Comments on: The New Mann Paper

By: Laws of Nature

Laws of Nature — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:00:40 +0000

Dear Steve,

I tried to follow to follow the hockey-stick debatte for quite a qhile now. I thought, that one of the key points of your arguments was the falsification of the original algorithm with simultated data.

Now in this paper Mann et al. also seem to model data (f.e. chapter 4.5). What is the difference?
It seems to me that you where assuming just red noise in order test your data, whereas Mann assumed a hockeystick present in the data + red noise for his tests. I am correct with this guess?

All the best regards and thank you for an answer,

LoN

By: It's on...

It's on... — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 05:54:15 +0000

[...] on 9 Jul 2007: Here’s something else that’s amusing and shows Mann’s ridiculously perverse [...]

By: TCO

TCO — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 01:17:15 +0000

“I haven’t had time to read it yet, but will try to do so soon, but a few quick comments.”

Well, have you “had time to read” what you snark-labelled as “what the cat dragged in”? You seem to have all this time for asphalt and such, but never have time to really grapple with issues all the way to understanding.

By: Jaye

Jaye — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:52:50 +0000

Jaye, water vapour is a weak greenhouse gas, but it is very abundant, you need percentages to get te same absorption as a few ppm of CO2. “It’s the dose that makes the poison”

I thought that was what I said.

By: Don Keiller

Don Keiller — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:09:44 +0000

Steve, you say
” then did a scatterplot comparing the reported correlations to the ones calculated using HadCRU3 – I used the single gridcell in which the record was located. The high correlations in the top right corner are correlations of actual temperature data to gridcell temperature – something that doesn’t seen like much of an accomplishment. Mann reported that all the correlations were positive, but I got no fewer than 60 out of 112 with negative correlations. Some prominent series e.g. Gaspe ring widths had negative correlations with HAdCRU3 gridcell temperatures.”

So looking at this plot the BEST correlations (apart from correlations of actual temperature with gridcell- which should be good) are, in the main, lower than 0.3 (+ or -). Not alot to base a paper on let alone political and economic policy.

By: Edouard

Edouard — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:59:48 +0000

Huh? you can ask me at ukweatherworld Edouard.
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=30

Ok, Mr Erren, that’s a very nice proposal. )) I will do it immediately.

Thanks a lot

Edouard

By: Hans Erren

Hans Erren — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:45:48 +0000

I don’t really understand why this is blog if the holy “climatologists” like Mr Erren, for instance, NEVER answer questions to laymen

Huh? you can ask me at ukweatherworld Edouard.
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=30

By: Edouard

Edouard — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:39:28 +0000

@all

I don’t really understand why this is blog if the holy “climatologists” like Mr Erren, for instance, NEVER answer questions to laymen. (( This is really a bit annoying. The AGW’lers at least answer general questions on their blog.

Please don’t be surpised If noone takes anything serious anymore what’s related to climate “science”.

and thank you SO much for the nice answers ((

Ciao

By: Sam Urbinto

Sam Urbinto — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:08:37 +0000

#35 It’s just an estimate, based upon the claim that 300 ppm (1850 level) absorbs 16% heat so 100 is about 5%.

I’ll post the rest in unthreaded #14 and take it out of here, since it’s not about proxies or models or anything really about Mann’s paper.

By: Hans Erren

Hans Erren — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:08:46 +0000

Apologies for hijacking this thread.
Kirsten please suggest a public forum where we can continue the discussion.