Yorkshiresnows

Hi Folks, Have any of you seen this yet ? http://www.accuweather.com/video/110914873001/more-on-the-coming-cooling.asp Sort of links into the Oceanic debate thread. Mr laminate floori is discussing his thoughts on the predicted coolling later this year (Global cooling that is). Cheers Y.S

Hi Starry Skies, Why are you going on about 20 th century upticks ? That's a given isn't it .... we have instrumental data that proves this ..yes ? ..... and anybody over the age of 30 can see its got a lot warmer ... The question is whether this warming is unprecedented over the past 1000 - 2000 years as what Mann et al was suggesting and whether we are warmer than at any other point in recent history. All the proxy data that show an uptick would be correct for that period !! The fact that a lot of the tree-ring proxies show a 'downturn 20th century tempwise' suggests (as all of the expert pannels considerations reveal) these should not be relied upon to construct past temperatures ... yes ? It's the smoothing of the medieval warm period and flattening of the little ice age that is the controversial and ... in my mind ..... erroneous bit. Get away with that and you have your convincing argument that man's activity is the key reason for whats been occuring in the late 20th century and nataural cycles have little to no impact aginst the overwhelming power of greenhouse gas emissions. It was the key aim of the paper(s) If you have to apply a ton of manipulations to your data, weight it, condense certain areas, fill in other blank spots and backfill others with mathematical assumption, (because you do not have the data), then ignore later data series from the same proxy series, have correlation statistics that show ..... no correlation ..... invent a new statistical verification that allows you to accept the data .... and then present the graph that looks the most controversial from all the possibilities you could have chosen ..... then ....... You have a Turd (in my opinion). Take a look at the original Mann graph (not the highlighted hockey stick)...... but the confidence intervals for the time period prior to 1850 ....... what do you reckon ? Had a few black-sheep ales tonight (highly recommend .... if from a skeptical view !!!) Y.S

Agree (I guess that comes as no suprise) !!! Personally I am very sorry that what I originally wanted to get across regarding this subject has been swallowed up in somewhat silly and aggressive arguments (a lot of which has been my own doing). I'm also sorry that I seem to have alienated certain folks on here ..... not my intention. It feels pretty strange for me as until a relatively short while ago, I would have ploughed the supportive side of the field. However, I bought a few books, looked at a few papers and started to question how certain things looked against historical records .... and suddenly I'm thinking differently. Of course, this does not mean my views are correct. I am not sure if you agree with this but a possible summarisation of the whole 'hockey stick' argument could be distilled as: Does the data presented by Mann et al (98, 99 and 2008) point to a flat period of global temperatures (past 1000 to 2000 years ago ....or ...not .. (basically removing past assumptions of a global 'medieval warm period' and cooler 'little ice age' ? ..... which is what the original paper was all about). To me (at least) it does not. To use the statistical manipulations that he did (only fully discovered over nearly a decade of investigation) asks many questions ... to which the answers are unsatisfactory. Y.S

