tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post5242651383952689493..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: Mark Steyn's Expert Comes Up ShortDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger123125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-32386607938150930262015-10-16T18:06:40.179-07:002015-10-16T18:06:40.179-07:00Michael Jankowski: You have no right to publish a ...Michael Jankowski: You have no right to publish a rude comment here. If you want your comment to appear, you'll have to write decently.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-29676878253823138902015-09-29T04:07:38.316-07:002015-09-29T04:07:38.316-07:00Even pointing to the Wegman Report's fig 4.2 w...Even pointing to the Wegman Report's fig 4.2 wouldn't be a plausible defense of fig 4.4's 100:1 cherry-pick and dishonestly (or incompetently) described noise. Instead, that would just raise another question: why didn't Prof. Wegman realize The Auditor had myopically focused on PC1 rather than applying a standard selection rule like MBH98 did? And since Wegman promised the US Congress almost a decade ago that he would share his code for those figures, <b>where is that promised code</b>? Did Wegman lie to the US Congress?Dumb Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11923980290855280697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-34305801352897558362015-09-28T15:34:34.023-07:002015-09-28T15:34:34.023-07:00Apparently the best defense of the Wegman Report&#...Apparently the best defense of the Wegman Report's figure 4.4 is to pretend everyone was talking about a different figure which isn't in that report. Disappointing but not surprising.<br /><br />Apparently The Auditor's fans innocently missed that the reconstructions (both individual <b>and</b> median) in the actual Ocean2k figure stop in 1900. Apparently The Auditor's fans don't appreciate the irony of mocking someone for "missing" something right before quoting him <b>not</b> missing it.<br /><br />Also, which of The Auditor's positions do "Nigel Persaud" and The Auditor's other fans support? The position where papers are misleading if they include non-robust data, or the position where papers are misleading if they <b>don't</b> include non-robust data?<br /><br />Also, will The Auditor and his fans ever realize that modern temperatures are recorded by <b>thermometers</b>? Hope springs eternal...Dumb Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11923980290855280697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-37381035603752777342015-09-26T20:28:43.323-07:002015-09-26T20:28:43.323-07:00Sorry: I just meant http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...Sorry: I just meant http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/19/the-blade-of-ocean2k, not the comment on it.MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-26920728399728025462015-09-26T18:54:36.952-07:002015-09-26T18:54:36.952-07:00"Maybe The Auditor just innocently missed tha..."Maybe The Auditor just innocently missed that the Ocean2k reconstruction stopped in 1900?" Or maybe you just innocently missed that it doesn't, that it goes right up to 2000, with more data in the last century than any of the ones before.<br /><br />"Also, the last 200 year wide "step graph" is centered at 1900 and averages many robust 1800s proxy SSTs with the few proxies having sufficient resolution to record 1900s SSTs. Why would anyone expect that to be "HS-like" unless they (gasp!) compare it to modern instrumental SST records?" Reasonable question, but see http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/19/the-blade-of-ocean2k/#comment-763670, where he is addressing exactly that issue, and shows that there are no hockey stick in the data, even if you use 20-year steps instead of 200.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but this kind of thing is embarrassing. McIntyre is clearly fully expert in the details of the data and the analysis, and has gone through it in considerable detail. You have not. Yet you feel free to sneer at his work. Are you trying to defend establishment climate science, or demonstrate that it needs to up its game?<br /><br />If one follows these issues on climateaudit, one just gets a very strong impression that the other side doesn't need to really address his issues, because their followers generally won't know what he said anyhow.MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-19377280165754345922015-09-26T18:41:45.046-07:002015-09-26T18:41:45.046-07:00'In Mc-Mc (2005 GRL), we had summarized our re...'In Mc-Mc (2005 GRL), we had summarized our red noise argument in Figure 2 as follows:<br />"Figure 2 shows histograms of the hockey stick index of the simulated PC1s. Without the MBH98 transformation (top panel), a 1 sigma hockey stick occurs in the PC1 only 15.3% of the time (1.5 sigma - 0.1%). Using the MBH98 transformation (bottom panel), a 1 sigma hockey stick occurs over 99% of the time, (1.5 sigma - 73%; 1.75 sigma - 21% and 2 sigma - 0.2%)."<br /><br />The figure shows a histogram of ALL simulations. Your assertion that this claim is based on "cherrypicking" is as false as your original report that we had asked Mann for an excel spreadsheet. Even Wahl and Ammann didn't make this ludicrous claim.'