Image: Photograph by Chris Crisman
In Brief
- Who: Michael E. Mann
- Vocation|Avocation: Climate modeler and scourge/target of climate change contrarians
- Where: Pennsylvania State University
- Research focus: Improving climate models and climate communications
- Big Picture: “Being a climate scientist these days is not a 9 to 5 job. It’s a 0 to 24 job.”
More In This Article
Climatologist Michael E. Mann is most famous for what he calls one of the “least interesting” aspects of his work. In the 1990s he used data from tree rings, coral growth bands and ice cores as proxies for ancient temperatures, combining them with modern thermometer readings. This annual record of temperature variations over the past millennium offered insights into natural climate cycles. As an “afterthought,” he included a graph of average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere going back to the 1400s in a 1998 paper (he later extended it to A.D. 1000). That “hockey stick” graph, which shows temperatures bouncing up and down before rapidly rising more recently, became an icon of climate change.
It was also a focus of controversy. Although the U.S. National Research Council reviewed the hockey stick and endorsed its conclusions in 2006, Mann and his research came under often hostile public scrutiny, culminating in “Climategate”—the theft and publication of his and his colleagues’ personal e-mails in 2009. Mann’s employer, Pennsylvania State University, subsequently investigated him for research misconduct (and cleared him in 2010). And Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has filed suit against the University of Virginia, Mann’s former employer, to investigate his work there (at press time, the case is still pending). His detractors, Mann says, “never stop.”
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
115 Comments
Add Comment"Time after time SA choses to side with the indefensible & dishonest as per the recent Heartland Institute incident where even after Peter H. Gleick confessed to his subterfuge in obtaining documents,"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the whole manufactured "Climatagate" incident shold also be discounted - because emails were stolen? Mr. Gleik stooped to the tactics that deniers have been using nonstop for many years, and now deniers like you are upset? Hypocrite.
Great article and a great scientist. To all the tollers here today who believe the almost impossible conspiracy theory, that every climatologist on the planet duped everyone else into believing in human caused global warming, (except for your group of course) you will need to add the oil company Chevron to your list of conspirators: Go to Chevron's website, click global issues, then click climate change. Sorry the denialist campaign of misguided ideology is coming to an end.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny article on climate change always draws out the same tired whines by the same tired "denialist" trolls. Except, now they're confirmed hypocrites, too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis guys e-mails prove in his own words that the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisconspiracy is not a theory. It is a pretty much proven
fact. At least as far as this individual is concerned.
No matter what side of this issue you are on, this cannot
be denied. To rally to this guys defense does your cause no good. Especially when using this unfortunate phrase.
Which words?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMann's science is questionable at best and delusional at worst. When tree ring proxy data is used preferentially over thermometer data because it "fits" better, it tells you a couple of things:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Tree ring data is unreliable
2. The researcher is unreliable
End of story.
I essentially posted similar sentiments. My post was deleted. Other posters frequently use stronger language than I did, but for the other side of the argument yet their posts stand. We will see how long this one stands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually that is part of my post you have quoted. If you have a copy, why not quote my full post. Let others judge SA for deleting it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSCIAM is getting as bad as REALCLIMATE.CON
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIT's not uncommon for the politicaly drien anti-science rat pack that poses as editors on this despicable anti-science schmata to censor comments that they don't agree with.
Let's see how long this comment lasts.
The balance of my post refered to the faked memo & SA making excuses rather than trying to expose the truth. It is this faked memo that really demonstrates the dishonesty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cherrypicking response to my post by candide is more in line with SA standards.
How about instead of defending Michael E. Mann, Sciam does an honest story on this: Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/#more-57212
What's the matter, SciAm? You can't take the heat when it goes against your politics? Taking down comments isn't going to stop others from taking the fight to you. I have a 100 other places I am going to post that comment and it will show up on google 100 times.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm refuses to post both sides of the AGW debate. Watch out for their censorship!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just called SciAm at their New York office and talked to the Administrator of the SciAm website. She says she doesn't know what happened to the comments that were taken down. Something is afoot at SciAm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see the fake skeptics have been here in force. You have to wonder about the rationality of such people who go on and on with their pseduo-talking points about tree rings and yet seem unable or unwilling to read the one paragraph article that this article belongs too. If they had bothered to read it they would have discovered that it is not only tree rings but corals and ice core proxies that are also used to read "ancient temperatures".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I suggest to the fake skeptics that they contemplate that a dozen different studies by other researchers using different methodologies and proxies have reconfirmed the validity of the original Hockey Stick.
Here is a spaghetti graph from NOAA putting all those studies together. Please not the that the grey line is the modern temperature record:
The Hockey Team
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig6-10b.png
That the fake skeptics refuse to acknowledge the existence of these confirming studies using multiple proxies and methodologies by different researchers tells you all you need to know about the honesty of the pseduo-skeptics
@ Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust going to keep on pretending that different proxies such as corals and ice cores and different methodologies, by different researchers also give the same story, eh?
That is the true sign of a ideologue. Ignore all of the evidence that does not support your position.
@Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have noticed that you are a mouthy little boy that bangs his pots and pans all day long but has nothing to say or add that would be interesting to anyone else. Try listening once in a while and you might learn something. In 1983, Denmark's Willi Dansgard and Switzerland's Hans Oeschger brought up two ice cores from (2)one mile deep holes one mile apart in the Greenland Ice Sheet. Those cores represented 250,000 years of the Earth's layered Climate history. NO such long-term climate history had ever before been available. They laid out the cores side by side. They were astounded to find a smaller, moderate, and persistent temperature cycle superimpossed on the big, ice age, climate swings. The smaller cycle was 2500 years. They wrote a report in 1984 linking that cycle, unerringly, to the cycles of the sun. They noted that the cycle shifts were abrupt, sometimes gaininig half of the eventual temperature change in only a decade or so (W. Dansgaard et al., "North Atlantic Climatic Oscillations Revealed by Deep Greenland Ice Cores," 288-98) They wrote:
"Since the solar radiation is the only important input of energy to the climatic system, it is most obvious to seek an explanation in solar processes."
You are either well-paid to shoot your mouth off or your brain was severed at C-9. Again, try listening rather than banging your pot and pan. It's the Sun, Stupid!
@ Amaclr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want everyone to notice that not once in Amalcr screed did he attempt to address the facts as presented to him. Not once does he even acknowledge the facts that a dozen studies using ice core, corals, etc by other researchers using different methodologies came up with the same Hockey Stick.
No, instead he tries the typical denier tactic of switching the topic. Ok, I am game. Let us look at what a solar induced warming should look like. If the Sun is heating the Earth then we should see several unique characteristics.
1. We should see that ALL of the atmosphere is heating. Instead, we see as predicted first back in 1967 and then observed in the late 20th century that stratosphere is COOLING and the troposphere is WARMING. That is a unique signature to CO2 induced warming.
Prediction: Manabe, S. and R.T. Wetherald 1967. "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity." Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 24, 241-259.
Observation: V. Ramaswamy et al 1997 Stratospheric Temperature Trends: Observations and Model Simulations.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/vr0101.pdf
That is not the only one showing the observed stratosphere is cooling but it is the first. If you want more evidence for the predicted phenomena I am more than happy to oblige.
