Except that the number is 1300 years not 1500.

Another Mannian Muck-up.

Funny how the first 2 Ipcc reports clearly show a graph with a large hump for the MWP with much higher temps than today.
Then this mann dickhead uses code that you could feed scribblings off a duny door into and always come up with a hockey stick.
What will be the result this time I wonder, surely even this enormous peabrain won't try it on again?
Ross and Steve will be ready to pounce and kick the crap out of him once more I'm sure.

Well, we all know how Michael Mann gets his data, don't we.......

http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/Mann_explains_treemometer.jpg

Instead of whining about the paper, why not just read it?

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf

Mann and colleagues have addressed the concerns of the National Academy of Sciences panel and have provided reconstructions with and without tree rings.

Supporting data is online.

An interesting and informative piece of work.

Your statement about Europe is also quite bizarre, as the paper concerns the Northern Hemisphere primarily, which, as far as I know, has more bits than Europe.

It's extraordinary the lengths the Ministry of Truth will go to 'get rid of the Medieaval Warm Period', just like there must right now be a sunspot in August after the fact. We must condemn the tendency of 'spreading doubt about global warming'. Mao, Joseph and Adolph would be proud.

Nexus; are you nuts? There is no correlation between the proxies and the instrument record during the 20thC; either the proxies are wrong or the instrument record is; since the instrument is HadCrut, I say both are rubbish.

Nexus6, thanks for the link ... acknowledged in the update, see post. cheers,

Let them keep their hockey stick.
When the temperatures plummet in years to come, they'd otherwise be able to say that natural forces and cycles are masking the effects of AGW.
But their hockey stick shows that temperatures remained stable over the past 2000 years, unpeterbed by the same natural forces and cycles which are powerful enough to mask AGW.

Hoist by their own petard, I'd say

If you take 1,200 data series and then assign weights to them ranging from +100 to -100, you can get any graph you want. And that is what Mann's method(s) are.

This is not an historical climate reconstruction, it is a mathematical exercise designed to derive a desired/any-old/random chart.

Or let's say a desired/random chart with a temperature chart from 1850 (which goes up by 0.7C) appended to it (aka Crooked Hockey Stick this time).

Nexus 6:

Read the paper...and

I like it!

A message from the sleepy one; “if these flat Earthers just listened to Radio National a tiny bit, they would know what is going on.

Apparently Phillip Adams was into another topic yesterday, how dependent we are on specialized grain crops that can’t adapt to climate change.

Jen why don't you or one of your local "sceptics" publish a reconstruction which shows the Medieval warm period? Are you above the scientific process?

Craig Leohe did:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

But the news media is not interested in covering stories that cast doubt on AGW catastrophism.

Go here for MWP data David:

http://co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Far too much to publish here. I take it you are a MWP denier, then?

Cripes, an E&E "paper" which appeared with errors is the best you can do. Are you two serious?

sure if you replace the PC1 hockeystick data by the luterbacher hockeystick data the result is still a hockeystick.

http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/errenvsluterbacher.htm

An E&E "paper" which appeared with errors is the best you can do. Are you two serious?

"Cripes, an E&E "paper" which appeared with errors is the best you can do. Are you two serious?"

Compared to the errors that appeared in MBH 98 they were trifles that were promptly corrected rather than passed over in silence or complicity by colleagues. The Hockey Stick affair from the orginal paper to Amman and Wahl 2006/7/8? has been a parody without an original and should shame the likes of you and friends if blood ran in your faces. Alas, it appears it does not.

BTW, the forensic examination of Mann et al 2008 is on point and cutting through past wounds that have only barely healed.

Addition: the forensic examination of Mann et al 2008 at Climate Audit...

CO2 science has all the studies for the MWP compared to the current warm period from all over the world.
The MWP was warmer than the the CWP nearly everywhere even in the SH.
All the studies are named, publications given and an exhaustive list of all the scientists is shown. Who would sensible people believe these reputable scientific teams or a hockey stick fraudster and fanatic?

