James Hansen's Multiple Failed Global Warming Doomsday Ultimatums

[Threegoofs]

It's all in the conclusion.

Consequently, the long flat handle of thehockey stick is best understood to be a feature of regression and less a reflection ofour knowledge of the truth. Nevertheless, the temperatures of the last few decadeshave been relatively warm compared to many of the 1000-year temperature curvessampled from the posterior distribution of our model.Our main contribution is our efforts to seriously grapple with the uncertaintyinvolved in paleoclimatological reconstructions. Regression of high-dimensionaltime series is always a complex problem with many traps. In our case, the particularchallenges include (i) a short sequence of training data, (ii) more predictors thanobservations, (iii) a very weak signal, and (iv) response and predictor variableswhich are both strongly autocorrelated. The final point is particularly troublesome:since the data is not easily modeled by a simple autoregressive process, it followsthat the number of truly independent observations (i.e., the effective sample size) may be just too small for accurate reconstruction.

And later reconstructions have much larger sample sizes with dozens of proxies and thousands of datapoints.

And it's quite clear that it shows the original MBH98 findings were pretty much spot on.

I notice you still never can answer those questions...only copy and paste.

 

[Jack Hays]

And later reconstructions have much larger sample sizes with dozens of proxies and thousands of datapoints.

And it's quite clear that it shows the original MBH98 findings were pretty much spot on.

I notice you still never can answer those questions...only copy and paste.

The later studies replicate MM's findings because they replicate his errors.

 

[Threegoofs]

The later studies replicate MM's findings because they replicate his errors.

And you know this from...WUWT posts?

 

[Jack Hays]

And you know this from...WUWT posts?

[h=3]A Summary of MBH98 Replication Issues[/h]Jun 28, 2005 – 11:52 AM
Mann and realclimate have argued that MBH98 was replicable on the original record. Mann cites Wahl and Ammann as support for this, but Wahl and Ammann are close associates of Mann’s (Ammann is a realclimate contributor), working recently from a much different record, hardly "independent" and their code only addresses one area of MBH98 calculations. […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in MBH98, Replication | Comments (1)

[h=3]Errors Matter #3: Preisendorfer’s Rule N[/h]Feb 13, 2005 – 2:36 PM
In the last two days, I’ve argued that it’s insufficient for Mann et al. to merely “get” a hockey stick shape some other way, but that they have to show that any such salvage reconstruction meets the representations and warranties of MBH98 as to reasonably even spatial sampling, robustness, statistical skill and proxy validity. I’ve […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in MBH98 | Tagged censored, preisendorfer | Comments (3)

[h=3]Errors Matter #2: the "Different" Method of Rutherford et al [2005][/h]Feb 12, 2005 – 8:01 AM
Yesterday in Errors Matter #1, I argued that any new reconstruction now proposed by Mann et al. as a means of salvaging MBH98-type results has to also meet the representations and warranties of MBH98 used to induce widespread acceptance. I showed that the no-PC reconstruction recently proposed by Mann et al. as a way of […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in MBH98 | Tagged rutherford | Comments (2)

[h=3]Errors Matter #1: the no-PC Alternative[/h]Feb 11, 2005 – 5:27 PM
Mann et al. have responded to our criticism by claiming that the errors which we have identified “don’t matter” because they can “get” MBH-type results under several different methods, one of which is through not using any PCs. Ross and I previewed an initial reply to these arguments here and plan to issue a pdf […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in MBH98 | Comments (10)

 

[Threegoofs]

[h=3]A Summary of MBH98 Replication Issues[/h]Jun 28, 2005 – 11:52 AM
Mann and realclimate have argued that MBH98 was replicable on the original record. Mann cites Wahl and Ammann as support for this, but Wahl and Ammann are close associates of Mann’s (Ammann is a realclimate contributor), working recently from a much different record, hardly "independent" and their code only addresses one area of MBH98 calculations. […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in MBH98, Replication | Comments (1)

[h=3]Errors Matter #3: Preisendorfer’s Rule N[/h]Feb 13, 2005 – 2:36 PM
In the last two days, I’ve argued that it’s insufficient for Mann et al. to merely “get” a hockey stick shape some other way, but that they have to show that any such salvage reconstruction meets the representations and warranties of MBH98 as to reasonably even spatial sampling, robustness, statistical skill and proxy validity. I’ve […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in MBH98 | Tagged censored, preisendorfer | Comments (3)

[h=3]Errors Matter #2: the "Different" Method of Rutherford et al [2005][/h]Feb 12, 2005 – 8:01 AM
Yesterday in Errors Matter #1, I argued that any new reconstruction now proposed by Mann et al. as a means of salvaging MBH98-type results has to also meet the representations and warranties of MBH98 used to induce widespread acceptance. I showed that the no-PC reconstruction recently proposed by Mann et al. as a way of […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in MBH98 | Tagged rutherford | Comments (2)

[h=3]Errors Matter #1: the no-PC Alternative[/h]Feb 11, 2005 – 5:27 PM
Mann et al. have responded to our criticism by claiming that the errors which we have identified “don’t matter” because they can “get” MBH-type results under several different methods, one of which is through not using any PCs. Ross and I previewed an initial reply to these arguments here and plan to issue a pdf […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in MBH98 | Comments (10)

11 years ago.