<br /><br />I hope that people who care about truth in science deal with this kind of thing honestly. I see this claim that M&M "cherrypicked" made frequently. Here I see a clear response by McIntyre, that the claim is entirely false. Either answer his response, or never make this claim again. Or don't claim to be interested in truth.MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-74924752086985689272015-09-14T15:13:26.854-07:002015-09-14T15:13:26.854-07:00While McIntyre's "Jan. 5, 2005 Postscript...While McIntyre's "Jan. 5, 2005 Postscript Graphic" set of 12 "hockey sticks" looks remarkably similar to the Wegman Report's Figure 4.4 from 2006, they're not identical as the individual "hockey sticks" differ. <br /><br />Deep Climate's "Replication and due diligence, Wegman style" blog post of November 16, 2010, discussed how Wegman's illustrations were rendered directly from McIntyre and McKitrick’s archive which selected the 1% most pronounced “hockey stick” PC1s. <br /><br />Further on, Deep Climate "turned to Fig 4.4, which presented 12 more simulation PC1 hockey sticks. Although this figure was not part of the original M&M article, there is a fourth figure generated in the script, featuring a 2×6 display, just like the Wegman figure. A quick perusal of the code shows that these too were read from McIntyre’s special 1% collection, although a different selection of 12 PC1s would be output each time."<br /><br />So, my guess is that McIntyre used that script to produce the "2005 Postscript Graphic". <br /><br />A year and a half later, the Wegman Report said "While at first the McIntyre code was specific to the file structure of his computer, with his assistance we were able to run the code on our own machines and reproduce and extend some of his results."<br /><br />Looks like they used the same script selecting from the same special collection to produce their Figure 4.4, which they called "One of the most compelling illustrations that McIntyre and McKitrick have produced".<br /><br />davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05472098969204011008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-11954284504776255472015-09-09T23:33:58.068-07:002015-09-09T23:33:58.068-07:00Wow, that's quite something. They look identic...Wow, that's quite something. They look identical. So, we already know that the hockey sticks in the Wegman report were actually from a sample of 100 selected on the basis of having the highest HSIs, rather than being selected randomly from the MM05 sample of 10000. That already suggested that the Wegman report was not fully independent (i.e., it would seem that either they ran the same code, or they simply used MM05's data). Now we seem to have a figure posted in Jan 2005 by Steve McIntyre that is virtually identical to a figure in the Wegman report, published in 2006. Would love to hear Steve explain this one. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-87764965241477746272015-09-09T13:49:00.742-07:002015-09-09T13:49:00.742-07:00Thanks, that's a remarkable similarity indeed....Thanks, that's a <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050124025310/http://climate2003.com/" rel="nofollow">remarkable</a> <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050308130033/http://www.climate2003.com/images/hockeysticks.pdf" rel="nofollow">similarity</a> indeed.Dumb Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11923980290855280697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-58726908091131795752015-09-09T13:14:41.279-07:002015-09-09T13:14:41.279-07:00But.... Dumb Scientist, surely all these points wi...But.... Dumb Scientist, surely all these points will be fully explained under oath when The Auditor gives testimony to support Steyn in the upcoming trial.... after all, it's an opportunity to get the science on trial! <br /><br />He'll probably also explain the remarkable similarity between the "Jan. 5, 2005 Postscript Graphic" he put online on his climate2003 website to illustrate how well his December 2004 AGU poster session had gone, and the Wegman Report's Figure 4.4 from 2006. <br /><br />Because, after all, Steyn's defense is that he believed the accusations The Auditor made, and it's not much of a defense to say that he believed a semi-retired mining exploration executive who's too shy to support the accusations in court. Or do you think Steyn can just claim he was conned?davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05472098969204011008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-71095387244580907702015-09-08T23:29:06.377-07:002015-09-08T23:29:06.377-07:00>Since less than 40% of input reconstructions c...>Since less than 40% of input reconstructions can even "potentially" record 20th >century SST changes, maybe they should have extended the reconstruction and just >described the 20th century part as "probably not robust"?<br /><br />Yes, a very good point. In a single thread, Steve has claimed that Marcott et al. should issue a corrigendum for including a 20th century blade that is not robust, and complained that another paper did not include a 20th portion despite the Supplementary Material indicating that the number of proxies suitable for the 20th century was small and should be treated with caution. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-51776595267658131162015-09-08T17:25:38.220-07:002015-09-08T17:25:38.220-07:00Since The Auditor keeps implying the NAS agrees wi...Since The Auditor keeps implying the NAS agrees with him, he might try <a href="http://archive.is/q99YW#selection-1623.0-1623.30" rel="nofollow">remembering</a> that the NAS disagreed with his criticisms.<br /><br />If The Auditor <b>really</b> wants to "provide informed commentary" then the <a href="http://webcitation.org/6246QGvSt" rel="nofollow">Wegman Report's Figure 4.4</a> seems much more like a figure in need of auditing. Does The Auditor support the <a href="http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/06/effect-of-selection-in-wegman-report.html" rel="nofollow">100:1</a> <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/25/the-wegman-report-sees-red-noise/" rel="nofollow">cherry-pick</a> that the US Congress (and posterity) have been told McIntyre and McKitrick produced?<br /><br />Wegman <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20150908193915/http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/house06/RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf" rel="nofollow">refuses</a> to <a href="https://archive.is/QKwNW#selection-2491.0-2533.1" rel="nofollow">answer simple questions</a> about that graph, so The Auditor is our only hope to find out if Wegman was right to claim that McIntyre and McKitrick used red noise "AR(1) with parameter = 0.2". Is it possible that Wegman got this <b>completely wrong</b> but The Auditor has just been too busy talking about <a href="https://archive.is/yS9mn#selection-2409.15-2409.92" rel="nofollow">"hissy-fits"</a>, <a href="https://archive.is/SzeLV" rel="nofollow">"rodents"</a>, <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/" rel="nofollow">"crack cocaine"</a>, and <a href="https://archive.is/Npuot#selection-249.0-253.46" rel="nofollow">"heroin"</a> to bother correcting that egregious error?<br /><br />That graph helped delay <a href="http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf" rel="nofollow">urgently needed</a> action to address climate change, and thus changed the course of human history. That 100:1 cherry-pick might be The Auditor's most important legacy. <br /><br />Congratulations?Dumb Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11923980290855280697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-14978478463399816252015-09-08T17:23:43.413-07:002015-09-08T17:23:43.413-07:00The first sentence from the section with Figure S1...The first sentence from <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n9/extref/ngeo2510-s1.pdf" rel="nofollow">the section</a> with Figure S10a <a href="https://archive.is/XibiT#selection-1191.8-1191.124" rel="nofollow">shouldn't surprise</a> The Auditor:<br /><br />"<i>A subset (n = 21) of the Ocean2k 57 input reconstructions are dated by 210Pb dating or annual band counting, and are of sufficient resolution to potentially record 20th century SST changes..."</i><br /><br />Since less than 40% of input reconstructions can even <b>"potentially"</b> record 20th century SST changes, maybe they should have extended the reconstruction and just described the 20th century part as "probably not robust"?<br /><br />After all, if they'd done that there's <b>no way</b> contrarians would <a href="https://archive.is/hIcEM#selection-2997.257-2997.401" rel="nofollow">turn the words</a> <a href="https://archive.is/tucQL#selection-231.351-231.412" rel="nofollow">"not robust"</a> into a <a href="https://archive.is/Znvkh#selection-1873.0-1899.157" rel="nofollow">series</a> of <a href="https://archive.is/0pOJi#selection-4519.17-4519.248" rel="nofollow">insinuations</a> that <a href="https://archive.is/mVvIf#selection-5461.112-5461.194" rel="nofollow">scientists</a> were somehow using <a href="https://archive.is/0h0hy#selection-2591.263-2591.514" rel="nofollow">obscure weasel words</a> to cover up an "embarrassing and obvious error" that's <a href="https://archive.is/CR9W0#selection-487.0-487.63" rel="nofollow">completely erroneous</a> and <a href="https://archive.is/xEQTx#selection-9057.4-9057.441" rel="nofollow">misleading</a> and shouldn't be <a href="https://archive.is/4Txr6#selection-3059.0-3059.190" rel="nofollow">included at all</a>. Surely contrarians would <b>never</b> imply later that scientists <a href="https://archive.is/XibiT#selection-211.171-211.208" rel="nofollow">"admitted"</a> and <a href="https://archive.is/Fgc2K#selection-171.68-171.79" rel="nofollow">"now concede"</a> this point even though it was <b>stated in the paper</b>.<br /><br />Instead, the Ocean2k authors showed <b>only</b> the "robust" reconstruction in their paper. Hence the first word in their title. Isn't that <b>exactly</b> what all those comments at Climate Audit were asking for? Hopefully The Auditor isn't just setting up a catch-22 where he gets to insinuate unsavory motives either way.