"All the studies are named, publications given and an exhaustive list of all the scientists is shown. Why would sensible people believe these reputable scientific teams or a hockey stick fraudster and fanatic?"

Exactly. The body of good hard stiliterature on the MWP is enormous ll and growing monthly - especially for the SH.

I posted a list all the new SH references about a month back - but of course that won't count to the AGW gold fish here - Jennifer probably didn't copy the list either (to paraphrase the peripatetic Luke 'sigh';-) - but after all, isn't the name of the game here really 'la famille des agents provocateuse'?

proteus says:
"An E&E "paper" which appeared with errors is the best you can do. Are you two serious?"

The errors were relatively minor and were corrected in the 2008 update.

As for the choice of jounrnal - if you beleive that jounrnal editors reject sceptical papers because of the "science" then I have a bridge to sell you. It is all about politics at this time.

In fact, it is looking like the "errors" in the Loehe paper are looking pretty inconsequential compare to this recent Mann paper where he appears to be making up data:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3526#comment-294240

Even if this criticism does not end up being correct, I suspect that Mann's paper will be more flawed than Leohe's despite the fact that it appeared in a "better" journal.

Whether you like it or not, this Mann et al “paper” is solid and inclusive. What bothers me at this point is the page date, Sept 9 2008. Are we reading an advance copy?

Regarding the so called hockey stick of old; if we set the bar for the past 1800 years in this new lot at -.2 then we can see a definite 1 C rise over the last few decades. Simple hey

Regarding my quick read above, Mrs cohenite et al would have to know that I first practiced speed reading all texts in the high school library and later on I set a target for the Saturday edition of the Melbourne Age cover to cover in under 20 min then hit the road in pursuit of something exciting with in on a regular basis.

When intercepting the Trading Post (Thursday pm) I normally carried a pocket full of 20c pieces and read that thing on the run with one hand on the wheel.

Interpreting scientific literature and technical manuals etc for industry and government I soon learned not to mull over the words or the math and could flip backwards and forwards with the most of the info at a glance. Graphical presentation and flow diagrams were the easy bit in such a visual analysis.

IMO this Mann et al paper is the best yet.

"What bothers me at this point is the page date, Sept 9 2008. Are we reading an advance copy?"

It's published online at PNAS. It'll be in the hard copy on the 9th.

Steve McIntyre is starting to do a little kicking already.
He has an interesting moving graphic showing all the sites comparing the MWP / CWP.
I think this will be a lot easier to pull apart than the ridiculous hockey stick nonsense.

Gee David,

I give you a link that will take you a long time to read and digest and you come back in 28 minutes.

I'll add you to the list of posters I don't bother to read anymore. Luke, SJT, Gavin etc.

Eyrie; that is a good site; the interactive map is excellent; however there are no sites in Australia; a phd in the offering for someone;

http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html

Hans says; "if you replace the PC1 hockeystick data by the luterbacher hockeystick data the result is still a hockeystick." Just not an exceptional one.

The best expose of Mann and his cronies Ammann and Wahl and the fallacy and deceit behind the hockeystick is McIntyre's Ohio State Uni address;

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf

The hockeystick is the emblem of AGW; after the disgrace of A&W there was bound to be further attempts to recrudesce this thing; symbolic I suppose that the original witch-doctor should be the one.

A final point; Fig 6.10 of AR4; the IPCC is a strange beast; its right hand doesn't know what its left hand is doing; and shame on the msm, once again, for not realising what a pup they are being sold;

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig610.png

Michael Mann is a known science fraud. Hence he ought to be considered to be lying until such time as he's proven to have gotten something right by accident.

No doubt he is ignoring the evidence and simply assuming the computers have it right at some stage of his fraudulent "analysis".

