About these ads

NRO “The Dog Ate My Global Warming Data”

This was published Wednesday on NRO. It seems that the temperature data upon which global warming is based – the data that shows a steep rise of 0.6 degrees +/- 0.2 degrees over the past 100 years or so – has disappeared. Author Patrick J Michaels picks up the story:

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.

Back in the 80’s a climate research crew was put together tasked with the job of collating temperature data to see if the global climate had warmed. They used temperature data from weather stations, which was a problem because said stations weren’t set up originally for that purpose. Some were in parking lots where the sun heated the air higher than normal, some were in shade where temps would be lower. The researchers had to adjust the data and process it quite a bit. Eventually they spat out this result: an increase of 0.6 degrees plus or minus 0.2 degrees.

It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

So far so good. The story gets interesting a few years later.

Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Isn’t science actually all about publishing your data and process for the exact purpose of allowing others to replicate it to see if your results are correct? Not in climate science, apparently.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were “confidentiality” agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

Pressure for the data increased slowly. Then the Homework-Eating Dog appeared.

Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Meaning a big chunk of the original raw data is gone. Only the adjusted data exists now, apparently. Or maybe not.

If we are to believe Jones’s note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?

All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.

Remember, this is no minor statistical contretemps. The whole Climate Change movement is based in large part on those numbers. Numbers that now can’t be independently verified – we just have to take their word for it.

UPDATE: Handing over raw data seems to be perilous, no wonder the warmists don’t want to do it.

The tree ring data used to create Mann’s infamous “Hockey Stick” warming graph has been withheld for years. When they finally released it a researcher discovers the whole conclusion was based on samples from only ten trees. When all the other trees were plugged in, this was the result.

Mann should have been smart and lost that data years ago.

About these ads


Categories: World Events

30 replies

  1. In other news, it looks like the much heralded Copenhagen Climate Summit is being talked down a bit.

    • And there’s this in last week’s New York Times, Steve:

      Stable Global Temperatures Could Stifle Action On Climate

      The world leaders who met at the United Nations to discuss climate change on Tuesday are faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.

      Et tu, NYT? Selling Global Warming when the globe ain’t – or is even cooling could be a rough job.

  2. The whole Climate Change movement is based in large part on those numbers.

    Uh-huh. Right. Whatever.

    So tell us, how exactly does this conspiracy to hide the truth make the ice-caps melt? I’m fascinated.

  3. Um, Antarctic ice is growing, not shrinking. And your link is just Greenland which is an ice cap, not “the ice caps”.

    According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s own figures, world sea ice in April 2008 reached “unprecedented” levels for the month of April. The World Meteorlogical Organization (WMO) went to declare 2008 the coolest since 2000. Moreover, the WMO reports that the fall in the global mean temperature since 1998 is not just affecting the polar ice caps either, it is also affecting glaciers elsewhere.

    Grrenland is “regional”, not “Global”, Phooey, and this is likely the reason they canned the label “Global Warming” (focus on the root word “Globe” as in all of the planet) and switched to “Climate Change”.

    You tell the Beast how the globe is supposed to be warming when peak temps were half a century ago and in the past decade the world has actually cooled off a bit? And how can we be expected to measure it when the raw data can’t be confirmed and results can’t be replicated?

  4. Copenhagen was never going to pan out to much anyway, Guru Steve, look at the shambles Kyoto ended up as.

  5. Um, Antarctic ice is growing, not shrinking. And your link is just Greenland which is an ice cap, not “the ice caps”. ”

    Uh-huh.

    According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s own figures, world sea ice in April 2008 reached “unprecedented” levels for the month of April

    Note the table at the bottom of this page

    Trend, 1979-2008
    – Arctic: Significant decrease of 4.1% (~500,000 km2; 193,000 mi2) per decade
    – Antarctic: Small increase of 0.9% (~100,000 km2; 42,000 mi2) per decade

    This is covered in greater deal here.