2. If the sun is responsible for the current round of heating then days should warm faster than nights. Duh. Yet, we see just the opposite. Nights are warming faster than days. That is again another falsification of the solar hypothesis.
Prediction:Arrhenius, S.A. 1896. "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276.
Observation: Diurnal Temperature Range as an Index of Global Climate Change During the Twentieth Century
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/2006GL028031.pdf
3. If the Sun is the cause of the recent warming trend then Summers should warm faster then Winters. Yet, again we see the direct opposite. Matter of fact, way back in 1896 a prediction was made and observed a century later that a CO2 induced warming should see Winters warming the fastest.
Prediction. Arrhenius, S.A. 1896. "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276.
Observation: Volodin, E.M. and V.Ya. Galin 1999. "Interpretation of Winter Warming on Northern Hemisphere Continents in 1977–94." Journal of Climate 12, 2947-2955.
You do not get to ignore these facts. That is not your privileged.
ClimateGate and what Gleick did are quite different. The data (including emails) related to ClimateGate were supposed to be accessible because all the related projects were funded by taxpayers. But in fact, the (so-called) scientists were stonewalling (which is also illegal !)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Heartland Institute is a private entity, not funded in any way by the taxpayer. They have no obligation (apart from financial reports to the IRS) to reveal other information to the general public.
Mann's "hockey stick graph" was debunked in more than one way. First, by McIntyre, who showed that any collection of random numbers would (using McIntyre's algorithm for determining temperature) result in a hockey stick graph.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStatisticians (much more credible in that area than Mann), also debunked his hockey stick graph. The second round of ClimateGate emails show that even Mann's compatriots recognized what he had done as dubious.
Then there is the little matter of the Medieval Warming Period, which Mann single-handedly relegated to merely a regional phenomenon. There are some 900+ peer-reviewed studies performed by research organizations representing 40+ countries, showing the the MWP was as warm, very likely warmer than our current warming, and global in nature. What's more new confirming studies continue to pour in.
Links to ALL these studies are provided by co2science.org.
You obviously don't know the difference between the reporting obligations of an entity which makes use of taxpayer dollars and a private entity which does not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut you somehow are able to conclude who is in denial and who is a hypocrite ! Lottsaluck out there in the real world !
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI noticed that you have once again mistaken the blog "Watts Up With That" for scientific discourse. Allow me to point out that the last link to that blog just one major error among many I found in that link.
The writer in his one sided strawman arguments cites Usokin, et al. Yet, when I go to the paper it has nothing about the current warming being solar induced. Matter of fact, it says:
Abstract. Page 19.
"The last thirty years are not considered, however. In this time the climate and solar data diverge strongly from each other."
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
Further it says in the same article:
"During these last thirty years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance, and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source"
Shorter Usokin: It is not the sun.
You so called "skeptics" have shown that you are grasping onto any straw no matter how illusory; even to the point of not reading what you are citing in support of your ideology. Pitiful.
Our current warming began at the bottom of the Little Ice Age, around 1680. (Mann tried to make that era, as well as the earlier Medieval Warming Period disappear, which flies in the face of some 900+ peer reviewed studies.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote that is some 200 years BEFORE any change in the level of co2, and also about 200 years BEFORE our industrial revolution. That's 200+ years of natural warming before man's activities could have had any impact.
I am sorry go figure but you are in error. It has now been repeatedly pointed out that a dozen different studies by other researchers using different techniques, and proxies have substantiated the Hockey Stick again, and again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Go figure,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sorry but that assertion is in error. the Little Ice Age did not end till the end of the 19th century. Here take a look at what the NOAA has to says:
"The Little Ice Age (or LIA) refers to a period between 1350 and 1900 when temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were between 1.0 and 2.0°C cooler than at present."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/resource1000.html
When you claim that the Little Ice Age ended in 1680 you have picked the coldest period during the Little Ice Age.
I should also note that saying "It is warming because we are coming out of the Little Ice Age" provides no explanation. The Earth's climate responds to its inputs and we know that the Earth's total solar irradiance is has been stable for decades.
You
A dozen? Really !?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the link to the 900+ peer-reviews, many done before Mann's hockey stick, and many done afterwards.
co2science.org
I'd like to see references, names of researchers, etc., for your "dozen" please.
A dozen? Really !?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the link to the 900+ peer-reviews, many done before Mann's hockey stick, and many done afterwards.
co2science.org
I'd like to see references, names of researchers, etc., for your "dozen" please.
False claims on both sides of this debate are anathema to me. I did accept the claim at face value & that was a mistake. I do not rule out the sun non the less. There is much still to learn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFalse claims on both sides of this debate are anathema to me. I did accept the claim at face value & that was a mistake. I do not rule out the sun non the less. There is much still to learn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFalse claims on both sides of this debate are anathema to me. I did accept the claim at face value & that was a mistake. I do not rule out the sun non the less. There is much still to learn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFalse claims on both sides of this debate are anathema to me. I did accept the claim at face value & that was a mistake. I do not rule out the sun non the less. There is much still to learn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point remains. Our current warming began around 1680. It matters not a bit what period NOAA refers to as the Little Ice Age. Climatologists donot agree on starting and ending periods (not unusual), but they do pretty much agree on the low point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point remains. Our current warming began around 1680. It matters not a bit what period NOAA refers to as the Little Ice Age. Climatologists donot agree on starting and ending periods (not unusual), but they do pretty much agree on the low point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point remains. Our current warming began around 1680. It matters not a bit what period NOAA refers to as the Little Ice Age. Climatologists donot agree on starting and ending periods (not unusual), but they do pretty much agree on the low point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo explanation is needed for why the 1680 warming. It was before man had any impact, so by default, it was natural climate warming. The continued warming beginning after the industrial revolution was likely coincidental because it would have taken probably a century before any significant buildup in co2. (Even now, the annual increase is only about 2ppmv.) The current level of co2 is about 400ppmv.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould co2 be having some impact on temperature? Sure, but so could that butterfly in the southern hemisphere merely flapping its wings. In both cases there is no evidence indicating that there has been an influence.
The physics experiment showing that adding a bit of co2 to a heated container increases the temperature is not relevant in the open atmosphere because there are feedbacks. In fact, recent satellite readings show that when the planet is warmer, more heat escapes to space. That would be a negative feedback. The computer models (which are not evidence of anything apart from the author(s) understanding and possible biases) assume that water vapor is a very significant positive feedback. No evidence for that either. In fact, the models evidently assume that the feedback provides 2 or 3 times the temperature increase as the corresponding co2 increase does. Of course, all the models are projecting much more temperature than actual data shows. It's more likely that Henrik Svensmark and his multidisciplinary team are correct. They assume that the cloud feedback is negative. And their predictions, beginning in the 1990s are much better than anything the UN IPCC has produced.
I understand, that even the UN is now projecting no significant influence by co2 for the next few decades. That would seem to be an 180 degree about face, considering that co2 is still rising.
By the end of this century (2099) the co2 level will be around 600ppmv. A crowded gymnasium with poor venting could easily be at 1000ppmv. Submarine crews do quite well in 3000 to 5000 ppmv.
Also, there is no helpful correlation between co2 and temperature. Paleo measurements show that temperature variations influenced the same in co2 some 800+ years later, the reverse of what Al Gore claimed. Not only that, co2 has been much higher during two ice ages and going into one ice age, and some scientists have noted that lifeforms not unlike our own survived quite well in much higher co2 levels.