<br /><br />And once again, <b>why</b> should Ocean2k reconstruct 20th century SST changes? (Even ignoring the cries at Climate Audit that this would be an embarrassing and obvious error.) As ATTP and <b>many</b> other scientists have repeatedly noted, we <b>already know</b> 20th century SST changes from thermometers.Dumb Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11923980290855280697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-6764962546938957012015-09-08T17:22:28.774-07:002015-09-08T17:22:28.774-07:00Like ATTP, I was stunned when The Auditor baseless...Like ATTP, I was stunned when The Auditor baselessly <a href="https://archive.is/qtEYK" rel="nofollow">fantasized</a> that scientists are "radio silent" about the Ocean2k reconstruction somehow not being a "Hockey Stick". Maybe The Auditor just innocently missed that the Ocean2k reconstruction stopped in 1900? If so, that honest mistake would explain why his imagination <a href="https://archive.is/X3zcq#selection-363.0-363.241" rel="nofollow">ran wild</a>:<br /><br /><i>"Had the results been more HS-like, it's hard to believe that the OCEAN2K authors would not have found a way of publishing them in time for AR5. It seems to me that, since the results were "bad", the authors seem to have felt little urgency."</i><br /><br />Bad results? The <a href="https://archive.is/FRxQj" rel="nofollow">MBH99 "hockey stick"</a> is relatively flat until 1900, which is also true for the <a href="http://www.pages-igbp.org/ini/wg/ocean2k/nature-geoscience-2015-faqs#figure" rel="nofollow">Ocean2k reconstruction</a> that stops in 1900.<br /><br />After ATTP pointed this out, The Auditor <a href="https://archive.is/WxR4S#selection-2589.49-2589.77" rel="nofollow">responded</a> with a condescending <a href="https://archive.is/Xa5GG" rel="nofollow">link</a> and a modified figure "for Kenny" which still doesn't change the fact that the reconstructions (both individual <b>and</b> median) in the <a href="http://www.pages-igbp.org/ini/wg/ocean2k/nature-geoscience-2015-faqs#figure" rel="nofollow">actual figure</a> stop in 1900. Also, the last 200 year wide "step graph" is centered at 1900 and averages many robust 1800s proxy SSTs with the few proxies having sufficient resolution to record 1900s SSTs. Why would <b>anyone</b> expect that to be "HS-like" unless they (gasp!) compare it to modern instrumental SST records?<br /><br />Again, the paper is called a "Robust global ocean cooling trend for the <b>pre-industrial</b> era". Right?<br /><br />Does The Auditor remember <a href="https://archive.is/X3zcq#selection-255.60-255.107" rel="nofollow">complaining</a> that supposed 'hockey sticks' had pronounced medieval periods? Does the <a href="http://www.pages-igbp.org/ini/wg/ocean2k/nature-geoscience-2015-faqs#figure" rel="nofollow">the Ocean2k reconstruction</a> have a pronounced medieval period?<br /><br />By the way, anyone who thinks scientists had somehow underestimated the climate change between medieval times and the little ice age should <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/?_r=0" rel="nofollow">read Richard Alley's response</a> to that point and think carefully about the implications.Dumb Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11923980290855280697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-81925659268207823032015-09-08T06:28:22.915-07:002015-09-08T06:28:22.915-07:00Steve,
The paper is not very forthcoming (to say ...Steve,<br /><i><br />The paper is not very forthcoming (to say the least) about 20th century data.<br /></i><br />Well, yes, the title is a "Robust global ocean cooling trend for the pre-industrial Common Era" so why should they be forthcoming about the 20th century data. I'll point out what I've pointed out before. We have the instrumental temperature for SSTs. If the 20th century portion of this data is not consistent with the instrumental SSTs, either there is a problem with their data, or they haven't yet done the appropriate analysis for the 20th century. Until a papers appears that discusses this, I'm not about to take your claims of no blade on data that is used in a paper about the pre-industrial era, all that seriously.<br /><br /><i><br />If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest that you comment at Climate Audit, where I will be publishing some more details comments, as I only visited here by chance.<br /></i><br />After your recent behaviour on Twitter, I have no great interest in interacting with you any further. I have no reason to think that you're actually interested in discussing this honestly, and I regard you as a pseudo-skeptic who primarily mis-informs (intentionally or not). You don't need to like that I hold this view. That doesn't mean I shouldn't hold it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-7303472961574091582015-09-08T03:46:53.964-07:002015-09-08T03:46:53.964-07:00Steve @ climateaudit, your quote from the NAS pane...Steve @ climateaudit, your quote from the NAS panel's Chapter 9 includes "If this component is used by itself or in conjunction with a small number of unaffected components to perform reconstruction, the resulting temperature reconstruction may exhibit a trend, even though the individual proxies do not", but doesn't go on to the concluding point in that section, "In any case, the principal components should be constructed to achieve a low-dimensional representation of the entire set of proxy variables that incorporates most of the climate information contained therein." <br /><br />Your focus on PC1 misses the point that the method used correctly must include enough PCs to reproduce the original