Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 Next
Comments 56051 to 56100:
-
Eric (skeptic) at 04:13 AM on 28 July 2012Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming
Stronger storms may destroy ozone (subtitle: Extra water vapor up high coul trigger destructive chemical reactions)For now, the danger exists only on paper. Actual measurements tracking chlorine compounds in the stratosphere would help to confirm whether the damage is taking place and, if so, how widespread the problem may be
It sounds to me like this is a strictly localized effect. -
Albatross at 04:10 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Brandon @20, Thanks for your response, although it is unfortunate that your reprehension of Mr. Steyn's slander and falsehoods had to be solicited. As for your claim that you have not attempted to obfuscate, I think readers of this thread and the Muller thread will see it very differently. As for your claim that the main post contains a factual error, I'm afraid that you have not made a compelling case in that regard, as has also been noted by other commentators. Regardless, for argument's sake even if the main post does contain a factual error, it does not make the actions of Mr. Steyn (which were likely inspired by Mr. McIntyre's musings) or the repeated attacks on scientists by Mr. McIntyre and his ilk any less reprehensible or defensible. "but it is inexcusable to compare anyone to a child molester" Then I hope you will join me in condemning the following comments and innuendo made at ClimateAudit following a post by Mr. McIntyre (posts which were not moderated): "Posted Nov 15, 2011 at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Reply A month or so ago, Judy Curry had a thread on a study of Jungian psychological profiles of climate scientists vs other physical scientists, and the results were quite striking. They are indeed, very, very different. It isn’t just your imagination." "Posted Nov 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Reply .....Steve, thank you for once more drawing attention to the strange personal properties that can be acquired by some scientists. The one that bothers me most is the departure from the generally accepted “scientific method” in the loose sense. It seems that it is often accompanied by departure from the norms of general social conduct, such as a reticence to conduct an honest inquiry, a dogged defence of inventive methodology that is plausibly flawed and so on to areas seldom discussed." Brandon "I have little interest in op-eds." I'd strongly suggest that you read Mr. Steyn's article, you might see some familiar accusations thrown around, some of which appear to have originated at ClimateAudit. His article is also critical to the main post. So you never read the op-ed by Mr. McIntyre that is demolished by DeepClimate then? -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:04 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Brandon... We've all had our comments deleted from time-to-time here. I've written articles here, I'm pro-AGW, and occasionally I step over the line and get my comments deleted. This is not an "anything goes" website. It's more of a regulated boxing match here with rules on how to keep the fight clean and fair. It's not a cage match like many other climate related sites. And I know this is off topic so that's all I'll say. Thx. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:48 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Brandon, you used what in sales and marketing is called a presumptive internal call for agreement for an implied conditional statement; an agreement equivalent to saying "if beating your wife is unacceptable on this site..." Stick to the science instead of ideology and spin and you will find, like most participants here, that this site is a haven of adult dialogue (and moderation-free) in a blogosphere predominantly adolescent in nature. It really isn't all that difficult. I recall a 14-year old girl posting here with no difficulties whatsoever. -
DSL at 03:43 AM on 28 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
I still don't see where the comment in question: "The background to these enquiries stems from a simple observation: extra heat in the air or the oceans is a form of energy, and storms are driven by such energy. What we do not know is whether we might see more storms as a result of extra energy or, as other researchers believe, the storms may grow more intense, but the number might actually diminish." is claiming that "all energy" is being converted to mechanical. 1. The background to these enquiries stems from a simple observation. 2. extra heat in the air or the oceans is a form of energy 3. and storms are driven by such energy. 4. What we do not know is whether we might see more storms as a result of extra energy 5. or, as other researchers believe, the storms may grow more intense, but the number might actually diminish. Is it in point 3, the "such" of which I read as "increased lower trop and sea surface temp"? -
Brandon Shollenberger at 03:40 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Daniel Bailey, I have a copy of my deleted comment, and no matter how many times I reread it, I can't figure out what in the world you're talking about. I'm going to take that as a sign I shouldn't post here anymore. I apparently just can't figure out how to do it successfully. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:37 AM on 28 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
cheers Ian, you do a much better job of explaining the issue! It seems to me one of those things where a straightforward presentation for the general public isn't actually the whole truth, but is enough to convey the basic idea. Perhaps there needs to be an advanced version of the post? -