No Gavin you are just lying again. But what the hell are you talking about "solid and inclusive" for. Does he have evidence for his idiotic hypothesis or not? He's a known science fraud. Hence he ought to be considered to be lying unless he proves his case. Simple as that. Fooled once you are an idiot. Fooled twice by the same guy you ought to be euthanised.

God Gavin, you speed read the thing and think its the best reconstruction yet?

You are a sheep. Baah!

Graeme; I don't think gavin should be euthanised because no doubt Mann has a 3rd attempt in him; let's wait and see if gavin can be fooled a 3rd time.

Gavin, Nexus if you seriously think it great, you need to remove your blinkers and do some thinking foryourselves. Bernard linked to this yday and on his link ALL the comments were critical, the flaws are obvious and Mann has been thoroughly debunked numerous times. It beggars belief that people doubt the MWP, yet believe in models and AGW. truly the world is going mad.
The worst thing is its getting to the point where it takes really brave people to speak out.

David, you backed out of the debate very quickly the other day...can you at least tell me where we have seen a 30cm sea rise "Now you might think 0.5 to 0.8C isn't much, but it has led to 30cm of sea level rise,". Seems to me that you believiing this sea level rise makes your opinion worth little......You obviously had no argument for the other points..fair enough you backed yourself into corner where you could really only agree with me. BUT where do you pluck your facts?

Eyrie: I could have easily said the same about all your posts and one or two others here but I still find an odd one interesting in that I also consider myself somewhat expert in drawing flak around big issues. Trouble shooting technology is not a game however so it’s good to isolate problems in reviews early.

Toby: I have always said the MWP / LIA thing in the greater scheme of things
was just B/S from the start but don’t you worry about that.

AGW is bigger than most of us on here.

Now in the normal scheme of things, if you disagree with the findings of a paper you should publish a response. I expect Steve McIntyre has started on his already, as is necessary if he has found errors. To say that any paper has been discredited by posting on a blog is... dumb.

Personally I don't know if the MWP was global or just North Atlantic.

The most amusing thing is the claims of fraud and conspiracy. Keep em coming they are most entertaining!

Jennifer, don't shut this blog down! What will I do fpr entertainment??

NT - "To say that any paper has been discredited by posting on a blog is... dumb."

And yet RC, Deltoid, and Open Mind do it so regularly.........

New game, find the hockey stick:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3547

I'm seeing hockey sticks perhaps 1 in 20. But then again I don't have the assistance of invented statistical tools...

Joel, yes they do. And it's dumb. The key way to determine the success of a paper is whether or not it gets used. How often was Mann et al 98 used compared to Loehle? Often scientists don't have the time to write detailed rebuttals or corrections (often because it's obviously wrong or there are too many corrections needed), so the best measure is usage. It's Natural Selection for papers.

Joel, your second post is in the same vein. Would you know what you're looking for? Why don't you write a rebuttal and see how far you get.

Gavin, if the mwp and lia are rubbish, what does it say about AGW...at least they are based on facts that we know to have occurred. It truly is bewildering to hear you say they are b/s. Says much for your state of mind me thinks. You constantly post links to extremist rubbish that are clearly scaremongering....and you expect us to take you seriously. Stick to your cryptic comments, at least we can read into those we want.

Nexus and Gavin,

do you both happen to be illegals??

I ask because most cherry pickers here in the US are.

NT, Your natural selection analogy is BS. If something is cited dozens of times (as anything from the IPCC is), and turns out to be flawed, IT IS! Regardless of how many times it was cited.

This pretty much sums up the climate communities thoughts towards Mann et al 98 today:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3260

NT - "Joel, your second post is in the same vein. Would you know what you're looking for?"

Well, I think its fair to say we all know what Mann is looking for. And his handle on statistics has never been his biggest strength.

No, I'm not going to write a rebuttal (as you always ask). Are you going to go live in a cave without electricity? Or euthanise yourself? Spare us the typical responses.

Why did Loehle not publish his work in a peer reviewed science journal?

As for Mann et al, if the work is full of errors why hasn't a "sceptic" produced a corrected analysis?