    Sea ice typically covers 14 to 16 million square kilometers (5.4 to 6.1 million square miles) in late winter in the Arctic and 17 to 20 million square kilometers (6.6 to 7.7 million square miles) in the Antarctic’s Southern Ocean. The amount of sea ice that remains at summer’s end is much less in the Antarctic (3 to 4 million square kilometers, or 1.1 to 1.5 million square miles) than in the Arctic (7 to 9 million square kilometers, or 2.7 to 3.5 million square miles). Satellites have shown the fluctuation in sea ice from year to year since 1972. Data suggest that since then, Arctic ice has been decreasing at an average rate of about 3 percent per decade, while Antarctic ice has increased by about 0.8 percent per decade.

    Satellite data have indicated an even more dramatic reduction in Arctic ice cover in recent years. In September 2002, Arctic sea ice reached a record minimum: 4 percent lower than any previous September since 1979, and 14 percent lower than the average ice extent from 1979 to 2000. In the past, a low ice year would be followed by a rebound to near-normal conditions, but 2002 was actually followed by two more low-ice years, both of which almost matched the 2002 record low. When the low ice years of 2002 to 2004 are taken into account, the average ice extent each September from 1979 to 2004 is decreasing at a rate of 7.7 percent per decade.

    Nice try, HB…

  6. Again you have issues with the concept of “Regional” vs “Global”. The Antarctic table you referred to shows a net increase of ice per decade with only the Wilkins ice sheet decreasing. The Wilkins is like Greenland in a sense, a portion of the overall. Of course it’s the one you guys fetishize over. Again, where is the plural “Ice Caps”? The biggest one hasn’t shrunk at all and continues to grow. And the Arctic is recovering (2008-9 saw the record highest winter ice pack thickness in 30 years and the 2009 summer minimum is higher than the the lows of 2007 and 2008) as temps continue to stabilize and begun dropping.

    Nice try indeed, Phooey.

  7. Again you have issues with the concept of “Regional” vs “Global”. The Antarctic table you referred to shows a net increase of ice per decade with only the Wilkins ice sheet decreasin

    “Data suggest that since then, Arctic ice has been decreasing at an average rate of about 3 percent per decade, while Antarctic ice has increased by about 0.8 percent per decade.”

    Last time I looked, the Artic and the Antarctic weren’t in the same region, hb. Now, maybe you’re using a different definition of “regional”, or maybe you’re blowing smoke.

  8. Let’s get you back on track with what you were actually saying, Phooey. First off your original statement was “the ice caps are melting”. Caps = plural. So one has decreased in size since we began taking measurements way back in 1978 and the other is growing! And the decreasing one has slowed and is even beginning to recover. Last winter’s Arctic freeze actually set ice thicknesses back to the 1978 level! Meanwhile world temps have been stable for over a decade and are actually decreasing. And suddenly the raw temperature data is gone. Last time the Beast looked, one REGION of the globe has seen a decrease in ice thickness that’s ending now that temps are dropping and that means the GLOBE is warming?

    Regional. Global.

    Hey, your religion is your business, the Beast won’t try to argue you out it anymore. Faith can be a powerful force.

  9. Let’s get you back on track with what you were actually saying

    Uh-huh – so you realise you screwed up with the “regional” vs “global” bullshit, huh?

    First off your original statement was “the ice caps are melting”. Caps = plural.

    Right.

    So one has decreased in size since we began taking measurements way back in 1978 and the other is growing!

    Two teeny tiny minor little points:

    i, My quote referred to SEA-ICE after you bought up SEA-ICE.

    ii, After you bought up SEA-ICE, I quoted stats on SEA-ICE.

    Now, I realise this is technically the same point twice, but I thought you might like seeing it more than once.

    Meanwhile world temps have been stable for over a decade and are actually decreasing.

    No, the world temperatures have not been stable for a decade.

    What we seem to have (IIRC) is a 11 year cycle on top of a rising trend. At present, the two are going to be working against each other, masking the underlying global warming for the next five or six years. After that, things start getting hairy.

    Since 1999, however, the heat content of the oceans has increased (despite claims to the contrary). Global warming has certainly not stopped, even if average surface temperatures really have fallen slightly as the Hadley figures suggest.