Brandon Shollenberger at 03:23 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Albatross, there have been no "attempts to obfuscate" anything. I saw a factual error in a post, and I pointed it out. That's all. My views on anything else in the article have nothing to do with whether or not what I took to be a factual error is in fact a factual error. As it happens, I hadn't read the article you're talking about, and I still haven't. I have little interest in op-eds. That said, I can give a general view. If the article compares Michael Mann to someone guilty of child molestation, I think that's completely unacceptable. I have no problem with people drawing parallels between how incidents were handled (as in, whether or not investigations were adequate), but it is inexcusable to compare anyone to a child molester. I don't know why my views on the subject should matter to anyone, but hopefully that clarifies things.Moderator Response: [DB] It is noted that it is Brandon's perception that there is a "factual error" in an SkS post. Thus far, he has yet to provide convincing evidence to prove his central tenet. -
BKsea at 03:12 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
I find it ironic that people are saying Mann's efforts are going to invoke the "Streisand effect" given that the "fame" of Mann is due primarily to the Streisand effect - he would probably be little known outside of climate science but for the efforts to trash his name. I also think you need a graphic of the hockey stick graph with a big arrow pointing to the blade with the caption "This is the problem," and another arrow pointing to the handle with the caption "this is what we are arguing about." In my mind, we could throw out Mann's entire body of work and it would not change the climate narrative one iota - we are still facing dangerous warming. -
IanC at 03:04 AM on 28 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Dikran, Kelvin's version of the second law states that No process is possible in which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and its complete conversion into work. i.e. some of the heat extracted from the warm source must be transferred into the cooler reservoir. Effectively the 2nd law states that not only do you need a cold reservoir to receive the heat that is not converted to work, there is also an upper limit to how much work you can extract. Any statement indicating otherwise amounts to a violation of the second law, and any machine that is more efficient then what 2nd law allows is a perpetual machine. Having a cooler reservoir is necessary but not sufficient to comply with the second law. You also have to make sure that the machine does not do more work than the second law allows. -
Albatross at 02:54 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Brandon, I am an open person too, so are all the people posting here. I am not sure what the point of you saying that is. Numerous of my comments here at SkS have been moderated (no one's fault but mine I might add), and IIRC even deleted (again, my wrong doing), but that is not an excuse for me or anyone else to stop posting here or to avoid answering direct questions. So please stop making excuses and avoiding answering the question; I have posed it to you again on the relevant thread here and would be very grateful if you answered it. Thank you. -
Albatross at 02:48 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
What I am interested is whether or not Brandon agrees with Mr. Steyn's article. That is where he initially posted. So far Brandon has not said either way, although one could rightly assume his attempts to obfuscate and his silence on the matter as tacit approval of what Mr. Steyn said. I also wonder how Brandon would feel had made similar false accusations against Mr. McIntyre of the same falsehoods in a newspaper? I hope that we can receive an unambiguous and unequivocal answer from Brandon. -
fishellb at 02:18 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
#4, my understanding is that Mann's attorney knows libel law very well and doesn't take cases he thinks he can't win. It will be interesting to watch this play out. And how the MSM react. -
Chris G at 02:17 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
I have sometimes thought that Mann 98 and the mention of "trick" retains traction by the deniers is because the paper and the comment were directed at an audience then that is different from the audience receiving it now. The audience then was more limited and all the members were quite familiar with the divergence problem. Not showing the declining (negative?) correlation in the graph in no way changed the knowledge base of the audience members at the time. Everyone had the same knowledge and no one was deceived, or felt that they had been. The audience today is broader and less informed, and so not showing it has the appearance (only) of an attempt to deceive, at least to some that don't like the implications of the data. -
Brandon Shollenberger at 02:16 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Albatross, I'm a very open person, and I'll happily answer questions people have for me.However, my last comment here got deleted. I don't know why it was, and since I apparently don't know how to post here without getting moderated, I don't think I'll be answering questions here.But anyone should feel free to get a hold of me elsewhere if they have questions for me.Moderator Response:[DB] Your previous comment received moderation due to a combination of inflammatory insinuations and moderation complaints. As has this one.
