. These criticisms are not legitimate critiques of the science, but rather, combine obfuscation and misinformation to muddle and confound thinking about tree rings. An early example of this comes from the kerfuffle known at “climategate” in which electronic communications among climate scientist were stolen and mined for decontextualized quotes that could be used to lie about the science itself and the motivations and activities of the scientists who developed the Hockey Stick curve. Michael Mann chronicles these events in his book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the front lines.”

There’s another 1300 words getting into some of the details.  Check it out.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 02:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 04 November 2017 07:11 AM
MikeYohe - 03 November 2017 10:14 PM

You need to ask yourself why are all these scientists disagreeing with Mann and what they are disagreeing about. Why people are writing books about Mann if he has no major input for Global Warming. His famous graft only lasted one year.

I have asked those questions. I’ve asked you those questions. The answer is always the same; the scientists you refer to do not meet the definition of scientist. When you name names, which is rare, I can trace them to oil money or I can simply look them up and see they got mad because someone didn’t publish their paper, so they self-published a book or something. On the other hand, being balanced as you suggest, I can look up the hockey stick graph on the IPCC website https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html.

You want to pick out 2 trees and some complicated math from decades of study and say it debunks the entire theory. You want to pick one guy’s personality and say it discredits the entire consensus. You want to use an isolated factoid about how long a particular version of the data had one guy’s name associated with it. I don’t know how you live with yourself.

No, I don’t want to do any of that. I don’t want to be dealing with this at all. It is part of history. And stop calling it a theory, it never got close to being a theory. And I am not the one making the claim, the scientists are. Please tell me which one of these people who disagreed with the chart and methods of science Mann used do not meet the definition of scientists?
Here are a few more who disagree with Mann’s Hockey Stick. 
Dr. Madhav Khendekar, Professor Wallace Smith Broecker, Professor Sor Darrel Ince, Dr. Tamsin Edwards, Professor Atte Korhola, Dr. Lubos Motl, Dr. Hans Von Storch, Professor Harold Lewis, Professor Raymond Bradley, Dr. Judith Curry, Professor Gernot Patzelt, Professor Robert Laughlin, Dr. Jerry D Mahlman, Peter Gluckman, Dr Bo Christiansen, Professor David Legates, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Professor William Happer, Professor David R Legates, Professor Darrel Ince, Dr Hendrik Tennekes, Dr Michael R Fox, Dr. Hamish Campbell, Professor Ivar Giaever, Dr Eduardo Zorita, Professor Richard Muller, Dr Jeffrey E Foss, Professor Jonathan Jones, Dr David Deming, Dr Lee C Gerhard, Professor Tony Brown, Dr Craig D Idso, Dr. Sherwood B Idso, Dr Keith E Idso, Dr Gordon Jacoby, Professor Wallace Smith Broecker, Dr Denis Rancourt, Professor Wigley, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr Blankeley B Mcshane, Dr. Abraham J Wyner, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, Professor Philip Stott, Dr Richard Alley, Dr Jarl Ahlabeck, Neal J King, Professor James V Zidek, Dr. Mia Hubert, PHD Robert Way, Professor Ian Jolliffe, Dr Gordon Fulks, Professor G Kornelis Van Kooten, Dr Lars Kamel, Dr Rob Van Dorland, Professor Wibjorn Karlen, Professor John Christy, Dr Curtis C Covey, Professor Fritz Vanrenholt, Dr David H Rind, Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Tim Patterson

Mann’s Hockey Stick on the site you posted is not the same chart as posted in IPCC 2000. The 98’ chart was for only 1,000 years too.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 06:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1596
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 02:20 PM