signal. As the NAS report says, "As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al." So, in practice your claim of bias is moot, and was already superseded by the use of different methods. <br /><br />The 1/100 cherry-pick you used to support your MM05 claim appears in Wegman's report, "Figure 4.4: One of the most compelling illustrations that McIntyre and McKitrick <br />have produced". Are you denying that you produced this?davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05472098969204011008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-54765766057049720562015-09-07T14:23:21.114-07:002015-09-07T14:23:21.114-07:00climateaudit: I did not write what you attributed ...climateaudit: I did not write what you attributed to me -- it was a different commenter who goes by the name of "Dave."David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-61686177518679009772015-09-07T14:22:45.027-07:002015-09-07T14:22:45.027-07:00Ken says:
"As far as I'm aware, it finsis...Ken says:<br />"As far as I'm aware, it finsishes in 1900 and the paper has "pre-industrial" in the title. So why would we expect it to have a blade?"<br /><br />The data doesn't end in 1900. There are more measurements in the 20th century than in any previous century. The 20th century data doesn't have a Hockey Stick either, as you can see in their Figure S10a. <br /><br />The paper is not very forthcoming (to say the least) about 20th century data. I do not see any valid reason for using "pre-industrial" either in their title or to characterize their results. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest that you comment at Climate Audit, where I will be publishing some more details comments, as I only visited here by chance.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-14243215874064998622015-09-07T14:14:07.917-07:002015-09-07T14:14:07.917-07:00David Appell says: "If so, I look forward to ...David Appell says: "If so, I look forward to seeing your explanation under oath for the 1/100 cherry-pick you used to support your MM05 claim that the MBH method "nearly always produces a hockey stick" when tested on "persistent red noise", as well as clarification as to why you used red noise that already had inflated swings. "<br /><br />Our observation about the bias of the MBH method was confirmed by both the NAS panel, who wrote<br /><br />"McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) [sic - 2005 (GRL)] demonstrated that under some conditions, the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike appearance, which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based reconstruction. To see how this can happen, suppose that instead of proxy climate data, one simply used a random sample of autocorrelated time series that did not contain a coherent signal. If these simulated proxies are standardized as anomalies with respect to a calibration period and used to form principal components, the first component tends to exhibit a trend, even though the proxies themselves have no common trend. Essentially, the first component tends to capture those proxies that, by chance, show different values between the calibration period and the remainder of the data. If this component is used by itself or in conjunction with a small number of unaffected components to perform reconstruction, the resulting temperature reconstruction may exhibit a trend, even though the individual proxies do not."<br /><br />In Mc-Mc (2005 GRL), we had summarized our red noise argument in Figure 2 as follows:<br />"Figure 2 shows histograms of the hockey stick index of the simulated PC1s. Without the MBH98 transformation (top panel), a 1 sigma hockey stick occurs in the PC1 only 15.3% of the time (1.5 sigma - 0.1%). Using the MBH98 transformation (bottom panel), a 1 sigma hockey stick occurs over 99% of the time, (1.5 sigma - 73%; 1.75 sigma - 21% and 2 sigma - 0.2%)."<br /><br />The figure shows a histogram of ALL simulations. Your assertion that this claim is based on "cherrypicking" is as false as your original report that we had asked Mann for an excel spreadsheet. Even Wahl and Ammann didn't make this ludicrous claim. <br /><br />Criticizing our emulation of the red noise properties of the NOAMER tree ring network does not refute the point. Nor is it established that the autoregression properties of the bristlecone chronologies are because of a "climate signal" as opposed to complicated noise. The NAS panel said that these chronologies ought to be "avoided" in climate reconstructions - a recommendation that ought to have put an end to the silly Mann attempt to use the bristlecone PC in climate reconstructions. <br /><br />But none of this has anything to do with the spurious Marcott blade or your foolish citation of it as supposed "support" for the Mann Hockey Stick.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-16092825395649697112015-09-07T01:20:39.742-07:002015-09-07T01:20:39.742-07:00It is true, you can lead a female donkey to water ...It is true, you can lead a female donkey to water but you can't make them drink (unless it's koolaid of course).