David said "Cripes, an E&E "paper" which appeared with errors is the best you can do. Are you two serious"?

do you mean errors found by the mathematician Gavin Schmidt and the rest of his RC climate science wannabees?

Loelle's paper re-established the MWP and the LIA without using tree rings and any errors in the paper were corrected and still show those periods. Why don't you guys get off this rhetorical nonsense of finding minor errors and amplifying them to discredit a paper? You jumped all over meaningless errors in the satellite data that disproved your AGW theory.

Joel, Climate Audit isn't the "climate community"

And of course you wouldn't publish because you have no idea what you're talking about :)
And neither does anyone else on this blog, it's all cheerleading. That's why we're here right? That's why we're not actually doing research, yes?

David

Mann's latest paper is being audited right now on the climate audit site.

And peer reviewed actually means a paper is politically acceptable. It used to be called refereeing before the politically correct mob took over the universities and turned into group think and censoring of inconvenient research.

So maybe Loehle's paper was politically incorrect and thus refused publication in a peer reviewed science journal.

NT, you obviously didn't read the link:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3260

The criticisms come from Briffa and Cook about the use of any tree-ring data.

David, this answers your question too. The tree-rings are too fraught with erroneous signals to bother doing a re-analysis of Mann's work.

NT - "And of course you wouldn't publish because you have no idea what you're talking about :)"

This is your argument? Real productive. Since we don't all have PHD's in climate science we should all just stay dumb and blindly follow orders.

Do you and Gavin both live in NZ? I can't here anything but "baah!"

Joel, just want honesty... You don't know what you're talking about do you? Otherwise you'd use your powers for good and publish what is wrong with the paper.
I'm not suggesting that we just follow like sheep, just be honest about our capabilities.
And what orders do you blindly follow? Or what orders are you expected to blindly follow?
We live in a Democracy, you don't like the rules change the Government.

Just some first thoughts on reading Mann et al in PNAS 9 Sept 08.

1. There are it seems (but see below) no regression analyses of the various proxies depicted in say SI Fig 4 (or Fig 2 of main paper) against the instrumental records.

2. That set of Figs leaves out 1900-1950. Were there no proxies or instrumental temperatures then, or were the alignments even more obviously not close?

3. The so-called (by Mann et al in their SI)"data sets" are nothing of the kind, they do not show the raw data, only (in Sets #2-#4) the RE, CE and R2 of the absent data for e.g. the "Calib(1896-1995)/valid(1850-1895)--early-miss". Those are not data, just calculations from data. Typical MannStats! The average R2s of all the individual series in each page in sets #2-#4 never reach 0.5; for the series cited, it is 0.3, for the "late miss" of that series it is even lower, 0.13. No wonder the main text never mentions R2. In short, Mann's "data" show no "skill" against the instrumental record. Any measurement proxy that scores an R2 of less than 0.9 against a known overlapping instrumental record is an anti-proxy. But really the PNAS and its latest authors are hoaxers straight out of the Goon Show: in the "no tree rings" set of proxies for NH in "data set" #2 against CRU temps, the best R2 is for the proxies in the century of Jesus Christ, at 0.49, while those proxies' R2 falls to 0.05 for the 19th century. Straight out of the Life of Brian, one would have to say. More seriously, it is clear the ediors of the NAS do not know what is data and what not, certainly Mann et have provided no data despite claiming to have done so. It is true that SD#1 has some information about the proxies (lat. long, alt. etc) but again no data from them other than years covered. The 'pearls' in Monty Python's #SD1 (Mann really deserves an Oscar for his impersonation)include that of some 1200 proxies, only 17 begin before 1000 (one way of dealing with the MWP), and of these only 3 "pass screening over 1850 to 1995 (r)". Yet those 3 are enough, we have to believe, to provide a continuous temperature series "over two millennia", even though of the 3, one begins in 925, one in 1044, and one in 392. So we have even have a new definition of "two millennia", i.e. 1600 years. But then if like NT one believes in fairies, this is all kosher science.