Hi Pete G, Yes, that is what I believe the T2 to mean. Y.S

Starry Skies, Chill me old mate I do not subscribe to climate audit. I use it to gain information. Its a crap site because it questions the science of certain papers ? Don't quite follow your reasoning on that one. I think its great that folks do question things, that how progress is made. We have gone round and round in circles on this one. Most of the papers that support Mann use the same sets of flawed proxy data (see earlier posts on the other thread). I believe I am right in thinking the Hockey stick is a load of crap and I have provided plenty of evidence and links and papers to suggest that there is a least major controversary over the Mann papers, but you have just as much right to state your views. The Mann 2008 paper uses a dodgy set of lake bore hole proxies (see my earlier posts about a circulat argument), Without this or the tree-ring proxy, .... you don't get the graph (here's an exert from my earlier post on this paper again ....) "Mann et al 2008: Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. PNAS, abstract here: http://www.ncdc.noaa...8/mann2008.html [this one's particularly useful as it takes on board the findings of the reviews regarding the statistical criticisms of Mann et al 1998, No tree rings, so no bristlecone pines here YS!, many more proxies, different stats]" This paper was an attempt by Mann to take on board some of the critisism levelled at his earlier papers and to resurrect the Hockey stick. But I am afraid that this paper has been exposed to the following flaws: 1) It still uses a load of tree ring proxy data (relying on no less than 112 Oak tree proxies): "Doug Keenan has received a favorable decision from the FOI Commissioner in his lengthy FOI/EIR battle for tree ring data collected by Mike Baillie of Queen’s University, Belfast. The data is from Irish oaks and was collected mostly in the 1970s" "Baillie and Wilson argued that oak chronologies were “virtually useless†as temperature proxies and “dangerous†in a temperature reconstruction. Nonetheless, as I report below, no fewer than 119 oak chronologies (including 3 Baillie chronologies) were used in Mann et al 2008 without any complaint by Wilson or other specialists" And of the author of the original oak tree study that was used In Mann 2008: "Although ancient oaks could give an indication of one-off dramatic climatic events, such as droughts, they were not useful as a temperature proxy because they were highly sensitive to water availability as well as past temperatures" “It’s been dressed up as though we are suppressing climate data, but we have never produced climate records from our tree rings,†Professor Bailee said. “In my view it would be dangerous to try and make interpretations about the temperature from this data.†2) Almost all of the non tree proxy data do not even show a 'modern warming', one major exception being a group of four lake sediment series from Finland known as the Tiljander proxies. However, again, the original paper was written by a pHD student (a thesis paper), author Mia Tiljander. It turned out that the 20th century up-tick (hockey shape) in these proxies was actually caused by artificial disturbance of the sediment caused by ditch digging rather than anything climatic. Mann acknowledges this fact but rather than reject the series, he stated that the disturbance did not matter. He provided a 'sensitivity' analysis, showing that he still could get a 'hockey stick without the Tiljander proxies. The BIG selling point of this paper was exactly this point. You could get a hockey stick shape even if you looked at non-tree ring proxies. And here is the slight of hand: This claim rests on a circular argument: Mann had shown that the Tiljander proxies were valid by removing them from the database and showing that you still got a hockey stick. However, when he did this test, the hockey stick shape of the final reconstruction came from ...... BRISTLECONES (universally accepted as flawed). Then he argued that he could remove the tree ring proxies (including the Bristlecones) and still get a hockey stick ......... and of course he could, because in this case the hockey stick shape came from the Tiljander proxies. His arguments therefore rested on two sets of flawed proxies in the database but only removing one at a time and arguing that you get a hockey stick either way !!!! 3) Briffa's discredited tree ring proxy series is also included in this paper, with the same inconvenient divergence in the latter part of the 20th century truncated down to 1960. The data series actually shows a down-tick therafter (there's a lot on this from previous publications - see Climate audit for more information). 4) One of the 'new' proxy series included is a documentary record of temperatures in East Africa dating back to 1400. If true, this would have overturned everything known about the history of the continent ....... but it was discovered that Mann had inadvertantly swopped the the latitude and longitude, and the series should have been located in Spain. It became farcically apparent that the proxy was not a documentary record at all ...... but a rainfall record. To be fair to Mann on this point, once this error had been made public, he corrected the data, with the effect of a change in 0.5 degrees C in the 18th century. 5) McIntyre and McKitrick published (late 2008) in the same journal a short comment dealing with the major flaws as they saw them: a) The use of confidence levels in the statistics used - they pointed out that using conventional statistical methods, they could show that Mann's uncertainty bounds were infinately large prior to 1800 ..... in other words that his new reconstruction was of no use prior to that date. the calibration process producing hockey sticks from 'red-noise' c) the Tiljander issue d) the use of proxies which were not responding to temperature, including Bristlecones. There's a load more, but I think you get the point !! Its funny dude, but you really seem to want to take an aggressive line with me as though I am in some way responsible for the mess that is the Hockey stick. You do read some of the contradictory papers don't you, and you seem an intelligent sort of person. If you are happy with it then that's your view and your welcome to it. I am a scientist by trade and I publish and review several papers on a yearly basis. In submitting papers for publication you must include all relevant data and make clear what you have done with the data to achieve your tables, summary graphs etc. In addition, you must keep any other relevant data which includes e-mails etc that could have any relevance to decisions taken and archive these with the raw data. In this way, you are making it possible for a second party to recreate your work ...... this is good science and forms the basis for GLP (Good Labortaory Practice). Mann and his cronies have done absolotely everything possible not to provide the data that is needed to attempt to replicate their original findings ..... (by not releasing the computer code or indeed revealing what they did and did not do with certain data) this would be unacceptable in the field of medicine. I am not a complete denier and believe that Man is influencing the climate (I am not a 'denier' of greenhouse gas effects EITHER), but my belief is that the greenhouse 'power' of Co2 is limited and that natural cycles have a major part to play in what we are currently seeing. This is just my personnal view from the papers and data I have looked at (not to say that I do not have more to learn). As a scientist it is my view that the climate change science in terms of the proxy data and how this has been presented in published papers has been poorly handled. There are the books, the blog and the papers that question this . In regards to the Hockey-stick, then we have an old saying round these parts: "You cannot polish a turd" !! So, lets keep things friendly Starry Skies. Have a great weekend and lets do battle another day ? Y.S