The vast majority of participants in this venue never need nor receive any moderation, as they construct their comments to be in compliance with this site's Comments Policy. Having forced moderation on yourself in the past, this should come as no surprise to you.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:11 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger @183:"@181, that's a dashed line. You are saying a gap in a dashed line means the series terminated earlier than I say."
1) It is a dashed line that just happens to end 25 years after the start of the series (1400 AD) and 25 years before the end of the instrumental record with both gaps being wider than the gaps than the typical gap between dashes. But lets ignore that inconvenient evidence (as it becomes apparent you are wont to do). If the actual dashed line ends 7-8 years prior to 1980, how could McIntyre know that the truncation was to 1980? At the very best he is relying on a bald assertion to claim his reconstructed technique was Mann's technique.
Of course, the smoothed curve in MBH 99 terminates one or two years before 1980, in contradiction to McIntyre and consistent with a 40 year smooth with the end point of the padded data being 1998. How odd.
Let me guess, is that also because its a dashed line?
"One of the reconstructions [in an SkS post] was Mann's hockey stick. It, and all the other reconstructions in the figure, are smoothed. I take this to mean Skeptical Science is okay with people calling smoothed versions of temperature reconstructions temperature reconstructions. It technically isn't true, but effectively it is."
2) It is one thing to use a smoothed curve of a reconstruction to represent a reconstruction in popular exposition. It is an entirely different thing to treat the smoothed curve as being the actual reconstruction so that you can impute malfeasance. You are clearly evading at this point. You have been shown to be straight forwardly wrong on two counts. Fess up, or show that you are quite happy with people saying untrue things about simple facts, so long as it is you saying the untruths.Moderator Response: TC: Edited to add quotes from a deleted comment to provide context, and so that that part of his claims not in direct violation of the comments policy can see light of day. (DB, feel free to delete this post if you think that crosses any boundaries.) -
Daniel Bailey at 01:53 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
KR, see my comment here Re: Mann's Law -
KR at 01:50 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
I find the focus on Dr. Mann (and his work from 15 years ago such as in recent comments here, as opposed to the dozen or so similar reconstructions using different data, different methods) to be a rather revealing Rorschach test for deniers - he's achieved an iconic status in 'skeptic' circles, and there seems to be some idea that if only the icon can be tarnished, all that inconvenient data will just go away... - which it won't. That entire line of attack simply reveals the paucity of the skeptic arguments. Argument ad hominem rather than discussing the facts, the science. -
dana1981 at 01:42 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Albatross - I'd say the difference is that McIntyre is attacking the Penn State president and inquiry instead of directly criticizing Mann (though I didn't read his whole post, just the quotes at Deep Climate). He's indirectly inferring that Mann did something wrong instead of directly stating it as CEI and National Review did, and not comparing Mann to Sandusky as CEI did (propagated in the NR article quote). In short, McIntyre is behaving very Watts-like, throwing chum to his denialist readers without actually coming out and making specific accusations. This follows the behavior discussed in the final section of the post above, with denialist blogs frothing up their readers with these sorts of baseless accusations. As long as we're comparing the two investigations, it's worth noting that the Penn State football program brings in $60 million in annual revenue to the college, whereas Mann clearly does not. Thus there is no basis to infer that one coverup is evidence of another, since the underlying motivation of the former does not apply to the latter. To cut straight to the point, as noted in the above post, there is zero evidence that Mann did anything wrong. Even if the Penn State inquiry hadn't been 100% thorough, frankly the inquiry should not have been conducted to begin with. The McIntyres and Wattses of the world need to take their tinfoil hats off and stop with the baseless accusations which lead to abuse and death threats towards honest climate scientists. If you want to dispute the science, then do so, but stop attacking the messengers. -