Louis: "So maybe Loehle's paper was politically incorrect and thus refused publication in a peer reviewed science journal."

Loehle's paper was rather tightly reviewed and heavily criticised by some on CA he then made the necessary corrections and published an updated version. With any luck it's a future pathway of science.

"With any luck it's a future pathway of science."

Perhaps I should have said of scientific discourse.

NT, your biggest gripe is that I posted raw proxy data for anyone to see and are afraid "us amateurs" may get the wrong idea because we don't know what to look for.

I'll agree that you can't draw conclusions as to how well the proxies were calibrated or their statistical significance purely from visual inspection.

But we do know Mann has a knack for mining hockey sticks from datasets that seemingly have no clear pattern by coming up with untested statistical methods. This is clear to anyone who views the Mann et al 98 data. So this is a good place to start with the new paper.

NT just wants honesty; I'll suppress my gag reflex at the underlying cant in that, although I make no aspersion against NT; he may genuinely believe what he is saying, but it is disingenuous none-the-less. AGW has been promulgated on the back of the 'consensus'; Oreskes got the ball rolling but the issue has featured exclusivity and oppression from day one in 1988 when Hansen first starting making his reprehensible doomsday predictions and castigating the disbelievers; today he wants them jailed; here is a rebuttal of Oreskes and the consensus;

http://mclean.ch/climate/What_consensus_col.pdf

John McLean is a good case in point of NT's refined consensus whereby anything that hasn't been published in an acceptable journal has no worth; like McIntyre and lucia and Watts and Briggs, McLean has done enough to obtain any number of Masters' and PhD's. But can he get published? Miscolczi couldn't get his seminal article published at NASA and had to leave, and as McLean notes the IPCC is a closed book;

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf

So to with the traditional media; who can forget the BBC scandal involving green groups dictating what should be printed; as with Fairfax and the ABC; and who can forget Hamilton's hissy fit at online when they had the temerity to publish something critical of AGW;

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553&page=1

From personal experience it is impossible to get a letter published which is critical of the orthodoxy. To a large extent AGW has been promoted in the msm; the msm has elevated this issue from the test-tube to the common denominator but it has largely been a one-sided presentation; which is why blogs such as this and Bolt's are so important; they allow the issue to be canvassed at a popular level, with enough scientific content, where otherwise it could not be done. It is specious and hypocritical to say to contributors that they should run off and publish academically when that is a closed book, and when this is an issue that has political, social and economic consequences. IMO these sorts of comments are merely manifestations of the censorious and patronising context that AGW supporters have relied on. Anyway, who in their right mind could claim that comments on this blog are not peer-reviewed; the opposition is such that any nonsense is quickly jumped on; as is any rubbish critique. NT, your comments fall into the 2nd category.

Cohenite! I am crying in my milk too... Waaa waaa waaa.
What a big sook!
"From personal experience it is impossible to get a letter published which is critical of the orthodoxy. "
what you wrote some letters to the editor?

Come on, all this nonsense about not being able to be published because you oppose the mainstream is just... Comdey. Ohhh all you poor little Galileo's.

It's hilarious. I love this blog and I hope it doesn't end.

"IMO these sorts of comments are merely manifestations of the censorious and patronising context that AGW supporters have relied on."
Ha! Who's trying to censor you? This is more conspiracy madness. Suddenly I am an AGW supporter, censoring the content of this blog. HA HA HA. Mental.

And you read Bolt? cool. He's really on the ball that man. Know's his stuff. Really investigates and gets to the heart of an issue. He's a genius.

I am not trying to stop anyone from reading anything Joel. It's published work how could I prevent it.

If any thread rattled the club it’s this one. Joel still somewhat unknown is a bit of a worry. Cohenite has Mrs C to fall back on, and in the end Toby can be wised up by his former students. About that I’m certain Toby as I have great faith in youngsters coming through.