    In the long term, some of the heat being soaked up by the oceans will inevitably spill back into the atmosphere, raising surface temperatures. Warmer oceans also mean rising sea levels, due to both thermal expansion and the melting of the floating ice shelves that slow down glaciers sliding off land into the sea. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the seabed rather than on land, is also highly vulnerable to rising sea temperatures.

    Some climate scientists are predicting that surface temperatures will remain static or even fall slightly over the next few years, before warming resumes. Their predictions are based largely on the idea that changes in long-term fluctuation in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will bring cooler sea surface temperatures.

    If these predictions are right – and not all climate scientists think they are – you can expect to hear more claims from climate-change deniers about how global warming has stopped. But unless we see a simultaneous fall in both surface temperatures and ocean-heat content, claims that the “entire planet” is cooling are nonsense.

  10. Phooey’s logic is, is, well its like fungible. He flashes stuff here and there. He exchanges one point for another with no regard for liner thought. My friend Phooey – The sophomoric sophist!

  11. Uh-huh. Well done on not being able to riposte based on facts.

    You want coherent?

    As it turns out, the UN just released the Climate Change Science Compendium 2009, which collates the latest research findings authoritatively for the benefit of policy-makers. Pages 25-26 demolish your original post quite nicely.

    Of course, you’re not going to read it, since you’re not actually interested in the science.

    • Dude there is no need. The Beast has that covered already.

      But you are correct in that it was a childish taunt.

      • No, pg, he does not.

        The Climate Change Science Compendium is a review of some 400 major scientific contributions to our understanding of Earth Systems and climate that have been released through peer-reviewed literature or from research institutions over the last three years, since the close of research for consideration by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

        Didn’t think you’d read it.

  12. Sorry – page 26.

    • Uh-huh.

      Your original post : It seems that the temperature data upon which global warming is based [...] Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature

      The report, p.26:

      Changes in the climate system’s energy budget are predominantly revealed in ocean temperatures and the associated thermal expansion contribution to sea-level rise. Climate models, however, do not reproduce the large decadal variability in globally averaged ocean heat content inferred from the sparse observational database, even when volcanic and other variable climate forcings are included. The sum of the observed contributions has also not adequately explained the overall multi-decadal rise. But now improved estimates of near-global ocean heat content and thermal expansion for the upper 300 metres and 700 metres of the ocean for 1950–2003 have been reported, using statistical techniques that allow for sparse data coverage and that apply corrections to reduce systematic biases in the most common ocean temperature observations.
      [...]
      Since at least the 19th century, sea-level changes have been measured directly by tide gauge records and, since the 1990s, by satellite altimetry. Sea-level changes over longer periods of time, thousands to millions of years, are inferred from geologic evidence. The average rate of global mean sea-level rise over the 20th century was about 1.7 millimetres (mm) per year. In the period 1993-2003 global mean sea-level rose about 3.1 millimetres (mm) per year, and since 2003 the rate of rise has been about 2.5 mm per year. The relative importance of the three factors contributing to global average sea-level rise has varied during this time (Church 2008, WCRP 2009, Lettenmaier and Milly 2009).

      i, Regardless of your storm in a teacup about a scientist having or not having access to raw data (and it sounds very much like a typical wingnut blown out of proportion story), ocean temperatures are a more fundamental part of the global warming picture. they’re a far bigger heat sink than the atmosphere.

      ii, They’ve been warming up. This can be shown via thermal expansion.

      iii, Since 2007, more data has come in showing the contribution of this effect to sea level rise.

      So for your conspiracy theory musings to have traction, you’d also have to figure out a way to explain the corroborating data about the more important engine for global climate change, ocean water temperatures.

      Fail.

  13. Sorry. Difficult to scroll up and down given how fast I have to type.

  14. “So tell us, how exactly does this conspiracy to hide the truth make the ice-caps melt?”