chriskoz at 01:33 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
caerbannog @11, Thanks for that link to your calculations. Your honnest expectation (or maybe rhetoric sarcasm) is that deniers act logically. Nope. Your case proves again that in their actions, there is no place for any logic. What's the logic in this defamatory nonsense against Mike Mann? What are the motives of this individual called Ryan Simberg and CEI supporting him? I would call it the "final stage of denialism" - an attitude of a man who becomes so obsessed as to be detached from reality. He still has a chance to go back to reality by retraction and appology, otherwise he faces a certain defeat in the court case that would follow. -
dana1981 at 01:32 AM on 28 July 2012Esper Millennial Cooling in Context
Aanthanur - even more shocking, they didn't bring the usual "tree ring proxies are unreliable" meme this time. Climate contrarian skepticism is very selective, which is why they're not actual skeptics. They're only 'skeptical' until they find information to support their pre-determined conclusion. That's not skepticism, that's confirmation bias. -
Albatross at 01:29 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
I wonder where Mr. Steyn derived his inspiration from and what information on the internet piqued his interest as well as his imagination? Well, coincidentally (not) a certain "auditor" has been trying quite hard (see here, for example) to draw parallels between the tragic Sandusky affair and Dr. Mike Mann. Mr. McIntyre is then happy to let those uninterested with facts and the truth let their imaginations run wild. One has to wonder why Dr. Mann's lawyers have not yet sent a similar letter to Mr. McIntyre? Such a letter id long overdue in my opinion. And this OP once again clearly demonstrates why the the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is (unfortunately) so badly needed. -
Tom Curtis at 01:09 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger @180:"But that has no bearing on the fact Michael Mann appended instrumental temperature data to his reconstructed historical record, smoothed the resulting series then published that (truncated at 1980) as a reconstructed historical series. It also has no bearing on the fact this Skeptical Science article contains a factual error."
You certainly like throwing out falsehoods. MBH 98 contained a reconstruction of temperatures over the last 600 years at annual resolution. The smoothed line was not the reconstruction and has not been claimed to be the reconstruction by Mann or his co-authors. The claim that it is the reconstruction is an invention by fake climate-auditors who, by that invention pretend they are making substantial criticisms when they are quibbling about irrelevancies. Again, I quote Michael Mann:"In some earlier work though (Mann et al, 1999), the boundary condition for the smoothed curve (at 1980) was determined by padding with the mean of the subsequent data (taken from the instrumental record). This does make a small difference near the end of the series. It doesn't effect any of the conclusions drawn in the paper though. These were based on comparisons of the individual reconstructed annual values (individual years and decadal averages over 10 consecutive years) from AD 1000-1980, with those from the recent instrumental record (1981-1998), and centered on the fact that the recent instrumental values were outside the error range of the reconstructed values over the past 1000 years and were not related to the smoothed curve. This figure shows the comparison of the originally published result with an alternative smoothing based on our more recent approach which does not use any instrumental data."
(My emphasis) Again, when will you stop "saying untrue things about simple facts"? -
Tom Curtis at 01:01 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger @180: Detail of fig 5 of MBH 98:
(Red marks added to show 1900 and 1950)
Please note that the smoothed curve terminates around 1973, not 1980. Clearly, therefore, McIntyre's reconstruction of Mann's "third step" is incorrect. You will note, of course, that no matter how carefully we examine McIntyre's code, it will not make the smoothed curve MBH 98 terminate in 1980.
So, here is the question, will you acknowledge that McIntyre's reconstruction of Mann's smoothing method did not in fact successfully reconstruct that method?
Or will you continue to "say untrue things about simple facts"?