A closer look does not show that the IPCC is exonerated. Simply showing that not everything in the links agreed with the opinions expressed does not exonerate the IPCC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSea level rise and temperature are increasing at the upper end of the projections? What is Mann smoking and where is SciAm’s fact checking before printing this nonsense? Sea level rise has all but stopped, and temperatures according to both GISS and HadCRUT are below Hansen’s Scenario C which is where he said we’d be if we cut CO2 emissions to back near Stone Age levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA temperature plot related to the little ice age low spot can be found at
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
Any claim of sea-level rise is completely ludicrous. The sea level has been steadily rising since the end of the (real) Ice Age. If you look at a 15,000 year graph, you'll notice that it basically flattened out several thousand years ago. There still may be a miniscule annual increase.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen that ends, we'll know we're into the next Ice Age. (We're, unfortunately overdue.) In the last 1.3 million years there has been 13 ice ages, each averaging 90,000 years and followed by a 10,000 interglacial period. The trend can change - it was something different before then, but that's not the way to bet.
the interglacial 10,000 year is also an average
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is my consternation that little people and little minds think that the last 50 years of our atmospheric history is the end-all proof of AGW. Thoughtful consideration of millions of years of atmospheric history slaps us humans hard in the head to make us remember that we are less important than we think we are. Most of the little-people global warmists only want to retrace global temperatures back to 1000 CE because it suits their purpose to do so. We have plenty of records that we can access to go back to 750 BCE. Now, since we have ice cores that nobody can refute that describes the climate going back 250,000 years, the following table has been put together, not only from ice cores but from proxies that aren't from non-disclosed heat islands like Michael Mann screwed up with:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA. Egyptian Cooling - 750-450 BCE
B. Roman Warming - 200 BCE - 600 CE
C. Dark Ages Cooling - 440 CE - 900 CE
D. Medieval Warming - 900 CE - 1300 CE
E. Little Ice Age Cooling - 1300 CE - 1900 CE
F. Modern Warming - 1900 CE - Present
When the warming periods occur, human Northward migration and farming occurs. People built grand buildings and cathedrals. When the cooling periods occur, people migrate south, leaving their farms behind and pestilences follow, like the PLAGUE that occured twice during cooler periods, 550 CE and 1350 CE. During the Roman Warming and the Midieval Warming, the climate was much warmer than it was today. That's a fact from ice cores. Now, since CO2 wasn't a problem to talk about during those two Warmings, what do you think caused the warming? It wasn't Al Gore's hot air that he is always spewing. It wasn't Michael Mann's non-disclosed urban heat islands that he covered up. It wasn't Trent1492's angry quoting of every global warmist web site. I agree totally that we are warming again. The KICKER is that it is NOT anthropomorphic. And we will see cooling again....and according to non-biased researchers and biased researchers(Michael Mann and his lying buddy, Phil Jones), we may be in a cooling period already. I am going to post in the next few days some of the emails that occured between Michael Mann and his lying buddy, Phil Jones. It's the Sun, Stupid!
@Go figure,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, a dozen reconstructions of the climate using different proxies and methodologies by different researchers come up with the same Hockey Stick.
The Hockey Team
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig6-10b.png
I am always willing to provide substantiation for my claims. Now it your turn. Please show me the peer reviewed works for CO2 science that reconstruct the either by Hemisphere or the entire Earth's temperature.
Here is a hint for you. Regional reconstructions do not a globe make. Now go find it.
Go figure says: The point remains. Our current warming began around 1680.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says. No it does not remain. It is a false statement of fact. I have shown you in detail how it is wrong. Why do you insist on repeating a now known falsehood?
@Go Figure,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I recommend you actually read the links you provide? Your link to Enviromemtal History Resources debunks your own claim.
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
Take a look at the title! "The Little Ice Age, Ca. 1300 - 1870"
Can it get anymore explicit? Why yes it can. The very first sentence says "he Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870 during which Europe and North America were subjected to much colder winters than during the 20th century"
In the same paragraph we find that when you claim it is warming they say " The period between 1600 and 1800 marks the height of the Little Ice Age." Directly opposite of what you claimed.
Reading Comprehension Fail.
Carlyle you are making less and less sense. You do realize that each of these studies is peer reviewed and the independent of the IPCC? All the IPCC did was put all the studies together into one big spaghetti graph.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo just going to ignore all of the science and post up another screed? It is like you are just intent on ignoring reality. Why I do believe that is the case.
Now how about you just settle down and consider some logic here. Saying that the climate has warmed before naturally does not exclude humanity from being the cause now. That is like saying that since forest fires happened way before humans ever appeared that arson is impossible.
You really need to brush upon those critical thinking faculties. Something else you need to brush upon is the difference between "anthropomorphic" and "anthropogenic" go learn the difference it is embarrassing to me as a fellow human being.
Oh here funny one for you guys. Guess what I found among many egregious errors on septic web sites? Get a load of this. Icecap.us has reproduced NOAA's Palmer Drought Severity Index mindlessly thinking that since the graph of shows a downward trend on the y axis that it must mean droughts are decreasing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://icecap.us/images/uploads/ScreenShot2447.jpg
So what happens when I go to NOAA and find out how the index works?
"The Palmer Index is most effective in determining long term drought—a matter of several months—and is not as good with short-term forecasts (a matter of weeks). It uses a 0 as normal, and drought is shown in terms of minus numbers; for example, minus 2 is moderate drought, minus 3 is severe drought, and minus 4 is extreme drought. At present, northern Virginia is at a minus 4.0 point; north central Maryland is at a minus 4.2 level, and southern Maryland is at least a minus 4 level."
And you guys want to know why you are held in such contempt? It is because you are bunch of clowns stumbling out of the clown car.
Amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make many, many patently false and stupid comments but among the worse is the one where you claim that the "It wasn't Michael Mann's non-disclosed urban heat islands that he covered up." So here is your chance prove it. Go to his original works that give the latitude and longitude for where the samples are taken. Show me the urban area near it.
But hold it you still got some problems here.
1. Tree rings among other proxies that were used by Mann and colleagues are used to figure out ancient temperatures. So what cities where present in those places?
2. Only the most down in the depths deniers think that tree rings are used to read modern temperatures. To read modern temperatures we use these fancy stuff call thermometers.
Now I do not want you to cite a blog or editorial but the peer reviewed literature that substantiates your claim. In other words I want primary material only. I want you to go to Mann's papers and show me the locations.
@Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will do you one better. Like I said, I am going to publish the emails between Mann and his lying buddy, Phil Jones. Then, you can decide what you want to do with your angry global warmist penchant. Then you can go back to your global warmist web sites and cry me a river to YOUR buddies.
@Amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo when you do that be sure you publish the FULL E-mails and not excerpted passages. I also want you to cite the SPECIFIC scientific papers and database that you think is corrupted. Can you do that? I ask because you keep on ineptly jumping from subject to subject never bothering to answer the specifics of my comments. Here are just a few examples:
1. You never acknowledged much less addressed the fact that a dozen different studies using different proxies and methods also came up with a Hockey Stick shaped temperature reconstruction.