Here are a few more who disagree with Mann’s Hockey Stick. 
Dr. Madhav Khendekar, Professor Wallace Smith Broecker, Professor Sor Darrel Ince, Dr. Tamsin Edwards, Professor Atte Korhola, Dr. Lubos Motl, Dr. Hans Von Storch, Professor Harold Lewis, Professor Raymond Bradley, Dr. Judith Curry, Professor Gernot Patzelt, Professor Robert Laughlin, Dr. Jerry D Mahlman, Peter Gluckman, Dr Bo Christiansen, Professor David Legates, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Professor William Happer, Professor David R Legates, Professor Darrel Ince, Dr Hendrik Tennekes, Dr Michael R Fox, Dr. Hamish Campbell, Professor Ivar Giaever, Dr Eduardo Zorita, Professor Richard Muller, Dr Jeffrey E Foss, Professor Jonathan Jones, Dr David Deming, Dr Lee C Gerhard, Professor Tony Brown, Dr Craig D Idso, Dr. Sherwood B Idso, Dr Keith E Idso, Dr Gordon Jacoby, Professor Wallace Smith Broecker, Dr Denis Rancourt, Professor Wigley, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr Blankeley B Mcshane, Dr. Abraham J Wyner, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, Professor Philip Stott, Dr Richard Alley, Dr Jarl Ahlabeck, Neal J King, Professor James V Zidek, Dr. Mia Hubert, PHD Robert Way, Professor Ian Jolliffe, Dr Gordon Fulks, Professor G Kornelis Van Kooten, Dr Lars Kamel, Dr Rob Van Dorland, Professor Wibjorn Karlen, Professor John Christy, Dr Curtis C Covey, Professor Fritz Vanrenholt, Dr David H Rind, Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Tim Patterson (unfucking believeable, don’t suppose you have any actual evidence.
MikeYohe, your malicious nature never cease to astound.  The freedom and dishonesties you take is too much.  No wonder that sort of fire shut up most lazy
Americans and brought us to the brink of the coming nightmare.  downer )

Mann’s Hockey Stick on the site you posted is not the same chart as posted in IPCC 2000. (Well post your’s! With a link) The 98’ chart was for only 1,000 years too.

If you want to brush up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
In 1998, Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes developed new statistical techniques to produce Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 (MBH98), the first eigenvector-based climate field reconstruction (CFR). This showed global patterns of annual surface temperature, and included a graph of average hemispheric temperatures back to 1400.[4] In Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 (MBH99) the methodology was extended back to 1000.[5][6] The term hockey stick was coined by the climatologist Jerry D. Mahlman, to describe the pattern this showed, envisaging a graph that is relatively flat to 1900 as forming an ice hockey stick’s “shaft”, followed by a sharp increase corresponding to the “blade”.[7][8] A version of this graph was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), along with four other reconstructions supporting the same conclusion.[6] The graph was publicised, and became a focus of dispute for those opposed to the strengthening scientific consensus that late 20th-century warmth was exceptional.[9]

Incidentally, for your information: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF

Here have a look at the 1998 paper

Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries
Michael E. Mann*, Raymond S. Bradley* & Malcolm K. Hughes†
NATURE | VOL 392 | 23 APRIL 1998
Screen+Shot+NAture98+Hockey+stick+graph.png
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

Spatially resolved global reconstructions of annual surface temperature patterns over the past six centuries are based on the multivariate calibration of widely distributed high-resolution proxy climate indicators. Time-dependent correlations of the reconstructions with time-series records representing changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols suggest that each of these factors has contributed to the climate variability of the past 400 years, with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing during the twentieth century. Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400. 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2017 09:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 04 November 2017 07:11 AM
MikeYohe - 03 November 2017 10:14 PM

You need to ask yourself why are all these scientists disagreeing with Mann and what they are disagreeing about. Why people are writing books about Mann if he has no major input for Global Warming. His famous graft only lasted one year.

I have asked those questions. I’ve asked you those questions. The answer is always the same; the scientists you refer to do not meet the definition of scientist. When you name names, which is rare, I can trace them to oil money or I can simply look them up and see they got mad because someone didn’t publish their paper, so they self-published a book or something. On the other hand, being balanced as you suggest, I can look up the hockey stick graph on the IPCC website https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html.

You want to pick out 2 trees and some complicated math from decades of study and say it debunks the entire theory. You want to pick one guy’s personality and say it discredits the entire consensus. You want to use an isolated factoid about how long a particular version of the data had one guy’s name associated with it. I don’t know how you live with yourself.

 
Can you take your statements to the next step please? I hope you are not talking conspiracy theory here, like Big Foot or Aliens. What is wrong with oil money? Or scientists seeing something wrong and getting pissed off? You are aware that the government can’t find its ass with both hands. It takes private companies to help direct the government on most issues except raising taxes. 
 
As far as two trees. Don’t you think it is best to use established science? There would have been nothing wrong with the trees if Mann had his work reviewed by a statistician. Then explain what was wrong with the existing theory. And then have his work peer-review instead of pal-review by someone that was not his buddy and owing to him. Then make his data available to anyone wanting to review or test his work.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2017 10:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2017-09-24

Who cares what a denier’s delusions are, the evidence supporting human forced climate change is far more extensive than one graph.

It includes the increases in yearly average global temperature with almost all the warmest years on record in this 17 year old century.