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 00:48 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Tom Curtis @173, yes, that's correct. And as Steve McIntyre (as well as many others) has pointed out, Phil Jones did not truncate the series as Michael Mann did. This means what he did is not actually the same as what Mann did. But that has no bearing on the fact Michael Mann appended instrumental temperature data to his reconstructed historical record, smoothed the resulting series then published that (truncated at 1980) as a reconstructed historical series. It also has no bearing on the fact this Skeptical Science article contains a factual error.Moderator Response: [DB] Note that a laser-like focus on some minor technical point doesn't alter a paper's conclusions at all. -
DSL at 00:47 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Brandon: "The reality is people like Steve McIntyre have gone to great lengths to explain just what was done, and by who." I believe you've hit upon the problem, Brandon. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:46 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Methinks Brandon is sounding shrill. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:46 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Indeed. We should create a new "Law" rule, aka Godwin's Law: Mann's Law: "As an online discussion about climate science grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Michael Mann to tricks/fraud/misconduct/secret cabals/world domination is inevitable." Corollary to Mann's Law: "Once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned Michael Mann has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress; the coupling of this corollary with the initial statement of the law proves every threaded discussion to be finite in length." -
desertphile at 00:44 AM on 28 July 2012The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
".... I can tell you with full confidence that is NO credible empirical evidence in the entire historical record that CO2 has had ever any impact on Earth's climate! I am told my many people, with full confidence, that ghosts are real; I am also told by many people, with full confidence, that "fee energy" is possible. Meanwhile, the PPMCC between atmospheric CO2 increase and global average temperature increase is 0.90642 -
caerbannog at 00:44 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Here's yet another data-point that shows how "skeptics" are far more interested in harassing scientists than doing any real work of their own. Remember how the CRU was inundated with FOI demands related to the raw station data in its possession? Remember this FOI storm? Well, as of today, it's been exactly a year since the CRU released all of the raw data that the "skeptics" had been demanding (and at the risk of violating nondisclosure agreements with supplers). So, what has happened in the year since? Do you hear crickets chirping? With only one exception that I know of (and that exception's results confirmed the CRU's work), not a single "skeptic" has done a lick of work with the data. Listen skeptics -- you've had the CRU's raw data in your hot little hands for a whole year. How about showing us some results? Or at least how about acknowledging that your FOI antics were intended to harass scientists and waste their time, and that you never intended to do any real work with the data? And don't even try to use the "scientists didn't disclose their methods/code, so we couldn't replicate their work" excuse. Don't even think about going there. Because on July 30 of last year (3 days after the CRU released all that data), I downloaded the CRU raw data, crunched it, and posted my results right here. Total turn-around time? A few hours. In that July 30 post, I made this bold prediction: Now, it remains to be seen what (if anything) the deniers who have been demanding access to this complete data-set will actually do with it. Based on what I've seen of their past performance (or lack thereof), I'd be willing to wager that they will produce absolutely nothing meaningful. Am I psychic or what? -
Brandon Shollenberger at 00:43 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Tom Curtis @169, there is no contradiction in saying results generated by a particular methodology are different than the results generated by the same methodology applied to a different data series. @171, McIntyre shows what was done in Mann's work that appeared in Nature. The e-mail in question is discussing a figure with three lines. One is Mann's work being referred to in my discussion. Another is from Keith Briff's work. Phil Jones says, "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." It is obvious what work he is referring to. Phil Jones referred to a trick in Michael Mann's work "of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years." Steve McIntyre discusses Mann having appended 18 years of instrumental temperature data to his reconstructed temperatures. "Mike's Nature trick" is exactly what Steve McIntyre says it is. -
Albatross at 00:41 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Sphaerica @174 and Alex @172, Hear, hear! What this nonsense essentially amounts to is people like McIntyre being obsessed by a paper from almost 15 years ago, engaging in an orchestrated and mendacious vendetta against climate scientists and using any opportunity (real or imagined) to shout "Squirrel!". In the meantime, while we fiddle Rome burns... -
desertphile at 00:39 AM on 28 July 2012The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
A very fine article: thank you. Bond Events don't look cyclical, judging from _Bond_et_al_ (1997) but it is possible they are, or were: one needs a much longer series of data to answer the question. It seems very odd to me that denialists and professional liars insist that proxy data going back 600 years are all wrong when Dr. Mann _et_al_ published the data, but proxy data going back 10,000 years are Gospel if they give the verisimilitude of causing doubt on the evidence for human-caused climate change. -
Aanthanur at 00:37 AM on 28 July 2012Esper Millennial Cooling in Context
what i find interesting is that while several deniers seem to accept this Esper paper, they didn't bring the usual, but they used Computer Models meme this time :D -
Bob Lacatena at 00:35 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
I get so tired of deniers trying to knit pick Mann (a very, very small part of the climate puzzle) to death, while: 1) No one has ever succeeded in demonstrating that the MCA was warmer than current temps, and if it is then that's bad, not good, news for the future climate. 2) Multiple studies, done in a variety of ways, have reinforced Mann's original conclusions. 3) The number of hockey sticks we see in the world -- from temps to sea ice to extreme events -- is increased every day. Really, this is getting tiring. Deniers need to stop focusing on Mann and either put up or shut up, as far as "proving" their point. The complete failure of the denial movement to generate any actual, factual arguments sort of makes this nonsense about Mann crystal clear -- it's a distraction from reality, because it's the only place where deniers think they can remotely "win", and then only because no one really cares (except for Steve "The Auditor" McIntyre)! -
Tom Curtis at 00:28 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger, to establish one simple fact, you claim that:"The trick actually consists of splicing instrumental data onto the reconstructed series (starting at 1980), smoothing the resulting series, then truncating the series at the point the instrumental data had been appended."