2. You have pretended that you never saw the peer reviewed empirically based falsifications of the solar hypothesis such as stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days, Winters warming faster than Summers.
3. You can not even bring yourself to acknowledge that anthropomorphic and anthropogenic are two very different words.
So in short I expect you to continue to shuck and jive your way through your next talking point never realizing what an utter incompetent you give all appearances of being.
You talk about "Peer-reviewed", but are in denial about the (now 1000+ peer-reviewed studies demonstrating that the MWP was as warm,likely warmer than our current warming) and sgiw that warming was GlOBAL, not regional.l
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you decide which peer-reviews you accept and which ones you don't? (also contradicts your belief in "consensus" since there are many more studies demonstrating that Mann's hockey stick is bogus. (Incidentally, the UN showed graphs in agreement with those studies in its earlier reports, and no longer attributes any validity to Mann's stuff. (Even his compatriots - avid warmists - state that his "study" was dubious.)
You say that there was no warming since the bottom of the little ice age? Now that is ludicrous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAttempting to link droughts, floods, sea-level changes, and your auntie's rheumatism to anthropogenic global warming, when there is not even any evidence that the warming itself is other than natural climate variation is ASTROLOGY, not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, by the same logic, on what basis are you saying the climate is now being influenced by man? There is NO evidence. Debunked hockey stick graphs (which were not temperature readings, or even raw proxy readings, but machinations where Mann made arbitrary decisions as to how heavily to weight some tree ring proxies versus others, is evidence of nothing but Mann's confirmation bias.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting. You demand that someone prove that these warmist claims are a hoax. But it is the warmists which must show evidence because they are insisting on serious (and costly changes) in policy. You pontificate, but can't even accept that our current warming began long before co2 began rising. (This is part of the reason that Mann invented the hockey stick graph. He (and his cohorts) could not explain that either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again. The most recent lowest temperature during the LIA happened during the late 1600s. (That doesn't mean the LIA ended instantly, only that the temperature began increasing at that time.) That was the beginning of our current warming. (What don't you understand about that?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisO.K., let's start with some background. On Sep 29th, 2010, A CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND (CID) from the Attorney General of Virginia was served on the Rector of the University of Virginia, alleging a violation of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA). The CID requires that every document, note, or correspondence relating to Michael Mann's work from Jan 1st, 1999 through December 31, 2006, including both paper and electronic archives such as email, be delivered to the Attorney General. It was alleged that Mann fraudulently applied for and received a grant in 2003, knowing that his previous works, upon which it was based, "contained false information, unsubstantiated claims and/or were otherwise misleading".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Specifically, but without limitation, some of the consluxions of the papers demonstrate a complete lack of rigor regarding the statistical analysis of the alleged data....To the extent that Dr. Mann did reference or rely on his past work in these papers to aid in the winning of the grant when he knew or should have known of the potential of the papers to mislead the grantor, such actions would subject him to potential FATA liability"
"And and all e-mails or pieces of correspondence from or to Dr. Mann since he left the University of Virginia that are in your possession, including but not limited to, those stored on any computer, hard drive, floppy drive, tape drive, optical drive, desktop, laptop, file server, database server, email servers or any other systems, and all backup copies used for archive, continuity or disaster recovery purposes, where data was transmitted or stored on purpose. Include messages that may have been kept by individuals who interacted on the grant."
The Attorney General required any and all records, whatsoever, and requires documentation of any removal or destruction of any records in the past. In the appendix, there is a large list of people with whom Mann may have corresponded that includes all the lying
global warmists of world climate science.
This list includes England's now-disgraced University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) director, Phil Jones. The CRU's data had been used for years to bolster IPCC efforts to press governments to cut CO2 emissions. Phil Jones, the high priest of the AGW movement was forced to step down as CRU's director after his hacked emails showed that scientists were manulating data. In a BBC interview, Jones admitted that the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as the current warming. I will continue later.
@Go Figure,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are the one making the claim that the Medieval Warm Period being warmer is substantiated by the science. I keep on asking you to present me with a comprehensive global reconstruction or even a hemispheric reconstruction of temperatures. It seems you are unable or unwilling to provide this evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@Go Figure,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour claim was that the Little Ice Age ended in 1680 and provide a link to substantiate that. However your own link directly contradicts what you claim. Why can you not admit this mistake?
@ Go figure is it that you suffer from a reading comprehension problem? Your own link that you provided refutes what you claim. It gives a time period for the LIA that is roughly what everyone else gives it as. Why are you denial about this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have not provided any evidence for your allegations. You have simply rehashed a disgraced Attorney Generals witch hunt. Then you give this quote
"Specifically, but without limitation, some of the consluxions of the papers demonstrate a complete lack of rigor regarding the statistical analysis of the alleged data....To the extent that Dr. Mann did reference or rely on his past work in these papers to aid in the winning of the grant when he knew or should have known of the potential of the papers to mislead the grantor, such actions would subject him to potential FATA liability"
An allegation without any merit. Actually quite laughably wrong. Dr. Mann's work has been SUBSTANTIATED by a dozen different studies now using different proxies and methodologies. Matter of fact the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences has substantiated his findings. How does the Attorney General of Virginia going to handle that? Perhaps you think he should subpoena all those scientist and the PNAS tsince they have also come to a inconvenient conclusion too.
Is that what your position Amalcr? That scientist who violate your ideology must be criminals? Is it that you think that a subpoena which has never been granted by the way is also an indictment of criminal conduct? Come on Senator McCarthy your audience wants to know.
I think that it should be readily apparent to everyone here that Amalcr has revealed himself for the Fascist he is. He is adult who cheers on baseless subpoenas in the fervent belief that those who disagree with him must be criminals. A man who thinks it is the job of the state to smother scientific endeavors they find disagreeable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know it is said that an Attorney General in the U.S can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Yet, A.G Cuccinelli still after two years can even get his subpoena granted. In fact, his first subpoena was rejected by the courts of Virginia.
Judge quashes Cuccinelli subpoena of U-Va. Records:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/08/judge_quashes_cuccinelli_subpo.html
"According to Peatross, the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, under which the civil investigative demand was issued, requires that the attorney general include an "objective basis" to believe that fraud has been committed. Peatross indicates that the attorney general must state the reason so that it can be reviewed by a court, which Cuccinelli failed to do."
Of course that did not stop the AG from immediately refilling. But for some strand reason now two years later the AG still can not even get the Subpoena granted.
Maybe this is because AG Cuccinelli cited as support the much discredited Wegaman report? Oh, well this will not the witch hunters as Amalcr and the the American Tradition Institute from using the courts as a means of harassing a much vindicated scientist.
Keep it up Amalcr. The more you Fascist continue the intimidation campaign of legal and illegal threats the more fame he garners.
@Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCallete, hijo......you are banging on your pots and pans again. You have 12 cranial nerves, one of them is your auditory nerve. You are not using it, again. Have you not noticed that nobody cares what you think? The swift stream is not always powerful, nor the noisy one deepest. If all you do is talk, you'll never learn anything.
@Amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo in lieu of addressing the facts such as the existence of twelve other studies by other researchers using different proxies and methods; and admitting that the AG of Virginia has abused his office as was found by the courts in VA you have resulted to insults. Yep, you guys deserve to be called deniers.