Yet Nature and PNAS have published many reconstructions since then.

How embarrassing.

 

[Jack Hays]

11 years ago.

Yet Nature and PNAS have published many reconstructions since then.

How embarrassing.

They're no better.

[h=3]Tamino and the Magic Flute[/h]Mar 26, 2008 – 2:20 PM
Tamino has recently re-iterated the climate science incantation that Mann’s results have been “verified”. He has done so in the face of the fact that one MBH98 claim after another has been shown to be false. In some cases, the claim has not only been shown to be false, but there is convincing evidence that […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in MBH98 | Tagged almagre, robustness, strip bark, Tamino, verification r2, weights | Comments (113)

 

[Lord of Planar]

Guess you can't answer any of the questions.

Such questions have been answered time and again, and you refuse or are incapable of comprehension. Why waste time trying to explain it again?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The later studies replicate MM's findings because they replicate his errors.

This is the key Goofy.

 

[Threegoofs]

Such questions have been answered time and again, and you refuse or are incapable of comprehension. Why waste time trying to explain it again?

Yet its never been explained. Just blog posts copied and pasted from a decade ago, describing MBH98 and seemingly ignoring all other subsequent work.

Maybe thats good enough for you though, since you have a mysterious way of echoing the deniosphere blogs while claiming you never read them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yet its never been explained.

Yes, it has.

Your lack of comprehension is not our problem.

 

[Threegoofs]

This is the key Goofy.

Once again, please explain how these errors have somehow been completely missed by both the editors of Nature and seemingly the entire climate science community, since the most complete paleoclimate data on record shows.... the same thing.

And MW11 dosent seem to be referenced in too many subsequent papers on this at all.. demonstrating a dead end, scientifically speaking.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes, it has.

Your lack of comprehension is not our problem.

Feel free to point out the post, since constructing a sentence on it is clearly too laborious a process for you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not going to waste my time... again...

 

[Jack Hays]

Once again, please explain how these errors have somehow been completely missed by both the editors of Nature and seemingly the entire climate science community, since the most complete paleoclimate data on record shows.... the same thing.

And MW11 dosent seem to be referenced in too many subsequent papers on this at all.. demonstrating a dead end, scientifically speaking.

Rosenthal et al 2013

Nov 2, 2013 – 4:15 PM
There has been considerable recent attention to Rosenthal et al 2013: WUWT here, Judy Curry here, Andy Revkin here. The article itself presents a Holocene temperature reconstruction that is very much at odds both with Marcott et al 2013 and Mann et al 2008. And, only a few weeks after IPCC expressed great confidence in […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Ocean sediment, Uncategorized | Tagged MD97-2141, Mg, ocean heat content, pacific warm pool, rosenthal | Comments (105)

Marcott Monte Carlo

Apr 4, 2013 – 5:54 PM
So far, the focus of the discussion of the Marcott et al paper has been on the manipulation of core dates and their effect on the uptick at the recent end of the reconstruction. Apologists such as “Racehorse” Nick have been treating the earlier portion as a given. The reconstruction shows that mean global temperature […]

By RomanM| Posted in Multiproxy Studies, Uncategorized | Tagged marcott | Comments (266)


Bent Their Core Tops In

Mar 19, 2013 – 12:15 PM
In today’s post, I’m going to show Marcott-Shakun redating in several relevant cases. The problem, as I’ve said on numerous occasions, has nothing to do with the very slight recalibration of radiocarbon dates from CALIB 6.0.1 (essentially negligible in the modern period in discussion here), but with Marcott-Shakun core top redating.

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Multiproxy Studies, Ocean sediment, Uncategorized | Tagged alkenone, birdmen, marcott, md01-2421, MD95-2011, MD95-2043,OCE326-GGC30 | Comments (337)

 

[Jack Hays]

Another Upside-Down PAGES2K Non-Corrigendum

Mar 17, 2015 – 8:37 PM
Kaufman and McKay recently and quietly issued an Arctic2K correction file at NOAA xls here that concedes yet another upside-down series previously pointed out to them at Climate Audit. Once again, they used information from Climate Audit without acknowledgement or credit (see NSF definition of plagiarism here).