(My emphasis) As, according to you and McIntyre the instrumental data was appended from 1980 onwards, this would mean that the smoothed series terminates in 1980. Is that correct? -
Alex C at 00:23 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
@Brandon Shollenberger #167: >>>To put it simply, code has been provided which allows one to exactly replicate the results stated by Steve McIntyre. But if McIntyre did not accurately describe what Mann did then the code he provided to allow others to replicate his results will only cause others to replicate his inaccurately applied description. Tom's point was that Mann used the mean of the instrumental data to pad, not the instrumental data itself. I again propose you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The paper's conclusions would stand with or without the filter and as such the different padding choices would have (a) a marginal effect on the endpoints and (b) no impact on the paper's conclusions. I would contend that choosing zeros for a padding method at the end is the wrong thing to do, too. The tree ring data was calibrated to reflect temperatures of the northern hemisphere, so the better thing to do would be to use actual NH data, if it existed (which it just so happened to). -
Tom Curtis at 00:21 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger @167, code for a purported reconstruction of a smoothing technique is not evidence that that smoothing technique was "Mann's Nature trick". Before the reconstruction of the smoothing technique can be evidence of what is involved in the "Nature trick", you must first establish that the smoothing technique used in MBH 98 was the trick that either Jones referred to or that Mann understood Jones to be referring to. McIntyre provides exactly zero evidence on this point. He merely asserts it. I do not expect you to appreciate this point as your ability to condemn depends on your not understanding it. But so much, therefore, for your commitment to truth. -
Albatross at 00:19 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Hi Tom, Brandon is merely recycling longed debunked claims made by the self-styled "auditor". DeepClimate has long ago addressed McIntyre's efforts to mislead readers of a UK newspaper and do what he likes to do, make mountains out of molehills, and then suggest misconduct by certain climate scientists (oddly, almost never "skeptics") . In fact, McIntyre's missive and distortion of the facts was so bad that DeepClimate had to split up his rebuttal into two parts. The second one can be found here. DeepClimate concludes [my highlights]: "Judging from his recent presentation at the Heartland Institute sponsored International Climate Conference, it appears that Steve McIntyre has not changed his narrative and interpretation of the "climategate" emails of September 1999. Neither is there any indication, as far as I know, that McIntyre has responded to the facts presented above. Based on currently available information, then, McIntyre appears to have chosen option (b) and has ignored the evidence, at least so far." Now had Mann posted such an article as McIntyre's in a newspaper, I'm sure allegations of "fr@ud" would be rampant by the usual suspects who specialize in promulgating misinformation, feeding fodder to the skeptics and attacking climate scientists. It is sad that some are so willing to (knowingly?) defend the mendacious actions and flawed arguments of people like Mr. McIntyre. -
Tom Curtis at 00:15 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger @168, I was merely pointing out that your claim as written contradicts itself. If you cannot recognize the contradiction, that is not my problem. -
KR at 00:03 AM on 28 July 2012It's the sun
curiousd - A more simple argument against increased solar flux is that solar flux has decreased since 1980, as seen here, going in the opposite direction from the temperature trend. But yes, stratospheric cooling is one of the fingerprints of GHG warming - less energy going from the troposphere to the stratosphere due to GHG entrapment, while higher concentrations of GHG's in the stratosphere cause some radiative cooling to space. There are complications in terms of stratospheric water vapor trends, but that's the basic mechanism. -
Brandon Shollenberger at 00:00 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Tom Curtis @166, if you have a question about what I said, I'd be happy to clarify. However, if all you want to do is mock a comment because you think it is wrong, I don't see anything worthwhile coming from it. -