NT: “It's hilarious. I love this blog and I hope it doesn't end”.

Sometimes it’s sad too considering stuff above. BTW I can enjoy time off too. Today pollies otherwise busy in the Capital copped a comment or three.

Getting a “hearing” where it counts takes practice though and I ‘m convinced much of the above won’t pass for genuinely interesting advice.

Jan,

I also see Loehle is a regular commentator on CA. Maybe this is indeed the way to go in publishing papers - though the real problem is how science got into this hash in the first place.

Philip Stott just had a blast at the very idea of applying the physics of a horticulatural greenhouse to the atmosphere - but he hasn't desribed the history of this idea - Sagan's misuse of it in countering Velikovsky's deduction from historical evidence that Venus was hot because it was young. Sagan ended up carrying the day with this bulldust theory together with the help of the scientific mafia.

Gavin, "rattled the club"? Mann's stuff is sceptic gold.

I think what you sense is anticipation of another "audit", Macca style.

so David your evidence for 30cm sea rise from a change in temp of 0.3c is what? come on? i bet you cant find a scientist who supports you? 3 days youve had now to support your statement.

"Mann's latest paper is being audited right now on the climate audit site."

It won't pass muster unless they are going soft over there. Once a Beagle-Boy, always a Beagle-Boy.

I never ask these guys for proof. Only for evidence. But in the case of known science frauds like Mann one ought simply assume he is lying until such time as he proves that he isn't.

NT; it wasn't about you; such an ego; are you sure you're not luke? I thought the McLean piece about the incestuous relationships at IPCC was revealing, but in ignoring that I think you've gone beyond cherry-picking; another fruit is required; perhaps kumquat; yes, NT has been kumquat-picking.

For the record - on publication, try

J.M. Chambers and A.M. Herzberg (1968). A note on the game of refereeing. Applied Statistics pp 260-63.

Cohenite
Yes, I am Luke...
Are you my father?

Noooo it's improbable!

NT,

No, quite on the cards - your presence and his absence here, clinches it.

There you are, you caught me.
Bet you someone posts as Luke and claims that I am an impostor. Just remember I am the one true Luke and he is the Anti-Luke.

Is true

Cohenite put your wife on if you're now a McLean devotee.

Hey Cohenite... Some info about Venus from the Venus Explorer:
http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bulletin135/bul135a_svedhem.pdf

Don't think they like your theory.

"The greenhouse effect is strongly
dominated by the vast amount of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. The enhancement
due to carbon dioxide only, on the
surface temperature, has been estimated
to about 420K. However the water
vapour, even if at a low abundance,
enhances the surface temperature by
70K and the cloud cover as much as
140K if the albedo effect is not
accounted for."

Cut snakes everywhere.

He who would be luke; what's the atmospheric pressure on Venus, and is the atmospheric lapse rate consistent with that pressure, or consistent with IPC forcing figures for CO2 as applied to Venus?

I like your sense of humour NT

Another month, another month of no warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/august-rss-global-temperature-holding-steady-still-cooler-than-1-year-ago/

Yawn!

Tim Curtin.

Andrew Glikson has responded to you here

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/03/a-warning-from-the-ghost-of-climate-past/#comment-861

but your banning makes for difficult public discourse now, unfortunately.

However, I note that the Pittock reference that Andrew links to:

http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/4992.htm

is due to be updated next year. I suggest that you, Barry Moore, cohenite, Hissink, and the others who have composed refutations of the conventional scientific wisdom, organise your work into a series of coherent rebuttals and submit them to Pittock for consideration. You can duplicate them here, and if you believe that you have been unjustly ignored than you will have the recourse of proof.

In all seriousness, if you disagree with the science you need to put your cases to 'them', and now is the perfect time to put your money on the table.

Refute Pittock, and challenge him to deconstruct you in turn.

Come on, your hour is at hand! Surely you can't let a second edition of his apparent travesty be published?!