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in pages2k, Uncategorized | Tagged hvitarvatn, igaliku, kaufman, mckay, miller, P1003, pages2k | Comments (23)

Data Torture in Gergis2K

Nov 22, 2014 – 12:14 PM
Reflecting on then current scandals in psychology arising from non-replicable research, E. Wagenmakers, a prominent social psychologist, blamed many of the problems on “data torture”. Wagenmakers attributed many data torture problems on ex post selection of methods. In today’s post, I’ll show an extraordinary example of data torture in the PAGES2K Australasian reconstruction. Wagenmakers on […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged gergis, pages2k, torture, wagenmakers | Comments (61)

PAGES2K vs the Hanhijarvi Reconstruction

Oct 7, 2014 – 11:04 PM
The PAGES2K (2013) Arctic reconstruction of Kaufman et al has attracted considerable attention as a non-Mannian hockey stick. However, it’s been fraught with problems since day one, including a major re-statement of results in August 2014 (McKay and Kaufman, 2014 pdf), in which Kaufman conceded (without direct acknowledgement) Climate Audit criticism that their results had been […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in pages2k, Uncategorized | Tagged hanhijarvi, hvitarvatn, igaliku, korhola, MD99-2275, pages2k, paico, tingley | Comments (43)

 

[Jack Hays]

Revisions to Pages2K Arctic

Oct 1, 2014 – 1:06 PM
Kaufman and the PAGES2K Arctic2K group recently published a series of major corrections to their database, some of which directly respond to Climate Audit criticism. The resulting reconstruction has been substantially revised with substantially increased medieval warmth. His correction of the contaminated Igaliku series is unfortunately incomplete and other defects remain.

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in pages2k, Uncategorized | Tagged hvitarvatn, igaliku, miller, pages2k | Comments (75)

 

[Threegoofs]

Revisions to Pages2K Arctic

Oct 1, 2014 – 1:06 PM
Kaufman and the PAGES2K Arctic2K group recently published a series of major corrections to their database, some of which directly respond to Climate Audit criticism. The resulting reconstruction has been substantially revised with substantially increased medieval warmth. His correction of the contaminated Igaliku series is unfortunately incomplete and other defects remain.

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in pages2k, Uncategorized | Tagged hvitarvatn, igaliku, miller, pages2k | Comments (75)

Oh, look.

A denier blog post.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh, look.

A denier blog post.

Maybe this will clear things up, due to your inability to accept anything that doesn't conform with your confirmation bias:

Three records were removed because of insufficient evidence that they are sensitive to temperature20,​21,​22.

Sections of five records23,​24,​25,​26,​27 that were interpreted by the authors to violate criterion 5 were removed.

The interpreted temperature relation of the series from Hvítárvatn28 was corrected from positive to negative.

A 50-year offset in the ages of the record from Lone Spruce Pond29 was corrected.

The coordinates of the Copper River tree-ring reconstruction24 were corrected.
​

http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201426

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh, look.

A denier blog post.

Let me know when you've worked through one of them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh look... ~400 AD was warmer than current times in graph "d" and 600 AD warmer in graph "a":

 

[Lord of Planar]

Let me know when you've worked through one of them.

He flat out ignores anything he can classify as a "denier" source, while insisting his "alarmist" sources are accurate.

Pretty pathetic...

I'll bet he even refuses to visit the Nature link I provided.

 

[Threegoofs]

Maybe this will clear things up, due to your inability to accept anything that doesn't conform with your confirmation bias:

Three records were removed because of insufficient evidence that they are sensitive to temperature20,​21,​22.

Sections of five records23,​24,​25,​26,​27 that were interpreted by the authors to violate criterion 5 were removed.

The interpreted temperature relation of the series from Hvítárvatn28 was corrected from positive to negative.

A 50-year offset in the ages of the record from Lone Spruce Pond29 was corrected.

The coordinates of the Copper River tree-ring reconstruction24 were corrected.
​

http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201426

Right. They extended and revised the database, which is what you do when you are running an ongoing study, collecting proxy data and compiling it into a huge database. (You know, all the sltuff the guys writing denier blogs dont do).

And what did they come up with?

Pretty much a hockey stick. Again.

But I dont know why you are bothering to bring this point up, since you stated that ANY RANDOM DATA PLOTTED WILL TURN INTO A HOCKEY STICK.

You told me you've explained this several times, yet apparently two posts later, you forgot you said it.

 

[Threegoofs]

Oh look... ~400 AD was warmer than current times in graph "d" and 600 AD warmer in graph "a":

Guess now we went from random data will plot a line, and the data is unreliable to 'look at this specific year's temperatures (in this non-global reconstruction)!!'

 

[Lord of Planar]

But I dont know why you are bothering to bring this point up, since you stated that ANY RANDOM DATA PLOTTED WILL TURN INTO A HOCKEY STICK.

Liar... You lie when you change the context to suit your purpose... Liar...

You left out the part of using Mann's methodology.

Like it or not, context is important for an intelligent conversation. If you wish not to have an intelligent conversation, please go away.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Guess now we went from random data will plot a line, and the data is unreliable to 'look at this specific year's temperatures (in this non-global reconstruction)!!'

No, I was pointing out that in graph "a," the global corrections have the spike at 600 AD being warmer than recent times. Grph 'D' is the non-global graph.

You clearly lack the ability to consider more than one idea at a time.

My God... It is so obvious.