Brandon Shollenberger at 23:59 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Tom Curtis, you claim I haven't provided "substantial evidence" for my description of the trick. The link I provided contains links to exactly that. In fact, one link provides code to exactly replicate what was done. Given that, your points 1-3 are without merit. As for your point 4, you claim "fake climate-auditors" use the term "Mike's Nature trick" to give a false impression. The reality is people like Steve McIntyre have gone to great lengths to explain just what was done, and by who. Your accusation here is without basis, just like the rest of your disagreement has been As for your point 5, it's hard to tell exactly what you're showing when you provide nothing but an image with no legend, caption or source. Since the image you provide is different than images provided with the code needed to replicate them, one could safely dismiss it as is. There is simply no way to know what was actually done in it. To put it simply, code has been provided which allows one to exactly replicate the results stated by Steve McIntyre. Nobody has shown any mistake in that code. Dismissing the results without showing any flaw in them is inappropriate. -
Tom Curtis at 23:49 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger @165:"You can debate whether or not Mann's approach was right. You can say he should have done something else. I won't disagree. However, the point here is given the methodology Mann used, his figure should have been notably different. The only reason it isn't is he spliced instrumental data onto his reconstructed series."
So, given that Mann used a particular method it should have looked one way, but it looks different because he didn't use the method that he used. Got it! -
Brandon Shollenberger at 23:43 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Alex C, you can see the effect of the decision in the link I provided. The visual impact is undeniable. If one uses the method Mann used (including his Butterworth filter) without appending the instrumental series to the reconstructed series, the series ends on a downturn. That's the opposite of what the instrumental series shows. It's obviously something readers should be informed about. As for the data not dropping to zero, you are right. You can find an explanation via the link I provided, but the simple version is when one smooths a series, the ends of the series can't be treated the same as the middle. You just don't have any data on the edges to use for averaging. To address that problem, sometimes "padding" is used. This is a process where data is artificially generated to be used in the smoothing function. There are a number of ways of doing it, but in Mann's case, he padded the series with zeroes (the mean of the instrumental record during the calibration period). By padding the end with zeroes, he forces the data to trend to zero. You can debate whether or not Mann's approach was right. You can say he should have done something else. I won't disagree. However, the point here is given the methodology Mann used, his figure should have been notably different. The only reason it isn't is he spliced instrumental data onto his reconstructed series. And that is "Mike's Nature trick." It is not merely plotting two series together as this article claims. -
KR at 23:42 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
As a side note, due in large part to the changes in funding laws in the US (Citizens United case, US Supreme Court), Koch Industries alone has put more money into the 2012 presidential race than the total of McCain's 2008 campaign expenditures (from NPR). There's a lot of money being applied to denying science, and the attacks on Mann and others are just one part of it. -
BWTrainer at 23:31 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
It's amusing how the skeptics continue to try to bring down the hockey stick as if the entire body of knowledge on global warming rests on a single study done in the 90s. -
Tom Curtis at 23:18 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Brandon Shollenberger @159 and @161, given the nature of your concluding comments, it would be helpful if you were careful with the facts. Let's actually start with those facts: 1) The only person who knows what was meant by Jones when he wrote of "Mann's Nature trick" was Jones himself. Comments by any other person, including most especially Steve McIntyre consist of conjecture only. 2) The person next best placed to know what was meant was Michael Mann himself, who has said:"The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear."