    Ice caps (plural) are melting? One is growing. The other has lost ice since we started measuring it in 1978 but that rate has slowed. And again, how does one event in the Arctic region of the Globe translate to warming to the entire globe? The globe warming is global warming. Ice melting in one of our two poles is a regional event.

    And blaming the oceans isn’t going to help you. Witness this beauty:

    But now improved estimates of near-global ocean heat content and thermal expansion for the upper 300 metres and 700 metres of the ocean for 1950–2003 have been reported, using statistical techniques that allow for sparse data coverage and that apply corrections to reduce systematic biases in the most common ocean temperature observations.

    We’ve been over this before. The raw data which you so scorned showed the oceans cooling. It wasn’t til the data was corrected by throwing out the warmest readings that the required warming showed up. Ah, the joys of “improved estimates” making up for “sparse data coverage”!

    The Beast has added an update to his original post regarding the perils of releasing raw data. Check it out.

  15. Ice caps (plural) are melting? One is growing. The other has lost ice since we started measuring it in 1978 but that rate has slowed.

    And what, pray tell, is the combined result – a net loss or a net gain?

    And again, how does one event in the Arctic region of the Globe translate to warming to the entire globe?

    How exactly does one event in the Antarctic disprove the global data on warming?

    We’ve been over this before. The raw data which you so scorned showed the oceans cooling. It wasn’t til the data was corrected by throwing out the warmest readings that the required warming showed up.

    Ah, the conspiracy theory again. Feel free to explain how the observed sea level rise from thermal expansion showed up if the oceans are cooling…

    As regards the “hockey stick” – see here.

    Since 2001, there have been repeated claims that the reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, no more than an artefact of the statistical methods used to create it (see The great hockey stick debate).

    Details of the claims and counterclaims involve lengthy and arcane statistical arguments, so let’s skip straight to the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.

    The report states: “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 1000 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”.

    So, HB, have you looked at that Climate Change Compnedium I linked to before?

  16. And this covers the hockey stick debate in exhaustive detail:

    A more serious accusation has come from two non-climate scientists from Canada, who claim to have found a flaw in Mann’s statistical methodology. Stephen McIntyre, a mathematician and oil industry consultant, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, Ontario, base their criticism on the way Mann used a well-established technique called principal component analysis. This involves dividing “noisy” data into different sets and giving each set an appropriate weighting. McIntyre and McKitrick claim that the way Mann applied this method had the effect of damping down natural variability, straightening the shaft of the hockey stick and accentuating 20th century warming.

    There is one sense in which Mann accepts that this is unarguably true. The point of his original work was to compare past and present temperatures, so he analysed temperatures in terms of their divergence from the 20th-century mean. This approach highlights differences from that period and will thus accentuate any hockey stick shape if – but only if, he insists – it is present in the data.

    The charge from McIntyre and McKitrick, however, is that Mann’s computer program does not merely accentuate this shape, but creates it. To make the point, they did their own analysis based on looking for differences from the mean over the past 1000 years instead of from the 20th-century mean. This produced a graph showing an apparent rise in temperatures in the 15th century as great as the warming occurring now. The shaft of the hockey stick had a big kink in it. When this analysis was published last year in Geophysical Research Letters it was hailed by some as a refutation of Mann’s study.

    McIntyre and McKitrick say that their work is intended to show only that there are problems with Mann’s analysis; they do not claim their graph accurately represents past temperatures. “We have repeatedly made it clear that we offer no alternative reconstruction,” McIntyre states on his Climate Audit blog.

    The obscure statistical arguments were overshadowed in late 2005 when Mann refused to give Congressman Barton his computer code. Mann regarded the code as private property, but his opponents claimed he feared refutation of his findings. Mann did eventually publish the code, but the damage was done.

    In the meantime, three groups had been scrutinising the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick. Hans von Storch of the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, concluded that McIntyre and McKitrick were right that temperatures should be analysed relative to the 1000-year mean, not the 20th-century mean. But he also found that even when this was done it did not have much effect on the result. Peter Huybers of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts came to much the same conclusion.