<br /><br />MailmanMailmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15661793218814589394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-35970642491667888522015-09-06T06:40:07.720-07:002015-09-06T06:40:07.720-07:00So Steve McIntyre of climateaudit produced a cherr...So Steve McIntyre of climateaudit produced a cherry-pick that would put a creationist to shame? I'm shocked. <br /><br />Well, Steve, are you intending testifying for Steyn?<br /><br />If so, I look forward to seeing your explanation under oath for the 1/100 cherry-pick you used to support your MM05 claim that the MBH method "nearly always produces a hockey stick" when tested on "persistent red noise", as well as clarification as to why you used red noise that already had inflated swings. <br /><br />Wonder why Steyn seems to be trying so hard to put off this case going to court... <br />davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05472098969204011008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-10553830692678593682015-09-06T00:31:10.959-07:002015-09-06T00:31:10.959-07:00Steve,
Hmm, your quote of Mike Mann's might be...Steve,<br />Hmm, your quote of Mike Mann's might be regarded as somewhat misleading. The full quote <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/" rel="nofollow">here</a> says:<br /><i><br />No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum. Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980, for the reasons discussed above. Often, as in the comparisons we show on this site, the instrumental record (which extends to present) is shown along with the reconstructions, and clearly distinguished from them (e.g. highlighted in red as here).</i><br />He's distinguishing between actually grafting the instrumental data onto the proxy data (which is not what I've said or suggested) and showing the instrumental data alongside the proxy data. Now, given that we know that the Marcott et al. blade is not robust, clearly the instrumental data will not compare well with the Marcott et al. blade. That, however, does not mean that there is not a blade. It simply means that the Marcott et al. reconstruction does not robustly represent the blade. If we think their reconstruction is robust prior to 1900, then clearly by looking at their reconstruction together with the instrumental temperatures (without doing any grafting) we can see that Marcott et al. is consistent with the millenial temperature having a hockey-stick-like shape.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-21033371013981471982015-09-06T00:17:27.671-07:002015-09-06T00:17:27.671-07:00Ken Rice says:
Why would you do this Steve? Annoye...<i>Ken Rice says:</i><br />Why would you do this Steve? Annoyed with me? <br /><br /><i>David cited Marcott et al as support for the validity of the Hockey Stick as a temperature reconstruction. A Hockey Stick shape necessarily has both a shaft and a blade. Since the supposed "blade" of the Marcott reconstruction is an artefact, it doesnt support David's claim. That was my point.</i><br />Yes, I know the point you're making and I'm telling you it is silly. We don't need the blade to be there, since the instrumental temperature record tells us what it should be. That the Marcott et al. blade is not robust does not mean that there isn't a blade in reality. The shaft alone can tell us if the actual temperature has a hockey stick-like shape or not. This is not complicated!<br /><br /><i>The Ocean2K reconstruction, for example, doesn't have a blade. Even David hasn't claimed that it supported Mann's reconstruction, though it appears that you are taking this position.</i><br />As far as I'm aware, it finsishes in 1900 and the paper has "pre-industrial" in the title. So why would we expect it to have a blade?<br /><br /><i>You propose that one use the temperature record to document the blade, but unless one can show that the proxies used in the reconstruction pick up the 20th century warming, you are in effect merely splicing modern temperature data to past proxy data, a practice of which Mann said in 2004:</i><br />Sorry, unless I'm misunderstanding you, this seems particularly silly. We have the instrumental temperature record which tells us the 20th century warming. If we have another dataset that gives us pre-industrial warming, then together they give us the combined temperature record. It's all measuring the same thing in the same system. <br /><br />I've no idea where your Mann quote came from, but since he combined instrumental data and reconstructed data in his papers prior to 2004, I find it really hard to believe that he's arguing against that. I think anyone who suggested that we don't know the full temperature record because we have two datasets and we aren't allowed to combine them, would be laughed at.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-35701739213885851632015-09-05T20:20:02.968-07:002015-09-05T20:20:02.968-07:00Tim: I have no idea who you are or what you're...Tim: I have no idea who you are or what you're written elsewhere. Why are others calling you a denier?David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-6104570490271194522015-09-05T19:41:41.830-07:002015-09-05T19:41:41.830-07:00You just proved my point ... and failed to answer ...You just proved my point ... and failed to answer the actual question: what is it that I am (supposed to be) denying?Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07205115680054313896noreply@blogger.com