I am unaware of any specific statement by Phil Jones on the issue. Consequently this statement is the only available statement by a principle and should be taken as definitive unless substantial evidence to the contrary exists. Neither you, nor so far as I am aware, anyone else has provided that substantial evidence. Rather, you have insisted that McIntyre's conjecture should trump Mann's word on, apparently little other basis than the desire that Mann should be wrong. 3) Mann did use a technique similar to that described by you in generating the smoothed curve for MBH 98 and MBH 99. Specifically, he appended the mean of the instrumental data from 1981-1997 (MBH 98) and from 1981-1998 (MBH 1999) and use that to pad the proxy data for generating the smoothed curve. Note that contrary to McIntyre, he did not use the instrumental values themselves, but the mean of the values over a given period. Further, and again contrary to McIntyre, he ended the smooth in 1973 (MBH 98) and 1979 (MBH 99), ie, the period determined by necessity when using a 50 year (MBH 98) or 40 year (MBH 99) smooth. Clearly McIntyre has not even got the reconstruction of Mann's smoothing method correct. His supposition that he can deduce from his flawed reconstruction of Mann's smoothing method the nature of the "Nature trick" is absurd. Specifically, McIntyre gives no evidence that the trick relates to the smoothing function as opposed to appending of the full instrumental record as claimed by Mann. 4) Assuming Jones was referring to his graph for the WMO report, he did not do anything like what Mann did in his Nature article (MBH 98). Consequently the name of "Mike's Nature trick" is a complete misnomer. Fake climate-auditors, however, insist on using it, and in trying to suggest that Mann did something similar. Clearly the purpose is not to criticize Jones' techniques, which stand or fall on their own merits. Rather it is an attempt to try and tarnish as many reputations as possible on no substantive basis. 5) As always, the holy grail for so-called climate auditors is to detract from Michael Mann's work. In this case, the absurdity of their attack is shown by the fact that: a) As Michael Mann says:"[The scientific results] were based on comparisons of the individual reconstructed annual values (individual years and decadal averages over 10 consecutive years) from AD 1000-1980, with those from the recent instrumental record (1981-1998), and centered on the fact that the recent instrumental values were outside the error range of the reconstructed values over the past 1000 years and were not related to the smoothed curve."
and b) The smoothing technique used by Mann in MBH 98 and MBH 99 do not significantly effect the visual appearance. (Original text snipped to correct error) Original smooth shown in blue, amended technique shown in green. :
Shollenberger says he wants people to stop saying untrue things about simple facts. We will be able to determine the strength of his desire by whether he in fact stops doing just that.
-
Alex C at 22:45 PM on 27 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
@Brandon Shollenberger #161: Since the NH land instrumental series spans a temperature range of >1˚C, would the effect really be any different than merely plotting the tree ring chronology against the instrumental period with an overlap along the calibration period? I wonder if you're making much ado about nothing. I also don't know much about the Butterworth filter, but how much of the effect seen at the end of the series from the non-smoothed-with-instrumental data, in other words how much of that downward angle, is due to the choice of filter itself and how it behaves at the endpoints of series? Certainly Mann didn't splice instrumental data at the beginning of the time series, but the filter that McIntyre applied certainly seems to drop below what Mann's data shows. The tree ring data also doesn't show such a drop to the zero mark at the very end so the filter's doing something at the endpoint that reflects the trend of the data preceding, but doesn't respond to higher frequencies as might have actually existed at, say, ~1970-1980. Indeed from a brief lookup e.g. here: http://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-6-007-signals-and-systems-spring-2011/lecture-notes/MITRES_6_007S11_lec24.pdf Butterworth filters are low-pass and will suppress higher frequencies. So the ends of the smooth won't necessarily behave as the trend might actually be in the later data.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text per request. -
sime at 22:44 PM on 27 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
"We call on all climate 'skeptic' blogs to condemn the defamatory language from CEI and National Review, and the abuse directed towards climate scientists in general..." The correct, honest and noble path, something most decent, honest individuals with any level of self-respect for them selves and others would do without question. Don't hold your breath waiting for "climate 'skeptic' blogs to condemn the defamatory language from CEI and National Review" you will simply go blue and look like a Smurf. The silence of these so called "climate 'skeptic' blogs" and their outright refusal to condemn actions of this type speaks volumes as to their integrity (or lack there of) and to the sort of individuals who frequent these blogs and perpetuate this kind of nonsense. Simply put hell will freeze over (and Greenland will melt) before these blogs and associated individuals who frequent them will give any kind of condemnation or apology or admit they were then and are now totally and utterly wrong.
Prev 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 Next