Hi All, McKitrick's Initial Response to the Inquiry is here: http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/mckitrick-preliminary-response/#more-11365 Whether he makes any good points or is talking rubbish is I guess up to each and everyone to decide for themselves !! Y.S

Depends if you've been asked for the information under the freedom of information act on a particular subject though doesn't it ? Also, why ask folks to delete all mail on a particular subject that is under outside discussion and you know is of a sensitive nature. Maybe its all innocent .... maybe not .... guess we will never know for sure. Just posted it (there's a load more on the blog) to illustrate that this area is never as black and white as we all would like it to be (skeptic, pro or neutral thinker alike). Y.S

Hi Folks, I know that this may be seen as 'bad form' and so I will apologise in advance, but thought you'd enjoy a look at some recent posts on the 'skeptic's site' (I freely admit to being a member of this nut-job club): http://climateaudit.org/ Fred Pearce, whose one-man inquiry into Climategate (The Climate Files), remains the only reasonably objective inquiry to date observes( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists) that nobody on the Muir Russell panel even asked Phil Jones whether he deleted emails†Most seriously, it finds “evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law]“. Yet, extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this. You Can’t Be Serious! Jul 7, 2010 – 3:24 PM One of the most famous emails was Jones’ request to Mann, Briffa, Wahl and Ammann to delete AR4 emails (including the surreptitious Wahl-Briffa exchange) a day after David Holland’s FOI request for AR4 emails. It read: 29th May 2008: ―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 likewiseâ€. This is the email that the ICO said to offer the most cogent prima facie evidence imaginable. Muir Russell says that they “have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already madeâ€, noting two emails relating to deletion including the famous one cited above: There seems clear incitement to delete emails, although we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made. Two e-mails from Jones to Mann on 2nd February 2005 (1107454306.txt) and 29th May 2008 (in 1212063122.txt) relate to deletion: 2nd February 2005: ―The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyoneâ€. 29th May 2008: ―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 likewiseâ€. This is getting stupid. Jones’ email came immediately following David Holland’s FOI request. Plus, Muir Russell evaded discussion of the equally damning “Keith should say†email. 888. 1212009215.txt where Jones says that Briffa should deny the existence of the Wahl correspondence: Keith should say that he didn’t get anything extra that wasn’t in the IPCC comments. As John McEnroe said, You can’t be serious! Y.S

Hi All, I see that the good old CFS is going along with Joe laminate floori's prediction of a second half year temperature plunge .....: Even colder for first few months of next year (we'll see .. ??) Thought I'd post this in here as it relates to the previous two posts I made.

Hi Starry Skies, Just been reading the comments above. I am quite frankly amazed at some of the report observations ...... perhaps I should not have been. I don't want to go over old ground and state old arguments, but some of the conclusions of the above report are a little bizarre. The Hockey stick by Mann could not be replicated without the use of very questionable statistical manipulations .... this much has been made clear and is accepted - all the various Expert panels observations at the very least pointed out that the statistical methods used were poor and should have included a suite of verification statistical methods (which when performed ....... failed !!) The published critisisms made by McIntyre have not been refuted in this area. Also, the use of Tree-ring proxy data is also universally accepted as being very questionable (and I am being charitable with this statement). Yet it is used in the majority of papers supporting the original Mann publications. Why on earth did the hockey stick need to splice 20th century temperature instrumental records on top of the proxy data when they had proxy data to 1980 if not to hide the fact that the 20th century proxy data they had showed a downturn in temperatures. This would have sort of questioned the value in the tree-ring proxy data to begin with. Also, I am unsure of some of the comments on the blogs - these are mainly used to get easy access to the published and submitted papers, .. as well as looking at the background comminications. Seems perfectly reasonable to use these (and by this I mean both Climate audit (skeptical) and Climate Science (pro-view). I agree entirely with your last point Starry Skies, and that is you need to be able to replicate Experimental work to confirm its validity (its what I do in my day to day job). This means making all of the source data available if requested and also to provide detailed explanations on why certain data is used, not used and what statistical manipulations you have used. In this way, you can avoid a whole lot of trouble. Also, how can you effectively review a scientific paper if you cannot see how the graphs and data have been used to generate the final conclusions. This was the case with the hockey stick papers - would they have been accepted for publication had the verification statistics been presented (irrespective of the inclusion of the bristlecone proxy data ? Food for thought ! Y.S

Hi Folks, Just as an update to the above post: The globe is still running warm with an anomaly of +0.44 degreed C, but the El-Nino spike has faded and we should be on the way down as La-Nina takes hold. As ever, time will tell. Y.S