I pointed out exactly how you can access some 1000+ peer-reviewed studies on the MWP. Again, that is at:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisco2science.org
I am not interested in spoon feeding you. If you are interested in facts, that website provides links to every one of those studies (including new ones which continue to come in.)
There is only one person's claim (Mann) which flies in the face of all those studies, and his claim has been thoroughly debunked.
You are obviously a true believer (a "useful idiot" is the way Mann himself would put it). No point in my wasting any more time with you.
NO, NO. (how stupid!) My claim (which is also that of many credible climate scientists) is (once again)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur current warming began at the bottom of the LIA. (How long the LIA extended beyond that is not relevant.) It warmed beginning then because, duh, the temperature went up after that.
@Go Figure,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou just do not get that whole burden of evidence thing, huh? You made the assertion it is your job to provide the evidence. Just pointing to a web site with a well known habit of misrepresenting the science is not going to hack it.
Let me put it to you this way. Which one of those 1,000 studies is a global or hemispheric study of temperatures for the past 1,000 years. All of them? None of them? One? Name it. You are just hand waving right now. Name it. Just one. Is this so hard for you?
Go Figure Says: Our current warming began at the bottom of the LIA. (How long the LIA extended beyond that is not relevant.) It warmed beginning then because, duh, the temperature went up after that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: The above quote is why I consider you rather obtuse.
1. As your own web site says. The Little Ice Age lasted till around 1870, NOAA puts it at 1900.
2. Just saying that the temperatures went up does not an explanation make. Like all thermodynamic systems it is the inputs to the system that determine the temperature. What inputs changed, Go Figure?
Go Figure Says: There is only one person's claim (Mann) which flies in the face of all those studies, and his claim has been thoroughly debunked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: You know that is a lie now. I have shown you 12 different peer reviewed studies by other researchers, using different proxies and methodologies that also show a Hockey Stick temperature reconstruction. Why do you insist on such blatant falsehoods when any lurker can just scroll through the thread and see that is simply not true?
Why have you and others keep on insisting on this transparent untruth when the the prestigious National Academy of Sciences found no wrong doing and endorsed Mann's findings? Politically instigated investigations found no wrong doing and most importantly later scientific research has reconfirmed the findings.
Are you familiar with the concept of intellectual honesty? Perhaps you two should get acquainted with each other. It would do you a world of good.
Surface Temperature Reconstructions For The Last 2,000 Years: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that
includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and
the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years."
From Page 3 of the report. How can it be made clearer for you?
You haven't been capable to making even the semblance of a scientific argument. (And I understand why, neither can Mann or any of the CRU bunch. There is no scientific justification for their bogus claim.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll leave you with this recent summary by Lindzen of MIT.
(You won't understand it, but other readers might)
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
@Go Figure,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust not going to acknowledge those facts, eh? Not going acknowledge that it is not only Mann but a multiplicity of other researchers using different techniques and proxies came to the same conclusion that the late 20th century was the hottest in a thousand years. Pitiful.
You seem to think that if you repeat a lie enough that it will become a truth. I am sorry but as John Adams once said "Facts are stubborn things".
Now in regards to Lindzen. I see that you have given up on citing any scientific research and instead you are linking to the a testimony before the House of Commons . So let us take a look at that link you provided.
It a whole new claim about models I see. Color me surprised that you are switching topics./s Well, Lindzen's testimony is a crock.
The Models have shown a good record.
2011 Updates to model-data comparisons:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
So which one are you? Are you like sault referencing this site like he was to his site at sceptical science? No 1 perhaps? Quoting your own work?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/
Gavin Schmidt
Michael Mann
Caspar Ammann
Rasmus Benestad
Ray Bradley
Stefan Rahmstorf
Eric Steig
David Archer
Ray Pierrehumbert
Thibault de Garidel
Jim Bouldin
The "interview" with Michael Mann was so biased that we can't possibly call it newsworthy. SciAm surely knows that the hockey stick graph was totlly debunked by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick: "Corrections to the Mann, et al., "Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series, 1998", ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 14(2003) 751-71). The Mann team had to publish "a correction of error" in the journal NATURE on July 1, 2004. Mann's "hockey stick" relies on trees from non-disclosed urban heat islands and on a particular method of principal component analysis, called short centering, that heavily weights any "hockey stick" shaped sample by 390 percent. Mann's results were flawed due to collation errors, unjustifiable truncation, obsolete data and geographical location errors. Mann's emails with his lying buddy, Phil Jones, were not taken out of context. They got caught red-handed and he protests that his emails shouldn't have been hacked. Too bad, baby! Mann is a fraud. It is bad enough that the emails showed "scientists" plotting to cherry-pick data, subvert peer review, bully edditors and evade freedom of information requests. Mann tries to tell us that the National Academy of Science "affirmed" his findings in their 2006 report. That is BIG FAT LIE! The 2006 NAS report said they couldn't establish the "hockey stick" from Mann's work. The NAS reaffirmed the Little Ice Age which Mann swept from history along with the Medieval Warm Period. The NAS panel specifically repudiated 3/4's of Mann's record, specifically accused the IPCC of misrepresentation, and specifically accused the Mann team of downplaying historical uncertainties. The IPCC dropped the "hockey stick" in 2007.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIce cores, the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming shows us that it's the Sun, Stupid.
I see that Amalcr continues to peddle his lies. I say we take a look at few of these lies. Amaclr has falsely claimed that the 2006 National Academy of Sciences does not support Mann's research. I say let us go straight to the horses mouth:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurface Temperature Reconstructions For The Last 2,000 Years: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
Now notice that Amalcr does not link to it. Know why? Because even a cursory perusal of the document reveals Amalcr as a font of disinformation. From the summary of the report we find this:
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced hanges in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and
the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years."
From Page three of the summary.
Notice they say that they say the basic conclusion of their study is that the last decades of the 20th century has been the warmest in the last 1,000 and possibly 2,000 years is supported by the science.
This of course is makes it glaringly obvious that Amalcr and Go Figure are liars or dupes.
But hold it! We are not finished. Here is what they also say:
"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere
was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium"
Page 4
Who wants to bet that Amalcr and Go Figure will continue with the lies to spite this demonstration of their blatant falsehoods?
Amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are now at the point of just reposting lies that have already been debunked what is the matter running out new misinformation talking points?
I see you keep on citing the non peer reviewed periodical Energy and Environment. A publication that does not even have a IF score. You do know what a IF score is, yes?
What I find particularly fascinating is your insistence on ignoring the facts that Mcintyre and his fellow cohorts have been debunked in the peer reviewed literature.
Take for example this study that directly refutes Mcintrye. If anyone does a literature search they would find that Mcintrye never responded to it.
Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction
of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:
Examination of criticisms based on the nature and
processing of proxy climate evidence
Eugene R.Wahl · Caspar M. Ammann
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
Abstract:
"Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th
century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit"
Also from the paper:
"Neither of the first two areas of scrutiny (congruence with other reconstructions and potential
loss of reconstruction amplitude in model virtual worlds) have fundamentally challenged the MBH conclusion of an anomalous rise (in terms of both duration and magnitude) in surface temperatures during the late 20th century (Moberg et al., 2005; Jones and Mann, 2004;
von Storch et al., 2004)."