    The work of Eugene Wahl of Alfred University, New York, and Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, raised serious questions about the methodology of Mann’s critics. They found the reason for the kink in the McIntyre and McKitrick graph was nothing to do with their alternative statistical method; instead, it was because they had left out certain proxies, in particular tree-ring studies based on bristlecone pines in the south-west of the US.

    “Basically, the McIntyre and McKitrick case boiled down to whether selected North American tree rings should have been included, and not that there was a mathematical flaw in Mann’s analysis,” Ammann says. The use of the bristlecone pine series has been questioned because of a growth spurt around the end of the 19th century that might reflect higher CO2 levels rather than higher temperatures, and which Mann corrected for.

    What counts in science is not a single study, however. It is whether a finding can be replicated by other groups. Here Mann is on a winning streak: upwards of a dozen studies, some using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records (excluding the bristlecone record, for instance), have produced reconstructions more or less similar to the original hockey stick.

    In short, the science didn’t support the claim, the NRO is dishonest in still presenting it as a counter when the science has already been discussed and pulled to pieces, and you’re either being extremely naive or dishonest in citing it.

    The NRO distorts and lies.

  17. Your pet site neglected to mention that Mann based his whole theory on cherrypicked samples from TEN TO FIFTEEN TREES.

    Straight from the horse’s mouth
    – here’s a chronology of the events (including prying the data from the HockeyStick Team) written yesterday by McKittrick himself:

    1. In a 1995 Nature paper by Briffa, Schweingruber et al., they reported that 1032 was the coldest year of the millennium – right in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period. But the reconstruction depended on 3 short tree ring cores from the Polar Urals whose dating was very problematic. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=877.

    2. In the 1990s, Schweingruber obtained new Polar Urals data with more securely-dated cores for the MWP. Neither Briffa nor Schweingruber published a new Polar Urals chronology using this data. An updated chronology with this data would have yielded a very different picture, namely a warm medieval era and no anomalous 20th century. Rather than using the updated Polar Urals series, Briffa calculated a new chronology from Yamal – one which had an enormous hockey stick shape. After its publication, in virtually every study, Hockey Team members dropped Polar Urals altogether and substituted Briffa’s Yamal series in its place.
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=528. PS: The exception to this pattern was Esper et al (Science) 2002, which used the combined Polar Urals data. But Esper refused to provide his data. Steve got it in 2006 after extensive quasi-litigation with Science (over 30 email requests and demands).

    3. Subsequently, countless studies appeared from the Team that not only used the Yamal data in place of the Polar Urals, but where Yamal had a critical impact on the relative ranking of the 20th century versus the medieval era.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3099

    4. Meanwhile Briffa repeatedly refused to release the Yamal measurement data used inhis calculation despite multiple uses of this series at journals that claimed to require data archiving. E.g. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=542

    5. Then one day Briffa et al. published a paper in 2008 using the Yamal series, again without archiving it. However they published in a Phil Tran Royal Soc journal which has strict data sharing rules. Steve got on the case. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3266

    6. A short time ago, with the help of the journal editors, the data was pried loose and appeared at the CRU web site. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142

    7. It turns out that the late 20th century in the Yamal series has only 10 tree ring chronologies after 1990 (5 after 1995), making it too thin a sample to use (according to conventional rules). But the real problem wasn’t that there were only 5-10 late 20th century cores- there must have been a lot more. They were only using a subset of 10 cores as of 1990, but there was no reason to use a small subset. (Had these been randomly selected, this would be a thin sample, but perhaps passable. But it appears that they weren’t randomly selected.)

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142

    8. Faced with a sample in the Taymir chronology that likely had 3-4 times as many series as the Yamal chronology, Briffa added in data from other researchers’ samples taken at the Avam site, some 400 km away. He also used data from the Schweingruber sampling program circa 1990, also taken about 400 km from Taymir. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of pooling samples from such disparate locations, this establishes a precedent where Briffa added a Schweingruber site to provide additional samples. This, incidentally, ramped up the hockey-stickness of the (now Avam-) Taymir chronology.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7158

    9. Steve thus looked for data from other samples at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size in the Briffa Yamal chronology. He quickly discovered a large set of 34 Schweingruber samples from living trees. Using these instead of the 12 trees in the Briffa (CRU) group that extend to the present yields Figure 2, showing a complete divergence in the 20th century. Thus the Schweingruber data completely contradicts the CRU series. Bear in mind the close collaboration of Schweingruber and Briffa all this time, and their habit of using one another’s data as needed.

    10. Combining the CRU and Schweingruber data yields the green line in the 3rd figure above. While it doesn’t go down at the end, neither does it go up, and it yields a medieval era warmer than the present, on the standard interpretation. Thus the key ingredient in a lot of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series (red line above) depends on the influence of a thin subsample of post-1990 chronologies and the exclusion of the (much larger) collection of readily-available Schweingruber data for the same area.

    And here are comments from McIntyre from the 27th of September:

    Also keep in mind the implausibly small size of the current portion of the Yamal archive. It would be one thing if they had only sampled 10 trees and this is what they got. But they selected 10 trees out of a larger population. Because the selection yields such different results from a nearby population sample, there is a compelling prima facie argument that they’ve made biased picks. This is rebuttable. I would welcome hearing the argument on the other side. I’ve notified one dendro of the issue and requested him to assist in the interpretation of the new data (but am not very hopeful that he will speak up.)

    Where are the lies again?

    BTW – the Beast attempted to look at the Climate Compendium but the pretty pictures made the PDF file load like frozen molasses on his laptop. It was unreadable.

  18. Your pet site neglected to mention that Mann based his whole theory on cherrypicked samples from TEN TO FIFTEEN TREES.

    You seem to have overlooked this bit:

    What counts in science is not a single study, however. It is whether a finding can be replicated by other groups. Here Mann is on a winning streak: upwards of a dozen studies, some using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records (excluding the bristlecone record, for instance), have produced reconstructions more or less similar to the original hockey stick.

  19. All from cherry picked trees undoubtedly. The Mann Hockeystick has been discredited for years. This puts the final nail in the coffin

    • HB, that is perhaps the weakest riposte I’ve ever seen – and I’ve seen three year olds stick their fingers in their ears and shout “I’m not listening”.

      What counts in science is not a single study, however. It is whether a finding can be replicated by other groups. Here Mann is on a winning streak: upwards of a dozen studies, some using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records (excluding the bristlecone record, for instance), have produced reconstructions more or less similar to the original hockey stick.

      • “Upwards of a dozen”? wow! “Studies”, too. Golly. Did they check all ten trees? Well, check this out:

        Chairman of the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce and Chairman of the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigations were interested in determining the validity of McIntyre’s claims. An independent committee chaired by Professor Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University found in favor of McIntyre. “In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.” and, “Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.” This leaves no doubt about the science; however, Wegman identified a larger problem about control of climate science. “In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him.” Wegman confirmed my suspicion that excessive focus on “peer review” studies was because a group had control of the process. “One of the interesting questions associated with the ‚Äòhockey stick controversy’ are the relationships among the authors and consequently how confident one can be in the peer review process. In particular, if there is a tight relationship among the authors and there are not a large number of individuals engaged in a particular topic area, then one may suspect that the peer review process does not fully vet papers before they are published.” The fact MBH98, was peer reviewed is partial proof. Continued publication of peer-reviewed papers using hockey stick methodology suggests the peer review process is being circumvented.

        Wegman identified those at the core of the group; “However, it is immediately clear that the Mann, Rutherford, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes form a clique, each interacting with all of the others. A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the clique interacts with every one else in the clique.” In comprehensive charts he identified all the scientists involved, including Amman and Wahl. Wegman wrote, “We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers.” Both Mann and Jones have refused to disclose how their results were obtained. (Source)

        Logrollers all. Even the IPCC dropped Mann’s stick on the ice.

Trackbacks

  1. ding dong the stick is dead « Watts Up With That? « The Constitution Club

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,849 other followers

%d bloggers like this: