Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Phil Clarke denies Mann fails to present his data and that Jones lost his

"The world has moved on". Not one of those studies was past 2005.

The first three were from 2008. Can't you get anything right?

Mar 27, 2016 at 8:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil, what is your definition of "replicated"?

Mar 27, 2016 at 10:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

diogenes 10:02 same garbage in, same garbage out?

It is amazing how different the past climate can be made to appear, depending on the year you look, and what you need to have found. Climate science experts are still struggling not to find a MWP or LIA, for fear of upsetting Mann's kind.

Mar 27, 2016 at 10:59 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The more I see, the more convinced I am that PC is in the legal profession. Remember the argument from another “reputable” member of that field: “It all depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is…”? Facts and truth are irrelevant to them.

Mar 28, 2016 at 12:15 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, ".. 'is' is.." without the punctuation is ISIS. It could be viewed with suspicion like '666' and other uncoded scripts in full view. The Force of Denial of truth and evidence is strong on the Dark Side of the Mann. Pink Floyd did warn about this sort of thing.

Mar 28, 2016 at 1:30 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

RR. A truer test of the legal mind is how many "that's which can be successfully strung together without causing mental illness - I believe the record stands at around 28 (Oxford Book of Quotations rubbish when you really need it). This geological mind can only encompass three - any more and I want to punch someone's lights out.

RR you may fare better in your quest to discover gC's occupation, if so try him out with a succession of "that"s. If he responds rationally (but who can tell sometimes) to five, he's a QC, any more than that, a judge, and his penchant for pontificating on all manner of things (recently crustaceans and focs) becomes explicable.

Mar 28, 2016 at 3:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Phil Clarke:

The first three were from 2008. Can't you get anything right?
Seems like my bad, eh? But let's see. The link you gave was to an SkS spaghetti graph which terminated in Y2k. On this graph were plotted 16 squiggles in lovely bright colours. Only ten of the squiggles was actually dated (1999 - 2003), the first three, were not. So, without an intimate knowledge of 'Land with Uncertainties' papers or going into Google Scholar (say) and checking out the other six papers I wouldn't know the date. As it is, only Jones (1998) and CRU Instrument Record get close to a HS blade.

OK, so that's an excuse, not a reason, but I fail to see how this chart fails the proposition that you deny Mann did not provide data and methods for his paper(s) until 'encouraged' to do so (and I wonder where Jones's data is for that 1998 paper is).

However, as you seem to like spaghetti charts and the fact that they tell a 'truth', perhaps you can see the truth in this one regarding the accuracy of models over actuality?

Mar 28, 2016 at 10:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Golf charley, I think it is more likely to be same garbage in different garbage out.

Mar 28, 2016 at 11:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterDiogenes

How to produce that graph (Spencer-Christy)

1. Choose a baseline where observations are running high. 1979-83 is perfect
2. Remove all uncertainty bands
3. Average observation datasets even when they diverge
4. Cherry-pick the most extreme model scenario, RCP8.5
5.Cherry-pick a small location - troposphere, mid-tropics. Voila! Or not.

Mar 28, 2016 at 12:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Only ten of the squiggles was actually dated (1999 - 2003), the first three, were not. So, without an intimate knowledge of 'Land with Uncertainties' papers or going into Google Scholar (say) and checking out the other six papers I wouldn't know the date

They're from Mann 2008.

Mar 28, 2016 at 12:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

They're from Mann 2008.
So what, Mr Clarke? Mann could tell me that today is Easter Monday - and I'd still feel the need to check my calendar.

Oh, and I do like your desperate attempts at bebunking the S-C graph. Is that all your own work? 'Course not. First and last is not yours. But at least we now know the RCP8.5 models are not to your taste. Shame. Seems you are in a minority. And of course, as I'm sure you believe, consensus is all.

I think my work here is done.

Mar 28, 2016 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Meant to add, Mr Clarke. If you don't like comparisons of RCP8.5 why not just have the CMIP5 version Christy says:

Rather than a spaghetti plot of the models’ individual years, we just plotted the linear temperature trend from each model and the observations for the period 1979-2012.

Note that the observations (which coincidentally give virtually identical trends) come from two very different observational systems: 4 radiosonde datasets, and 2 satellite datasets (UAH and RSS).

Mar 28, 2016 at 1:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Harry, Harry, Harry

An RCP is a scenario, the number gives the forcing in W/m2 by 2100. RCP85 is the most extreme at 8.5 W/m2 by 2100 or 1370ppm CO2, more than triple today's levels.

CMIP is a grouping of models, which are run for the scenarios, your second graph is also run for RCP85 (check the labels on the models), so when you say 'If you don't like comparisons of RCP8.5 why not just have the CMIP5 version', it does not make a lot of sense as yes, you've shown a plot of CMIP5 models but still forced with the RCP85 scenario.

The other flaws, whoever first pointed them out, also still apply. If you look at the whole globe, rather than a small slice of the troposphere, and a midrange scenario the recent increase in warmth has driven observed temperatures higher than the model projections.

Mar 28, 2016 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

They're from Mann 2008.
So what, Mr Clarke? Mann could tell me that today is Easter Monday - and I'd still feel the need to check my calendar.

If you were going for a drive, would you use a map from 1998 or 2008?

It goes back to my remark about fighting a war you lost last century. Mann 2008 was effectively an update to the MBH98/99 studies, anyone who has read it would be familiar with the names of the reconstruction methods. You objections all refer McIntyrian controversies and nitpicks about outdated and superceded studies from the 1990s, yet you appear ignorant of more recent work.