Hi Starry skies, Yes, the hockey stick does not itself mean a huge amount in regards to the evidence of man made global warming theory ... or not ... and yes I guess that we are perhaps closer to each other's views that some of these recent posts may suggest. Its just that the IPCC used that graph to really ram home the message that we are in the midst of something not seen for 1000-2000 years ....... and yet (depending on where you stand on this) the data used to make it does not really stand up (or at the very least is questionable). Ammann's second paper was rejected no less that 4 times by Climate Science eventurall being re-written entirely in time for the IPCC assessment in 2005/ 2006. Even then The IPCC only saw a draft (in press) copy. The final published paper contained a major concession- not in the draft - the table of verification statistics that McIntyre and McKinrick were pressing for: [On a completely separate issue (regarding the CRU Hack - there is a really telling e-mail from the one John Mitchell (IPCC review editor), here he is saying his piece to Eystein jansen and Jonathan Overpeck on the sibject of the second draft comments (4th assessment): June 21 2006: 1150923423 "I am in Geneva ..... so I have not had a lot of time to look at the second Order Draft comments. I can get to Bergen before Tuesday. I had a quick look at the comments on the hockey stick and include below questions I think need to be addressed which I hope will help the discussions. I do believe we need a clear answer to the skeptics. I have also copied these comments to Jean [Jousel, the other review editor] ... 1) There needs to be a clear statement of why the instrumental and proxy data are shown on the same graph . The issue of why we don't show the proxy data for the last few decades (they don't show continued warming) but assume that they are valid for early warm periods needs to be explained. Clearly senior IPCC scientists knew that the proxy records showed no warming in recent decades casting huge doubpt on the validity of tree-ring proxies in estimating past climate temperature] This information is not discussed in the IPCC report. Here's Ammann's Verification Stats: proxy Net work // NH mean Rsquare // NH mean R square MBH period // Calibration period // Verification period 1400-1449 /// 0.414 /// 0.018 1450-1499 /// 0.483 /// 0.010 1500-1599 /// 0.487 /// 0.006 1600-1699 /// 0.643 /// 0.004 1700-1729 /// 0.688 /// 0.00003 (yes, it really is that small !!!) 1730-1749 /// 0.691 /// 0.013 1750-1759 /// 0.714 /// 0.156 1760-1779 /// 0.734 /// 0.050 1780-1799 /// 0.750 /// 0.122 1800-1819 /// 0.752 /// 0.154 1820-1980 /// 0.759 /// 0.189 NH: Northern Hemisphere. reproduced from Wahl and Ammann's revised Climatic Change paper - Climate audit has all the drafts, re-writes and final version to look at if you wish to check the papers out for yourselves. This vindicated previous key claims on the Mann papers by McIntyre et al. The important figures are in the right hand column where the verification R square is close to zero for most periods (you need a figure of greater than 0.5 just to state that a correlation is possible !!). I guess everybody is a little bored of all this now, its just that I really think it very odd how something as poorly written and constructed was allowed to become such a feature. The Mann Hockey stick is the same graph (with axis slightly altered) as in the Al Gore Inconvenient truth, film. It is accepted in the media and elsewhere as being correct, yet did not undergo a thorough review process. This is just so very wrong and worrying. But, peace to you all .... and in particular to Starry Skies, ... I am not trying to have a go at you or anybody else, Iam just interested in the whole saga of how science was dealt with, regulated itself and allowed publishing of something such as this. I'll buy you several virtual beers and a whiskey chaser Y.S

:wallbash:you've missed ..... everything. And not conceded when you've been caught out !!! Anyway, You have a different point of view ..... and its obvious that we will never reach common ground on this issue. Let others take from this series of posts what they will. Please folks read the various posts well and google the links provided (from both protagonists ... ), and make what you will. Obviously for me the Hockey stick is a pile of smelly poo ..... which makes in my mind a strong case for a medieval warm period (global signal) where temperatures were likely higher than now and also a Little Ice Age. ......, As a consequence I believe that natural cycles have a bigger part to play and account for the recent 20th century warming tahn would otherwise be the case .... (This does not mean that I believe that human greenhouse gase emissions do not have any impact on temperature.... just that this is minor). I am also very dissapointed by the peer review process for this area of science. In the medical world , to publish a paper you have to make all your data available so that others can see clearly how you have come to your conclusions and if necessary replicate your work (this has certainly been the case for my own publications). This however (prior to McIntyre) is not the case for the paleoclimatic fraternity, whose publications rely hevily on statistical manipulations of the data (Mann 98 and 99 computer code and details on how they dealt with the data have never been published ....... so how can anybody have affectively reviewed the papers ????) and so you cannot easily see what has been done with the raw data. Its a mess folks, plain and simple. Y.S