Also notice that this is work that appears in a real journal with a I.F number. Not a fake journal like the one you cite repeatedly.
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see that you think that everyone who disagrees with you in in the world is one of just a dozen people. Amazing. I wonder if you understand that you are revealing a basic irrationality when you make such unsubstantiated statements? Apparently you can wrap your head around the fact that other rational thinkers can vigorously disagree with you. Sad. It is the mindset of paranoid.
Now that I dealt with that distraction. How about you and me revisit why your irrational refusal to acknowledge that the solar hypothesis has been falsified eight ways to Sunday. Tell me, why you refuse to even give a nodding acquaintance to the scientific reality that nights are warming faster than days. What is your explanation for this?
Hold it. I know the response coming. It will be another transparent distraction from this line of questioning. Carry on.
I do not pretend to have the answers to the causes of global temperature fluctuations. One possibility is the recently reported change in cloud patterns. Lower clouds at night time act like a blanket.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimply not knowing the answer to a problem does not bestow legitimacy on a flawed hypotheses.
In your post # 15 you show your contempt for truth & honesty. If you are happy to accept Peter Gleicks use of a fraudulent memo & happy to discount the factual East Anglia emails it shows that you lack integrity. Anything you post must be viewed through an integrity filter as must the sources you rely on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle Says: I do not pretend to have the answers to the causes of global temperature fluctuations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Your state of personal self-imposed ignorance does not a scientific argument make. You have been pointed to the peer reviewed work that predicted the phenomena based on physics over a century before it is observed. The observation has also been cited and linked in this very thread.
You really have no excuse. Offering up an ad hoc explanation with no empirical peer reviewed body of work to substantiate it reeks of desperation to escape reality.
So what is the problem, Carlyle? Reality got your tongue?
I want everyone pay attention to the blatant and inept attempts at distraction that Carlye has just attempted. He claimed that post my post #15 was about leaked Heartland documents and a manufactured E-Mail scandal. Yet, any fool can just scroll back to #15 and see that I mention nothing of the sort. Oh, heck I will save everyone the trouble. I will simply repost #15 in its entirety here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I see the fake skeptics have been here in force. You have to wonder about the rationality of such people who go on and on with their pseduo-talking points about tree rings and yet seem unable or unwilling to read the one paragraph article that this article belongs too. If they had bothered to read it they would have discovered that it is not only tree rings but corals and ice core proxies that are also used to read "ancient temperatures".
May I suggest to the fake skeptics that they contemplate that a dozen different studies by other researchers using different methodologies and proxies have reconfirmed the validity of the original Hockey Stick.
Here is a spaghetti graph from NOAA putting all those studies together. Please not the that the grey line is the modern temperature record:
The Hockey Team
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig6-10b.png
That the fake skeptics refuse to acknowledge the existence of these confirming studies using multiple proxies and methodologies by different researchers tells you all you need to know about the honesty of the pseduo-skeptics."
Can it be made any cleared that Carlye is a liar?
Yes. I did mix up your comment on this string with others defending Fakegate on other strings. The language was similar. From your outrage at this error, I take it that you actually condem the actions of Peter Gleick, particularly in relation to the fake memo?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConfused? No, in reality it was and is a transparent attempt to move the thread on to a different track. I am usually more than happy to pursue all of the misinformation chaff that you and the other deniers fire out (after all I am doing this for entertainment purposes). Yet, for this thread I am going to stay locked in on the subjects already raised by you and the other septics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo your choices are:
1. Pony up on the alternative empirically based peer reviewed explanations for the all the predictions and observations that falsify the Sun as the culprit or...
2. Eject! Eject!
I offer no proof. Equally, I deny you have proof. You have models that inevitably, because there are so many, at times fit the empirical evidence but that is not proof. I can not be bothered to again point out the numerous failed models & predictions that others have ably presented.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs with the Fakegate affair, people of your persuasion defending him & the emails, for me are a roadmap to a house of cards that is already teetering.
@Carlyel,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo by your own admission you can not be bothered with the evidence. Perfect. That is perfect idiocy. Now lets us both get this straight. The predictions were made based on the physics, numerous predictions. Some of those physics based predictions are over a century old. Those predictions of a world being warmed by CO2 have been observed.
You think that it a is complete and utter coincidences that these physics based predictions have been observed. A application of Occam's Razor should lead any intelligent and rational individual to the conclusion that the science got it right.
Yet here you are in denial claiming that it must be the Sun to spite the multiple falsifications of this hypothesis. So it is safe for me to come to the conclusion that on this subject you are not a rational person.
My problem with Prof Mann is his deletion of proxy tree ring data after 1960, when the temperature rose and the proxy fell. He then found a neat way of hiding the deletion inside one of the spaghetti graphs of estimated temperature versus time. So "hiding the decline" had nothing to do with "the decline in global temperatures" as he claims on p69. Indeed, when I read that one section, I was moved to ponder whether Prof Mann should not, in future, avoid being photographed in profile - the length of his nose is beginning to show.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong conclusion. I admit that there are many unresolved questions & I will be withholding judgment as to the main causes of climate variation until many more questions are resolved. When I see one group of scientists present data that there has been practically no warming over the past 10 years despite huge additional quantities of Co2 during that period. Other scientists arguing that the increase has continued at unprescented rates. Some arguing that sea level rises are increasing at unprecented rates while others say about 3 mm yr & decreasing. Some claiming the Arctic would be ice free by the end of this yr, glaciers gone in the Himalayas within 30 yrs when they are stable or increasing, some saying there is an unprecedented amount of continental ice loss in Antarctica when the latest report says it is stable. Then we have the strongest proponents of AGW defending emails that clearly show dishonesty amongst climate scientists plus defending a scientist who clearly produced or at least promoted a document to falsely claim that a private organisation is involved in nefarious activity. At the same time these self appointed defenders of humanity try to suppress dissent & argue for non solutions to carbon based fuel dependency. Yes. I am sceptical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur next step is to follow the statistical lie by Mann. He used a statistical method called "principal component analysis" (PCA). McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used and found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but handles data in a way that can only be described as fraudulent. This fraudulent method tends to emphasize any data to have the hockey stick shape and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called the "Monte Carlo" analysis and is used in statistical analysis to test whether a method is a good method or not. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a "hockey stick"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn PCA, each of the different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; or to the unlearned, each data set is normalized to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalized over its complete data period. Mann advertized that he wanted to use the interval of 1400-1980 as his data set. But the computer program Mann used did not do that. Instead, it forced his data set to have zero mean for the time period of only 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape. (Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period)
The net result is that the "principal component" will have a hockey stick shape even if the data does not. And this is the basis of all of the "hockey stick" research that claims to match Mann's research. It is bogus from the beginning. Figures lie and liars figure! Global Warmists will fraudulently support their view even if their statistics came from China. It's the Sun, Stupid!