It includes changes in atmospheric temperature profile.

It includes thermal expansion of the oceans and a rise in sea level from melting ice.

It includes the melting ice itself, the cryosphere around the globe is in rapid retreat.

It includes changes in extreme weather like extreme heat waves that can turn huge areas into massive wildfires as we just saw here this year with many people being killed.

All this totally consistent with observational and theoretical science going back centuries.

Of course Mike Yohe is going to deny all this, he’s a denier. It doesn’t matter how much you present or how often Mike Yohe and all deniers will continue to deny it because they don’t care in the slightest about evidence or consequence.

Why the hell do you keep trying to convince someone of something they are entirely committed to denying?

As I’ve said repeatedly all you are doing is giving them a platform to assert their denial even more. Block him and pretend he isn’t here because in a informational sense he isn’t

Until you keep opening the damn door for him over and over.

Which in the end makes you as much of a denier as he is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2017 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 04 November 2017 07:11 AM

You want to pick one guy’s personality and say it discredits the entire consensus. You want to use an isolated factoid about how long a particular version of the data had one guy’s name associated with it. I don’t know how you live with yourself.


When have I ever said anything about Mann’s personality? Please don’t get me mixed up with CC and Doug Boy, that is what they do all the time. Show me where I have done that. Let me rephrase that. I am guilty a little. I did bring up when I was watching Mann in front of a hearing of Congressmen and he called the other scientists “deniers”. Then when questioned by a congressman why he called them deniers, Mann claimed he hadn’t called them deniers. Then the hearing records were read back and filed into the congressional records.  And I have brought up the fact that Mann has claimed to have won the Nobel Prize. He claimed his Nobel Laureate in his press materials, his book jackets and even in the court filing of his libel suits. The Nobel Institute had nothing to say about him, other than he had never won a Nobel Prize.
 
As far as a consensus, I have made it clear that I prefer factual science over consensual science. First point is that I understand what consensual science is. I am not delusional, there is very little difference between consensual and religion when consensual reaches this scale and is politically pushed. I am not going to chance the consensual thinking any more than I would be able to change religious thinking. Einstein ran against consensual thinking with the Luminiferous Aether Winds and got nowhere. Einstein was viewed as just an idiot that clearly could not understand simple science. Everyone knew that you had to have Aether Winds to even get sunlight to earth. Then as they started having trouble with new factual science not working with consensual science, they just claimed that the factual scientists didn’t know what they were doing, and we get the famous Michelson-Morley Experiment. Then it reached a level that there were to many claims by the factual scientists. The consensual thinking melted away and merged and made way for the factual science. In the case of the 98’ chart, it was changed after one year into an updated chart because of claims by factual scientists that the 98’ chart was not correct. The consensual science was too strong for the science to change overall. The consensual science is slowly picking up some facts and changing. All I want to do in speed up the process. It is costs to the taxpayers and the reputation of American scientists that are on the line. I gave time for the consensual science to prove itself, decades. Every prediction by consensual science has proven to be wrong. But like religion, it is only wrong to the none believers. What consensual science is missing are numbers. As the new data brings numbers into play the consensual science will go away. Right now consensual science has been slowing up the Global Warming science models because the projects funded require the scientist’s projects to match the consensual science thinking and computer models are not able to make that happen.     

You want to use an isolated factoid about how long a particular version of the data had one guy’s name associated with it.
This none issue you are bring up is really a big issue. Over the last decade hundreds of stories have been written about it. Books have been written about it. Billions of taxpayers’ dollars have been spent on it. Scientists have said that the Mann 98’ chart should be taught to all science students as how not to do science. Mann did not promote his chart. He changed his chart as quickly as he could. It was Gore that promoted the 98’ chart and kept it alive long after it had been discarded. Gore’s “The Inconvenient Truth” has sold thousands of copies and shown to millions of people. For example, the German Environment Minister had it shown to all the German school children. So, we have a graph that was trashed after one year, leading the climate science to the public on earth to this day. 


I don’t know how you live with yourself. Stick around and watch the science change from consensual to factual. Then you will understand, maybe.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2017 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2017-09-24

And this is exactly what I mean, as long as you keep directly addressing a climate change denier it includes them in the discussion.

And the only point of denial is to disrupt the discussion as much as possible.

Let him start threads and post everything he wants, it makes no difference because it’s not based in reality.

[ Edited: 08 November 2017 11:30 AM by DougC.V2 ]
Profile