Mar 28, 2016 at 4:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

This seems relevant, last updated February, so it misses the about 0.2C rise in that month ...

Climate Lab Book

Mar 28, 2016 at 4:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke: I appreciate the clarification. Even more so, I appreciate the link to Lab Book (Ed Hawkins). In the 'CMIP5 Near-term Global Temperature Projections' I just loved the comment on the chart: "Assuming no future large volcanic interruptions" That's rather like saying, 'assuming no more shit hits the fan; no more cold weather/etc".

Anyway, Lab Book was an education, not least for the fact that I found Nic Lewis and ATTP having a bit of a spat. Great entertainment.

I also note that when it comes to discussing whether observations have met model projections, none of the datasets included in the mix were satellite:

The black lines represent observational datasets (HadCRUT4.4, Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA NCDC, BEST)
- as far as I can tell.

Finally, getting back on topic, my 'nit-picking' was all about Mann not sharing his data and methods. I haven't heard anything to make me change my mind about him.

Mar 28, 2016 at 5:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Finally, getting back on topic, my 'nit-picking' was all about Mann not sharing his data and methods. I haven't heard anything to make me change my mind about him.

Yes, it has been clear for some time how deeply you have drunk at the Montford-McIntyre well.

Fortunately, that paranoia was not the topic of the thread.

Mar 28, 2016 at 11:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil, are you able to tell us when was the last time you were awake and in control of your faculties?

Mar 29, 2016 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Diogenes,

Do you read a lot of Oscar Wilde?

Mar 29, 2016 at 12:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

No. I find Oscar Wilde too jejune. Why do you ask? Are you able to read?

Mar 29, 2016 at 12:19 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Phil Clarke, who have you been drinking with to avoid Mann's "Hide the MWP and LIA Trick"? Perhaps Mann lost the data that might have confirmed it?

If you have evidence to support your theories about Montford and McIntyre, have you submitted it to Mann's Lawyers? If you are relying on SKS for your opinions of Mann, it does seem likely that Mann might have helped with that too.

Mann's Lawyers did submit documents to Court stating that Mann was a Nobel Prize Winner. I wonder who led Mann's Lawyers to believe that?

If you are trying to turn this thread into Non Violent Direct Action in support of Mann, I don't think a disinterested observer would conclude that you are achieving anything good for your Mann.

Mar 29, 2016 at 12:31 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

where would sweet Philip be without the aid of the comical Cookj and Sceptical (Nazi) Science? Bereft of hope...devoid of ideas and unable to make a coherent case for himself.

Mar 29, 2016 at 12:47 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Mann's Lawyers did submit documents to Court stating that Mann was a Nobel Prize Winner. I wonder who led Mann's Lawyers to believe that?

The number of times this gets brought up, it is almost as if it's all you have.

Utterly. Irrelevant.

Click and scroll down for an alternate view of your idol.

Mar 29, 2016 at 8:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, your Denial, makes everything else you state irrelevant.

A Real Climate article attributed to Ben Santer? Is Ben Santer going to be Mann's star witness in Court? Or is he just going to threaten anyone who disagrees with him?

Did Ben Santer really write that article without assistance? Clearly Mann and Schmidt could not have put their names on it.

Mar 29, 2016 at 9:26 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clark: It's irrelevant how many times Mann's (non) Nobel comes up, the man was deceitful and that deceit needs to be pointed out. It is not a single entity as it goes to his overall character - and 'we' know what that is.

As for pointing us to Realclimate (wasn't that founded by Mann?) to read a hatchet job by Ben Santer on Steve Mc (scroll down, you say. What a laugh! It's buried right at the end of Santer's rant just before comments - to offer brickbats to those wanting to pile in). And all because SM wanted to see more than the just the climate model data that was, he was told, available at Lawrence Livermore. The resulting FOI-storm was only brought about because so many people who had a duty to respond rationally took umbrage at being asked to supply data.

Now, as to SM's character, I find him a most polite man and one not given to hyperbole. He is a statistician who has had to use his skills to earn a living for him and his company. If he cocks up, they lose. When Mann, with a fast-track PhD and no experience outside academia goes wrong, he covers it up and hides it all away from public gaze - the very public who paid for his work in the first place. What SM is doing is very patiently pulling apart the myths and untruths that people like Mann and Jones use to build their ivory towers. If he doesn't do it, Mann and the likes of Hansen and Grantham win: and the world will be poorer for it.

Finally, you continue to disparage Montford and McIntyre yet, afaik, you still haven't read HSI, and as far as I can tell from my years on CA, you have had little to do with any threads on CA (or do you comment there under another name? Some people do...). In all the links you have posted here I have tried to be fair by reading as much as I can even though you play the lawyerly trick of dumping huge tracts that require a lot of sifting to get to the bone, or, conversely, very little from which it is often difficult to make a conclusion or see the point you want to make.

In your last comment:

Yes, it has been clear for some time how deeply you have drunk at the Montford-McIntyre well.

Fortunately, that paranoia was not the topic of the thread.

I have no qualms about drinking from the well of Montford/McIntyre: their waters are not contaminated. In doing so I have become informed. I have also read SkS, The Guardian, and other warmist productions. They are equally informing - but not the way you would think. I do take issue with your snark about it being a source of paranoia - which sounds to me to be more about a warmist 'projecting'.

Mar 29, 2016 at 9:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield