Chopping Up The Hockey Stick

Then you shouldn't have put all of your credibility behind a charlatan like Dr. Mann then should you. He alone has done more to discredit your entire movement than any other person. Its only too late that you realize that his ego sunk your movement.

 

Mann's work has been validated many times in the scientific literature. None of us put all credibility of multiproxy studies behind his work, or for climate science in general for that matter. Your rant is nothing more than libel based on frantic obsession brought on by your cult leaders whipping up their crew into a frenzy.

 

Or many scientists made the same mistakes. Although I will admit a few invented some new ones too.

My statement is one of simple fact. The entire global warming movement lost all its steam because so much effort and credibility was put into defending one Mann's(nice pun huh) fragile ego.

 

The denier obsession with a single scientist possibly constitutes a mental disease. Seek help.

 

Our obsession? Hell the incident preceding climategate was another fraudulent hockey stick designed to pro pup Mann. If you guys would have just moved on from the hockey stick in 2003 you would be much better off right now. One of these days you will realize that your all out defense of the hockey stick was a fatal error.

 

I am not a part of any movement.

I just don't deny what is happening.

I took biology later in life because I wanted to go to school just to learn. I wanted to learn and not worry about grades or a job.

Biology was so far advanced from when I was in school earlier in my life it was astounding. They did not even know how photosynthesis worked.... but they know now...and when I saw the formula and understood it I was convinced of AGW.

It took no more than that. I have heard nothing to change my mind. In fact; everything reputable supports it.

 

Just because deniers don't like inconvenient evidence, doesn't mean it will go away. The hockey stick is here to stay, and unfortunately, the end of it keeps rising since the first hemispheric studies were done in the 1990's.

 

Now you are just jumping back and forth. You trying and argue that it isn't important but like all religious zealots you can only pretend to deny your faith for so long. So you are right back to defending the hockey stick and sinking your movement.

 

Huh? Let's summarize:

1. The multiproxy reconstructions are not anywhere near the primary evidence for the human impact on global warming. They are at best secondary compelling evidence, if that.

2. The multiproxy reconstructions that show a MWP followed by a LIA followed by a rapid jump exceeding MWP are robust. Deniers are full of crap on that too.

If you think these statements are contradictory, I suggest a class in Logic.

 

Right on cue.

 

Wow!! Mannie posting a wonderfully succinct summation of the environmental clues to warming and your reply is all about "world view bias" blaming him for basing his decision making on one person

Talk about lack of substance

 

Not only are you lying about Mann, you seem strangely ignorant for one who claims statistical expertise. Residuals are statistics, not data. You claimed Mann falsified data. You lied.

 

No statistical reconstruction? So you admit it's crap. At least we're on the same page. I hope this means you're going to stop posting his graphs as if they're worth something.

Somebody verified Holmgren's gray-scale proxy? Who? Where? Citation, please.

No it hasn't. All that McI showed is that if you generate enough random series, you can paw through them and find a hockey stick in there somewhere. That didn't convince the NAS or the scientific community, but of course deniers everywhere are proud to be gullible dupes.

 

Do you have any idea wrong that is?

Lets go to class ... agian and use the Tiljander proxy as the perfect example since it has been used for both a scientific and statistical reconstruction.

Originally the Tiljander series was used to do a scientific reconstruction based on the relation ship between lake sediment and winter snow fall. Scientifically the more snow you have the more lake sediment you will have. You can see the Tiljander data here.



Its inverted because scientifically sediment has an inverse relationship to temperature.

No notice the sharp down turn in the late data. This is because agriculture and other human influences started polluting the data. Actions by many caused artificially high levels of sediment build up so Tiljander explicitly said that the later data of the series was corrupted and not to be used.

Enter Dr. Mann, no Dr. Mann's pure statistical approach doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what the science says about how the proxy relates to temperature. All he cares about is correlation. Anything that correlates well to temperature will be deemed to be a temperature proxy. It should be noted that the statistics department of Dr. Mann's own university Penn State has a yearly award given to the person who can show the most spurious correlation. But Dr. Mann doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). His ego is so large that he doesn't believe that he could fall victim to spurious correlation.

He runs the Tiljander data through his purely statistical model including the corrupted later data and guess what happens. The model sees the sharp up turn in the sediment density and assumes that upturn represents a temperature signal. So it wrongly assumes that lake sediment has a positive relationship to temperature. So we end up with upside down Tiljander.



The medieval warm period becomes a cooling and the little ice age becomes a warming. We have created a super hockey stick because our statistical reconstitution totally ignores science. That is the difference between a scientific and statistical reconstruction my little padawan.

Class Dismissed!

 

LOLOLOL.....denier cultists and their meaningless obsessions are really funny.....and pathetic......still crowing over finding one supposed error in Dr. Mann's work while ignoring all of the other corroborating studies by other scientists that all show unprecedented sudden warming at the end of the twentieth century that is beyond the bounds of natural variation.


Fig. 5. Comparison of STD and RCS NH reconstructions with mean annual land (20°N-90°N) temperatures. Top: Annual time series from 1200 AD. Bottom: 20-year smoothed time series from 1200 AD. Click image for full figure, time series from 713AD.

On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming

Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres
Vol. 111, No. D3, D03103, doi:10.1029/2005JD006352, 07 February 2006.

Rosanne D'Arrigo1, Rob Wilson 2, Gordon Jacoby1

1 Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, New York, USA
2 School of GeoSciences, Grant Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

 

And another study showing the hockey stick shape.


Plate 3. Comparison of six large-scale reconstructions, all recalibrated with linear regression against the 1881-1960 mean April-September observed temperature averaged over land areas north of 20N. All series have been smoothed with a 50-year Gaussian-weighted filter and are anomalies from 1961-1990 mean. Observed temperature for 1871-1997 (black) from Jones et al. (1999); circum-Arctic temperature proxies for 1600-1990 (yellow) from Overpeck et al.(1997); northern hemisphere temperature proxies for 1000-1980(red) from Jones et al. (1998 ); global temperature and non-temperature proxies for 1000-1980 (purple) from Mann et al. (1998, 1999); and three northern Eurasian tree ring width chronologies for 1000-1987 (green) from Briffa and Osborn (1999); 13 Northern Hemisphere temperature proxies for 1000-1987 (orange) from Crowley and Lowery (2000), but excluding the two low-resolution records used by them; and the NH reconstruction from the age-banded analysis presented in this study for 1402-1960 (blue), bounded by the 1 and 2 sigma standard errors. Download the data from this figure and data description from the WDC Paleo archive.

Low-frequency Temperature Variations from a Northern Tree Ring Density Network
Journal of Geophysical Research,
106 D3 (16-Feb-2001) pp. 2929-2941

K. R. Briffa*, T. J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P. D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, and E.A. Vaganov.

ABSTRACT:
We describe new reconstructions of northern extratropical summer temperatures for nine subcontinental-scale regions and a composite series representing quasi "Northern Hemisphere" temperature change over the last 600 years. These series are based on tree ring density data that have been processed using a novel statistical technique (age band decomposition) designed to preserve greater long-timescale variability than in previous analyses. We provide time-dependent and timescale-dependent uncertainty estimates for all of the reconstructions. The new regional estimates are generally cooler in almost all precalibration periods, compared to estimates obtained using earlier processing methods, particularly during the 17th century. One exception is the reconstruction for northern Siberia, where 15th century summers are now estimated to be warmer than those observed in the 20th century. In producing a new Northern Hemisphere series we demonstrate the sensitivity of the results to the methodology used once the number of regions with data, and the reliability of each regional series, begins to decrease. We compare our new hemisphere series to other published large-regional temperature histories, most of which lie within the 1s confidence band of our estimates over most of the last 600 years. The 20th century is clearly shown by all of the palaeoseries composites to be the warmest during this period.

 

Here's a study based on glacial records that shows the same hockey stick shape.


Fig. 3a.
Temperature reconstruction for various regions. The black curve shows an estimated global mean value, obtained by giving weights of 0.5 to the Southern Hemisphere (SH), 0.1 to Northwest America, 0.15 to the Atlantic sector, 0.1 to the Alps, and 0.15 to Asia.

Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
Science Vol. 308, No. 5722, pp. 675-677, 29 April 2005.

J. Oerlemans

Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research
Utrecht University
Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, Netherlands.

ABSTRACT:
I constructed a temperature history for different parts of the world from 169 glacier length records. Using a first-order theory of glacier dynamics, I related changes in glacier length to changes in temperature. The derived temperature histories are fully independent of proxy and instrumental data used in earlier reconstructions. Moderate global warming started in the middle of the 19th century. The reconstructed warming in the first half of the 20th century 0.5 kelvin. This warming was notably coherent over the globe. The warming signals from glaciers at low and high elevations appear to be very similar.

 

Mann's hockey stick papers were published in 1998 and 1999. Tiljander et. al was published in 2003. Mann didn't use Tiljander in the hockey stick.

Class dismissed.

 

Mann has more than one hockey stick. Mann et. al 2008 used ad used Tiljander.

In 1998 Mann's hockey stick relied on spurious blistlecone pines. By 2008 McIntrye and McIntrick had done such a good job deconstructing the mistakes in the hockey stick that Mann had actually learned why he got the hockey stick. I don't think that Dr. Mann really knew why his method ultimately produced a hockey stick. I believe that it was trial and error and his "censored" folder confirms this he was trying mutltiple approaches until the got the shape he was looking for. After MM03 Mann and his friends actually knew full well why they had gotten the hockey stick and became much better at producing hockey sticks because of it. Mann realized that his method would mine for hockey sticks so he needed hockey sticks in his data set. In the case of Mann08 he knew that he needed a second strong hockey stick so he could claim that his reconstruction didn't owe its shape to any one proxy. So he included Tiljander. Instead of his reconstruction being dependent on one proxy it was dependent on two.

 

Ultimately it does not matter what you believe

Fact is the research has been replicated time and time and time again by differing methodologies by different people. Truth is denialists stance is getting smaller and smaller - as more research comes in they are increasingly relying on accusations of fraud and conspiracy.

When was the last time a paper was published that showed there is no climate change?

 

False. Let's look at Mann 08 without Tiljander. This graph is actually from Mann 2008's SI (which you clearly didn't read).



The network minus 7 line is what you get when you remove 7 problem proxies (including the 4 Tiljander proxies) from the result. The difference is so small you need a microscope to see it. And if you do take a microscope to the data, you discover that the MWP is cooler without Tiljander.

 

Perhaps you should have read my post. Mann needed two hockey stick series to claim that his reconstruction wasn't dependent on any one series as MBH98 was. Mann98 is dependent on one series, Graybill. Mann08 is dependent on 2 series Graybill and Tiljander. When Graybill is removed Tiljander dominates the series and produces a hockey stick. When Tiljander is removed Graybill dominates. When both are removed the medieval warm period magically shows up.

Perhaps you should learn to read what is written instead of always confirming your own bias.

 

Those are some really crazy delusions you got going there, windy.