My apologies Jethro, Yes, was banging my fist on the table (I think I had good reason !!). I'll leave this now. I've put my point across and fair's fair. Let folks make up their own mind. Y.S

MacIntyre's methods were discredited by Wahl and Ammann, amongst many others, and his submission to the CRU enquiry was found to be without merit by the enquiry. sss

[[which I stress is separate from defending the work of someone like Mann from the spurious allegations of someone like MacIntyre] is that it would be surprising if the MWP was not at least hemispheric in extent, due to weather teleconnections. But in a parallel to my conjecture I put out earlier, I find it rather interesting that of all places China is reporting anomalous Medieval warmth. Were they not also anomalously afflicted by the cold winter (while the rest of the world was doing it's best to break high temperatures)? It should highlight in the minds of everyone that individual locations identifying a warm episode are not enough - most locations with a records capable of identifying the warm episode need to record it, or the warmth can be an artefact of patchy heat redistribution rather than a uniform climatic signal. Hi Starry Skies, Please explain 'spurious allegations'. Why are they 'spurious' when the guy (and others) have spent 10 years looking at data from many studies and have published and won expert pannel review hearings? They don't seem spurious to me, thoughtful, considered, accurate ...yes, could see that ....... What makes MacIntyre's work 'spurious' Are you qualified to make that judgement (I know that I am not). Y.S

Sorry Starry skies, See your highlighted text. ...... er .... yes I know (paper 1 from my post above !!!!!!). Paper 2 which is referenced in paper 1 and is the main technical report was rejected ...... because its a load of crap !! As such, paper 1 is irrelevant !!! You have obviously not read or looked at the data in your own quoted references. I have read around 20 papers in detail ..... and that includes looking at the proxiy data they have used. Perhaps you might like to do the same and then come back on here and tell me that the vast majority of the key papers that are used in this 'Hockey stick' debate do not use tree-ring data. In fact I will go further, most use the same tree ring data, that has been discredited. MANN 2008 USED BRISTLECONE TREE RING DATA as well as oak tree ring data (and that makes your earlier post incorrect). You obviously do not take much credence in the written book ? That's your look-out. I challenge you to purchase the book and read it, then check out the references it contains online, then come back to me and say ... its all a load of rubbish. The point of the multi-proxy data is how the author deals with the weighting of the proxy mix. The Mann 2008 paper as I stated above used tree-ring data as well as non-tree ring data. The point (repeating myself here) is that the non-tree ring data was flawed ... fact. Without the non-tree ring data, Mann was relying on Bristlecone proxies to generate the hockey stick shape ...... none of the other tree ring data did !!! As for climate audit being a biased blog ...... well so what, they are questioning the science and that a good thing as far as I am concerned. What exactly makes your references more reliable than mine? There is also a key difference between e.g. Mann's work and the published data from McIntyre and that is that Mann will not release his computer code or indeed how he calculated his confidence intervals. The climate audit site has all the information available for all the work that McIntyre has done for anybody to take a look at. Go on ... have a look ! The Hockey stick is dead and always was. If you need to invent new statistics, cut, amend, truncate and discard the majority of the data to obtain a certain shape .... well your on a hiding to nothing in my view. ONCE MORE, WHY HAVE YOU NOT COMMENTED ON THE INDO-PACIFIC WARM POOL PAPER I POSTED EARLIER ??????? IS IT BECAUSE IT SHOWS A MWP AND LIA BEING GLOBAL EVENTS ? Is this not a non tree ring proxy study that provides evidence that you need? https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/3188/ppnature08233_with_fig%26supple.pdf?sequence=1 Y.S

Just thought that I would add a little on the Eugene Wahl and Ammon Caspar 'discreditation': The authors submitted two manuscripts for publication (in Climatic Change) in which they reportedly showed the hockey stick could be replicated. The first papers conclusions were: "The claim by McIntyre and McKitrick that a spurious 'hockey-stick' climatic reconstruction is introduced by data trasformation is unfounded" They then went on to discuss principal component (PC) retention policies (the methods used by Mann to screen out the useful data from the proxies) but also claimed that in their second paper they had shown that no matter how you standardised the data, you would still get a hockey stick provided you retained sufficient PC's. For the second paper Ammon (unlike) Mann had published his computer code so that McIntyre and McKitrick could see how the data was being used (they were claiming that they had replicated Mann's findings). McIntyre and McKitrick observed that Ammon's emulation of the hockey stick was in fact nearly exactly the same as their own and confirmed that the same fatal flaws they had uncovered in Mann's original paper were there in the Ammon paper also. Namely that the R squared verification tests that linked the temperature reconstructions to the proxy data were so low as to indicate no meaning at all !! Mann's own RE correlation statistics were used (which were one of the main critisisms of that paper) to pass the data through. McIntyre was actually appointed reviewer and pointed out these flaws (amongst many others) to the publishing editor at Climatic Change. The Paper was rejected and has not been published to date. The replication of the Hockey stick was / is in tatters !! Unfortunately, a pre-release press release from the UCAR was not withdrawn and many folks (including the IPCC) still refer to these authors work as evidence of support for the Mann Hockey stick, and evidence that McIntyre and McKitrick had been refuted ........ when in fact, it is just the opposite !! Here's is a letter written to Ammon stating the main issues: http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/reply.ammann.pdf Y.S

Perhaps you would like to check out the NAS expert pannel report conclusions, or indeed the Wegman report commisoned to look into the affair: "The report commissioned by the House Energy Committee, backs up and reinforces that conclusion. The three researchers - EdwardJ. Wegman of George Mson University, David W.Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of John Hopkins University are not climatologists; they're statasticians. Their task was to look at Mr Mann's methods from a statsitical perspective and assess their validity. Their conclusion is that Mr Mann's papers are plagued by basic statistical errors that call his conclusions into doubt. Further, professor Wegman's report upholds the findings of Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick that Mr Mann's methodology is biased towards producing 'hockey stick' shaped graphs" The Wegman report conclusion: "In general we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of McIntyre and McKirick to be valid and compelling" As for the last part of your above statement ...... They have uncovered a slur on Science and shown what a complete load of old tosh, the Hockey stick papers were / are. You can make your own mind up. I believe I have illustrated my own point of view with sufficient references. You still have not commented on the Indo-Pacific warm pool paper that I posted ................ showing a MWP and LIA signal ...... Global, not Regional ! Y.S

Hi Pete, Yes, good point. But not all proxy data is prone to such problems as Tree-ring data and in particlular Bristlecones. I would agree with Starry skies that non-tree ring proxy data (ice cores / Bore hole drills and ocean water pool assessments) would be preferable (the Mann 2008 paper however, is full of tree ring data) The main problem as I see it is that the tree-ring proxy series has not been well updated. There are lots of issues that can be resolved and corrected (for example an update to the Polar Urals proxy series was made), but as this does not show an 'Up-tick' in the 20th century it seems to have been dropped for another location, or, worse, the old data is still used. Most papers on this issue contain the same key proxy series data. The other thing that is stiking to me, is that the majority of data does indeed show a MWP and LIA ...... you have to go to some lengths to get rid of it by lots of manipulations of the data...... always very suspicious !! Y.S P.S Take a look at this which illustrates the 'selective' way in whicha lot of the data has ben presented: http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-scitech.pdf