And that is why the Midieval Cooling period disppeared from Mann's hockey stick. His data set was compared only to the 1902-1980 period. That is why the NAS "reaffirmed" the Midieval Cooling period and essentially told Mann to take a hike. I would like Mann to use a 500 -1980 CE data period and use correct statistics and see what his "hockey stick" would look like. It would blow him off the map. It's the Sun, Stupid!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI meant to describe the "Little Ice Age" rather than the Midieval Cooling. The NAS reaffirmed the Little Ice Age. If we could get the global warmists to go back to 500 CE, then it would include the historical Midieval Warming and the Little Ice Age and then they would have nothing to say about AGW. They don't know what to do with the Roman nor the Midieval Warming Periods. They would rather forget about them because it does not support their view. It's the Sun, Stupid!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see that you seem unable to grasp the concept Mcintyre and Mcintrick have refuted by Wahl and Caspar.
Since you seem utterly in denial in reality here Amman and Wahl again:
Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction
of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:
Examination of criticisms based on the nature and
processing of proxy climate evidence
Eugene R.Wahl � Caspar M. Ammann
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
Abstract:
"Also, recent corrections to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th
century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit"
Also from the paper:
"Neither of the first two areas of scrutiny (congruence with other reconstructions and potential
loss of reconstruction amplitude in model virtual worlds) have fundamentally challenged the MBH conclusion of an anomalous rise (in terms of both duration and magnitude) in surface temperatures during the late 20th century (Moberg et al., 2005; Jones and Mann, 2004;
von Storch et al., 2004)."
Why do you insist on repeating long debunked lies?
@ Amaclr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see that not only are you are a liar but a plagiarizer as well. You have word for word copy and pasted a article from Technology Review without attribution.
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=13830
That of course is in complete violation of the Terms of Service and a scumbag move too boot.
@Amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you even slightly aware that you can go take a look at Mann's article and see that the Medieval Warm Period did not disappear?
Here is a quote from the Mann 1999 article you lot have been obsessing on:
"While warmth early in the millennium approaches mean 20th century levels, the late 20th century still appears anomalous:the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium."
Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past
Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/INTERNAL/MILLENNIUM/nhem-millennium.pdf
Page 6.
Do you see what happens when you actually go to the source of the material? It almost inevitably turns out that you have lied about it. Color me surprised!
I am also going to point out for the umpteenth time that Mann's work has been reconfirmed by other researchers and methods using different proxies a dozen different times. Something you seem utterly incapable of recognizing it even exists.
@ Moderators,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmalcr in post #87 Amalcr has plagiarized the text.
Here is the article that was copy and pasted:
Global Warming Bombshell
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=13830
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are still so transparently denying the evidence with no good reason and trying to change the subject of the conversation. Why will you not submit your ideology to the test of reality? As predicted by the physics nights are warming faster than days, Summers are warming faster than Winters, the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere warms. That little list is only a partial list of the predicted and observed phenomena predicted by the physics. It is readily transparent that these are inconvenient truths that you think that by shunting to the side will disappear.
If you & your supporters think it is O.K. to support liars & frauds it must by definition mean you are also O.K with faulty data. Peer reviews have also exonerated those involved in the email scandal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you condemn these frauds, you might find people more willing to look at your other propositions. I gave you the opportunity to denounce them. Only take a few words but no, you declined. Without passing this integrity test, for me, your posts have no value.
Thank you, Trent1492, I wondered where that came from. One of my students gave that to me. I suggest we all follow Trent1492's suggestion and go to the web site:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal Warming Bombshell
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=13830
Read it and ponder it. Dr. Muller has for years been after the lying global warmists. I personally have two feet of paper files on the lying global warmists and I will continue next time with the emails.
It is wonderfull that you are a teacher. I have two children who are teachers. I will email this link to them. They face hostility from their peers whenever they question the so called settled science. Thankfully, the ranks of the teachers who share their concerns, are growing. Now, instead of asking where did all the water from the flood go, they are questioning both points of view & everything in between. Wonderfull. Thinking beings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Carlyle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it funny that global warmists are such angry, shallow, loud, people. They stomp around, making a lot of noise, daring any and all to say anything against global warming. I correspond with many people throughout the USA. Most have an open mind and are willing to listen to both points of view. After exposure to the lying global warmists it amazes them that nobody seems to want to stand up to them. They have families, go to work every day and don't spend the time to research this out. Al Gore is so into this because he thought he could control it. He already has been set up with the commodity exchange in Chicago to reap benefits from carbon credits if they were ever to come into law. He has a BIG interest in making sure global warming is promoted. He is as big of a liar as they make. There is a lot of pressure on governments to comply. Trading in carbon credits would ruin this country financially and a lot of people would lose their jobs. I have children that don't deserve to have this happen to them.
Most of the emails that were hacked came out of Phil Jones' computer......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFANTASIES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PROMINENT CLIMATE SCEPTIC SCIENTISTS:
"Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."
ATTEMPTS TO DISQUISE THE TRUTH OF THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD (MWP)
"....Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fir this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back ---I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back..."
HOW TO BEST SQUEEZE DISSENTING SCIENTISTS OUT OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS.
"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that - take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...What do others think? I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they get rid of this troublesome editor."
MANIPULATION OF EVIDENCE:
"I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
DOUBTS ABOUT WHETHER THE WORLD IS HEATING:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE:
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"
"Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis."
"Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address."
"We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
Amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are misrepresenting the information that is available. Yes, in 2004, Muller was questioning whether the math had been done correctly. Perhaps you have heard of the BEST project, headed by Muller, which last year produced results very much the same as the other temperature records. It is yet another hockey stick.
Why do you quote Muller when he says something that agrees with you, and ignore him when he doesn't?
What do you call it when you tell only the part of the information that agrees with you? I think you should answer these questions before taking an accusatory stance with others.
Blah blah blah.."hide the decline"..blah blah blah.
Tell me, if Mann explained how he had produced the graph in his 1998 paper, and Jones and whomever he was writing to knew about the decline in correlation (presumably because, IDK, maybe they actually worked in the field or read the paper), what exactly do you think was hidden?
Hiding something by writing about it; that is a neat "trick".
"I have children that don't deserve to have this happen to them. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's funny, because I look at the estimates that it will take at least a couple of decades to switch our energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels, the projections that it will take a couple of decades for the warming to level off after CO2 levels off, and I look at the climate changes already underway and the projections of where it is going, and people like you who are unable to come to grips with the reality of the situation, and I think the same thing.
@Chris G
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate that you are not one of those angry, shouting, red-eyed, global warmists. You present your case without rancor. We need more of this kind of comment. I am not aware that a "hockey stick" was generated by Muller, especially since his BEST project had not been even completed by last November, and certainly wasn't published yet as far as I know. I would appreciate any source you may have to show a hockey stick. Muller, in November, added "that the work done by his team does show that "variations in the temperature of the North Atlantic have a much larger effect on the global land termperature than had been previously been recognized."" He was speaking of the "THERMOHALINE CIRCULATION" of the oceans around the planet. Muller said, "If that is the case, then part of the temperature rise observed may be due to such ocean variability, and that would imply that the human contribution is less."
I have a good opinion of Dr. Muller. He usually doesn't have an axe to grind. He tries to do unbiased research, no matter how it comes out. His curriculum vitae is outstanding. You see, as I have said, I believe that we are in a warming period....it's just that I don't believe for a second that it is man-made. Ice cores, the Roman Warming, the Medieval Warming, all show us that this is a cyclical sun-driven warming.