Hi Sunny Skies, Okay, lets take a closer look at one of your earlier references: "Mann et al 2008: Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. PNAS, abstract here: http://www.ncdc.noaa...8/mann2008.html [this one's particularly useful as it takes on board the findings of the reviews regarding the statistical criticisms of Mann et al 1998, No tree rings, so no bristlecone pines here YS!, many more proxies, different stats]" See you have posted the abstract and not the full paper (have you read the full paper by any chance ? Did you download the supplementary data and check which proxy series were being used ?) This paper was an attempt by Mann to take on board some of the critisism levelled at his earlier papers and to resurrect the Hockey stick. But I am afraid that this paper has been exposed to the following flaws: 1) It still uses a load of tree ring proxy data (relying on no less than 112 Oak tree proxies): "Doug Keenan has received a favorable decision from the FOI Commissioner in his lengthy FOI/EIR battle for tree ring data collected by Mike Baillie of Queen’s University, Belfast. The data is from Irish oaks and was collected mostly in the 1970s" "Baillie and Wilson argued that oak chronologies were “virtually useless†as temperature proxies and “dangerous†in a temperature reconstruction. Nonetheless, as I report below, no fewer than 119 oak chronologies (including 3 Baillie chronologies) were used in Mann et al 2008 without any complaint by Wilson or other specialists" And of the author of the original oak tree study that was used In Mann 2008: "Although ancient oaks could give an indication of one-off dramatic climatic events, such as droughts, they were not useful as a temperature proxy because they were highly sensitive to water availability as well as past temperatures" “It’s been dressed up as though we are suppressing climate data, but we have never produced climate records from our tree rings,†Professor Bailee said. “In my view it would be dangerous to try and make interpretations about the temperature from this data.†2) Almost all of the non tree proxy data do not even show a 'modern warming', one major exception being a group of four lake sediment series from Finland known as the Tiljander proxies.However, again, the original paper was written by a pHD student (a thesis paper), author Mia Tiljander. It turned out that the 20th century up-tick (hockey shape) in these proxies was actually caused by artificial disturbance of the sediment caused by ditch digging rather than anything climatic. Mann acknowledges this fact but rather than reject the series, he stated that the disturbance did not matter. He provided a 'sensitivity' analysis, showing that he still could get a 'hockey stick without the Tiljander proxies. The BIG selling point of this paper was exactly this point. You could get a hockey stick shape even if you looked at non-tree ring proxies. And here is the slight of hand: This claim rests on a circular argument: Mann had shown that the Tiljander proxies were valid by removing them from the database and showing that you still got a hockey stick. However, when he did this test, the hockey stick shape of the final reconstruction came from ...... BRISTLECONES (universally accepted as flawed). Then he argued that he could remove the tree ring proxies (including the Bristlecones) and still get a hockey stick ......... and of course he could, because in this case the hockey stick shape came from the Tiljander proxies. His arguments therefore rested on two sets of flawed proxies in the database but only removing one at a time and arguing that you get a hockey stick either way !!!! 3) Briffa's discredited tree ring proxy series is also included in this paper, with the same inconvenient divergence in the latter part of the 20th century truncated down to 1960. The data series actually shows a down-tick therafter (there's a lot on this from previous publications - see Climate audit for more information). 4) One of the 'new' proxy series included is a documentary record of temperatures in East Africa dating back to 1400. If true, this would have overturned everything known about the history of the continent ....... but it was discovered that Mann had inadvertantly swopped the the latitude and longitude, and the series should have been located in Spain. It became farcically apparent that the proxy was not a documentary record at all ...... but a rainfall record. To be fair to Mann on this point, once this error had been made public, he corrected the data, with the effect of a change in 0.5 degrees C in the 18th century. 5) McIntyre and McKitrick published (late 2008) in the same journal a short comment dealing with the major flaws as they saw them: a) The use of confidence levels in the statistics used - they pointed out that using conventional statistical methods, they could show that Mann's uncertainty bounds were infinately large prior to 1800 ..... in other words that his new reconstruction was of no use prior to that date. the calibration process producing hockey sticks from 'red-noise' c) the Tiljander issue d) the use of proxies which were not responding to temperature, including Bristlecones. There's a load more, but I think you get the point !! Yes I do read the stuff you post (I've already looked at a lot of these in anycase). I could also go through the Wahl and Ammone 2007 paper....... as there is an aweful lot on that as well, but this post is already very long, so perhaps I'll add a separate reply later on. The thing is Sunny Skies, the Hockey stick in the grand scheme of globval warming is neither here nor there. It was used by the IPCC to get round a problem in selling the story of 'unprecedented global warmth from human activity' ....... when you have a ruddy great MWP that is apparent for the Northern hemisphere and up until the late 90's was universally believed as Global ..... and the same fro the LIA, there's going to be a selling problem. Then 'hey-presto' we have Mann 98 / 99 and now Mann 2008 providing the 'Hockey stick' ...... based on a whole set of flawed data, truncated data series, heavily critisised statistical techniques and proxy data only going to 1980 (most of it limited to before) and then addig by splicing, current 20th century instrumentaltemperature records. I also love the way that there is still currently widespread use of bristlecone proxy data even though there is widespread agreement that they do not provide reliable temperature proxies. Also, have you any comment on the Indo -Pacific warm pool proxies that have not been criticised (as far as I can tell) and which provide a clear GLOBAL signal for both the MWP and LIA ? Y.S P.S Some of the problems with tree ring proxies (referencing a particular series of 'Yamal' used ina lot of papers can be seen here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/mirror-posting-of-climate-audit-article-on-yamal-a-divergence-problem/

If you took a closer look at some of the references you yourself have quoted you would see a striking similarity to the contents that make up the conclusions .... essentially the same flawed proxie data (Bristlecone pines, Polar Urals (without the updated data) and various other discredited data that has been shown and proven (expert scientific pannel) to be wrong. Mann has been discredited ..... that is a fact (minor discrepancies my bottom). Please point me to the minor points that would not affect the outcome of his conclusions ? Also all of the subsequent papers that you have quoted use the Bristlecone data that has been universally (say that again ..Universally) discredited. Most of the authors have affilitaions with Mann and the 'hockey-stick' team of original authors. His statistical techniques have been shown in per reviewed papers to be fatally flawed (short centering, and use of strange correlation statistics not used in any other field). Bore hole proxies and even most of the tree ring proxy data show ...... no hockey stick. In previous posts you have ridiculed that the medieval warm period was as warm as now if not warmer and scoffed at the idea there could possibly have been less ice than now in polar regions ................. yet now accept the MWP and LIA ......??? Also, given that Mann was put in charge of mediating and writing the final IPCC Third assessmement report (essentially vetting his own data !!!) you have to wonder at the peer review process in the IPCC ..... A VERY worrying situation ..... I respect your view, but please do not rubbish various books .... are you saying that they are somehow mistaken. Why not look at Climate audit's web site and check out the various published data that clearly shows that the hockey stick is so fatally flawed, that there is nobody serious in science now willing to seriously defend it. Most of the proxy data used stops at around 1980. None of the tree ring data has been updated since. McIntyre, himself queried this and looked at the data used from the western United states, taking additional data from the same set of trees from one of the proxy series........ which showed .......... no Hockey stick !! Move away from tree ring proxies, say boreholes and ice cores or even the Indio Pacific ocean warm pool (see previous reference) and what do you clearly see ...... a global signal for the MWP and LIA. Not regional ...... but Global ...... which if to me is just plain common sense given the dramatic recorded Northern Hemisphere historic and recorded temperature records. Y.S