For those of you that would like to follow the BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) continuing study, go to:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBERKELEYEARTH.ORG
Dr. Muller is publishing data as it develops and invites all to comment. Everything is out in the open before it is published. What I especially like is that Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the Dept. of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Tech, is the second-named co-author of the BEST project's 4 research papers and she is VERY hard to bribe.
Other good websites are:
NOTALOTOFPEOPLEKNOWTHAT.WORDPRESS.COM
CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG (This is the website of Steve McIntyre, one of the two people who debunked Michael Mann's lying "hockey stick".)
Thanks for those links. The reasoned tone is a refreshing change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother point should be made about the unrestrainined comsumption of petroleum. Even if it was not causing global warming, it's a terrible way to use limited petroleum sources. Someone gets an SUV and drives to work along a route where there is public transportation readily available. He uses 5 gsls a day of gas. He spends a lot more momey than taking the subway, (by the way, if Obama was really serious about this, he would make sure to tell people the true cost of driving their car to work. Not too hard, the Feds get tax info with the workplace address and send refunds to the home address).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen people see it costs them between $3,000 and $4,000 to drive per year, a lot will change, but that would upset the car manufacturers and the oil companies, not going to happen)
I am sympathetic to global warming cautioners, though there may be benefits to it, but realistically, we are going to use all the oil while engaging in a bunch of useless mental masturbastion, then develop or implement alternate sources.
@ Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you think this blatant and transparent attempt at distraction is going to work? I keep on asking and you keep on refusing to answer my questions. What empirically based peer reviewed articles can you offer that give an alternative explanation for the physics based predictions and empirically observed observation for:
1. Nights warming faster than days.
2. Winters warming faster than Summers.
3. The stratosphere cooling while the troposphere warms?
Shifting onto a different subject does not make does questions go away.
@amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are getting more and more entrench as we go on. You still are in denial that the:
1. National Academy of Science vouched for Mann's work.
2. Twelve different reconstructions using different proxies, methodologies and researchers, have also resulted in a Hockey Stick.
3. Wahl and Amman destroy Mckintric and Mcintrye.
You keep on squealing like a stuck pig and think those squealings will distract anyone from those facts. Sorry but that is not going to happen.
@Carlyle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle Says: It is wonderfull that you are a teacher.
Trent Says: Really Carlye? You think someone who plagiarizes another persons works and can be demonstrated to be a liar and a ideologue is a great teacher? Oh, wait.... I forgot who I was talking too.
@ Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf anyone is squealing like a stuck pig, it is you. Your rants have no validity, your anger and shouting are not listened to by anyone else. You act as if you are a 14-year old who has no life. Maybe you should get married so your wife could slap some sense into you.
"The river that is the fastest is not always the strongest, the river that is loudest is not always the deepest." We need more depth to your comments. Grow up and get out of your short pants. You sound like a nickel banging in a dryer.
@Amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it you will not adress the facts as presented and veer off into diatribe? Is it because you have no facts?
Let us review the facts:
1. The Hockey Stick has been reconfirmed by twelve different studies using different methodologies and proxies. Post #15
2. The National Academy of Science reconfirmed the Hockey Stick. Post #69 #74
3. M&M have been refuted in the peer reviewed literature, most notably by Wahl and Amman. Post #75
You keep on claiming that you have not been addressed but this demonstratively not true to anyone who even casually peruses the thread.
And then we have the Wahl and Amman problem! Wahl is one of the co-conspirators with Mann exposed by the climategate emails. The emails show Wahl exchanging emails about the way McIntyre's arguments should be handled. Then the lying Phil Jones requests that Mann delete his emails and to contact Wahl and have Wahl delete his emails. Penn State set up a committee of inquiry investigating the deleted emails and Wahl was in the thick of it. Basically, Amman and Wahl in 2005 tried to publish a few papers defending the hockey stick however within one of the papers they let the cat out of the bag.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"buried deep within the paper, Amman and Wahl had
quietly revealed their verification r-2 figures,
which were, just as McIntyre had predicted, close
to zero for most of the reconstruction...."
(Casper and the Jesus Paper)
Statistically, Amman and Wahl used the same flawed PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS (PCA) that Mann used. And everybody on this planet knows that Mann and his anaylsis is garbage, is statistically flawed and he used his zero mean for the time period of only 1902-1980 plus used non-disclosed urban heat islands as his proxies. Go to CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG and read how McIntyre blows the lying Wahl and his buddy Amman out of the water.
@Amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you continue to repeat with such credulity such blatant falsehoods? You have been repeatedly caught out on such claims before; like when you claimed that Mann 98 and 99 did not have a Medieval Warm Period or that the National Academy of Science found Mann to be a fraud or idiotically that the Urban Heat Island confounded tree ring data. And now you repeat a new falsehood.
Amalcr Says: Statistically, Amman and Wahl used the same flawed PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS (PCA) that Mann used.
Trent Says: Blatant misinformation. If I go to the paper itself and read it instead of depending on known fabricators to tell me what is inside it, I find the following.
From the abstract:
"Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et
al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed
hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region."
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
So they used both methods and did their own reconstructions and found little substantial difference. Why do swallow the lies so easily?
Here is more from the paper:
"Indirect examination of this issue by use of all the continuous individual proxy data over this period, without any form of summarization (PC or otherwise), results in a reconstruction that is similar to
the MBH original."
Page 33
Can it get any more clearer that you have been duped?
What want some more? OK!
"Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th
century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit."
Page 33
Once again, why do feel free to be so careless with the facts? Why is it you are ignoring with fervor of a fanatic that twelve different reconstructions using different proxies, methodologies and researchers keep on showing a Hockey Stick?
In other words: When will you stop deceiving yourself because you are not fooling anyone else.
Trent1492, all you are doing is quoting from ucar.edu which is nothing more that your global warmist Ammann tooting his own horn and who has tried to support his lying buddy Mann by using the same statistical tricks as Mann did. Here is his email address: ammann@ucar.edu and Wahl's is wahle@lalfred.edu. You can correspond all you want with them and ask them why they wanted to delete their emails. You are not convincing anyone else but yourself. You are a liar as Ammann, Wahl, Jones and Mann are. Since you are 14 years old, you don't have the education to understand PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS nor the flaws in Mann's work. Tell me what you know, not what you read out of lying global warmist websites. PLEASE, list all 12 different reconstructions and the websites you took them from showing a hockey stick and make sure they don't come from a lying global warmist like Wahl, Ammann, Jones nor Mann. I will be happy to visit them and let everyone know the flaws that you are too young to see and that others can visit them and see how the blind global warmists follow other blind global warmists. By the way, did you visit CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG to read the review of Ammann's and Wahl's so called "Paper"? If you were honest with yourself you would have to have doubts about the liar Wahl. It's the sun, Stupid!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are thicker than a concussed duck. I am quoting directly from the Wahl and Amann paper. Those quotes demonstrate that you have been telling falsehoods about the paper. I quoted to you directly what the paper said its own methods are. Geez, I gave you a direct link to that peer reviewed paper with the pages cited. Why do you insist on lying?
Now you asked for the twelve reconstructions. I already gave you those links earlier in this thread. Come on you give every appearance of being an intellectual infant. Go back through this thread and find them. Hell, two posts back I said exactly what posts they were. Pitiful
Now can I introduce you too the concept of the paragraph?
I just finished Dr. Mann's "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars." Excellent read. Well done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this