Hi V.P, Thanks for posting the above. I am afraid that I don't share your enthusiasm for the linked paper however. Much of Michael Mann's temperature reconstructions have been discredited (just finished reading a book entitled' The Hockey stick illusion)', or you can go to Climate audit (google it) and see the various papers and saga surrounding the use of various data and mathematical techniques that Mann and others have used in regards to the use of proxy data. I know that this paper is a general overview, but accepts and includes an aweful lot of discredited data and references that should not have been. I think V.P with your mathematical background you should check this out. The use of dubious verification statistics (criticised by the US congress and various expert pannels), the use of short-centering, and effective mining the data for 'Hockey stick' shapes is quite shocking in a lot of the data that appears in this paper also. In the linked paper, the data series incorporated uses data from Bristlecone pines - which have been heavily critised as not being reliable. The location data from Tornetrask, the Polar Urals and Northern tree line come for considerable critisism. The paper referenced in the Table from page 15 includes references to Briffa 1992 and 1995 in which there were updates to the Polar Urals data available at the time but which Briffa did not use (if he had it would have changed the whole shape and outcome the series data ..... basically confirming a medieval warm period and LIA). All of Mann's data uses a predominance of American tree ring proxies and use of Bristlecone pines. Apparently there are only a handful of series data that allow a 'hockey stick' shape to present itself through Mann's and Briffa data series. All their papers include the same sets of flawed proxies and Mann's poor statistical management of the data has been discredited by peer review publications and indeed by an expert review pannel set up by the US congress. I would advise all readers to indeed read the linked paper but be very wary of its contents and conclusions .... as it is in fact not what it appears to be (an effort to show that the Medieval warm period and Little Ice age were localised and not global in nature). In fact McIntyre (see climate audit) has shown that most of the tree ring proxy data does in fact show both of these events, but the methods and weighting used by Mann influences the graphs shown. In this paper the graphs on page 13 and 16 and indeed the whole of the conclusions are very questionable. Don't take my word for it, please read the book referenced above or visit the climate audit site and read some of the saga surrounding the issue of tree-ring proxies and various dubious practices of the paleoclimatology fraternity. The below link gives the results of a recent study where 'shock / horror' temperature reconstructions show the opposite, ..... that in the Indo Pacific, there is a signal for both the medieval warm period and also LIA. https://darchive.mbl....pdf?sequence=1 For those wondering what the 'hockey-stick' debate is all about, here is a little background: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf Anyway, its all good for starting a debate !! Y.S

Hi All I think your jumping the gun a little. The Solar minimums impacts are yet to be felt in my view. We are also in process of changing over the PDO cycle. There has been no overall warming for the past 10 years (this year has still 6 months to play, with the predicted temp spike due to El Nino about to fade) with La Nina conditions set to take hold in the next few months. I see over on Accuweather that Joe laminate floori is looking at a drop in global temps next year, so we'll need to wait a while longer yet prior to any concluisons in my view. Y.S

Hi Folks For me it is all about the oceans distribution of heat and the complex cycles of mixing and ocean current movements that could be the key to really understanding a lot of the recent global warming phenomena. Even you do not believe this to be 100% the case, there is a lot we need to discover about the various ocean cycles and their potential impacts on our climate http://www.drroyspencer.com/ If you take a look at an update on Roy Spencers website arguing the case for the PDO and how it can be seen to have impacted on Global temperatures over the past 100 years you can see a possible mechanism. As for the here and now, ..... well take a look at this: LA Nina is gearing up nicely. The rate at which the Nino34 SSTs are falling is striking, as seen in this plot of the SST change rate for that region There has also been a recent increase in global reflectance (as measured by NASA's aqua sattellite), probably due to an increase in global low cloud cover. Here's the graph: This should begin to show itself in a reduction in global temperature over the second half of 2010. Guess we'll wait and see. Y.S