We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Require
government funded research into climate change to meet minimum
standards of honesty.

In order to ensure that public policy is guided by the best
possible scientific knowledge, it should be required of
research bodies such as the Hadley Centre that their published
research meet at least the same standards of disclosure and
transparency as financial and mining prospectuses, such that
failure to meet such standards should disqualify research from
consideration in setting public policy.

Any brits (I assume only brits can vote), the URL is: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/agw-research/

In reply to 17, on my blog I have just demonstrated that CPS sorting not only creates a HS but demagnifies the historic pre-calibration trends. After it is reviewed thoroughly I think it should be used as a serious warning sign to stop this kind of data sorting.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/id-goes-mythbuster-on-hockey-sticks-cps/

I have had some comments about red noise matching and other things, from my many hours of work the noise level in proxies is more than sufficient to cause a substantial distortion of the data. I believe the long term and HS shape of the graphs above are created by the sorting technique, not by the proxies.

Please snip if this is too off topic.

This is not at all off topic. ?Millions? are reading climateaudit, but noone knows what it really means.

To win a Web award, we should get real information about what is happening.

Whom can we trust? What can we believe? What do we know for sure?

This could be one of the best web sites, but noone seems to care about us??? ((

Perhaps a publication which demonstrated the effect of filtering out negative correlation samples would be a good way of showing what is going on without necessarily appearing too aggressive?

If I have understood things correctly, you now have most of the base data used by Mann 08. Perhaps you could propose a new paper with the same figures without the “Mannian” filters.

Sorry if this post is a little off topic.

Can I suggest that all discussions of the mentioned paper be taken to the CA message board ? Let’s not break the flow of some interesting discussions about Mann 2008 with tangents.

I’ve started a thread here so go to it.

snip – this sort of issue has been discussed elsewhere. Please do not hijack this thread.

Although some of the preindustrial CO2 changes are at least
temporally associated with anthropogenic influences on the
environment, the amount of carbon needed to cause a shift of 34
ppmv would far exceed the size of potential carbon sources and
sinks in the terrestrial biosphere. It is likely that, analogous to
early Holocene CO2 changes (25–28), depletion and restoration
of atmospheric CO2 between A.D. 1000 and 1500 was driven
mainly by short-term perturbations of sea-surface temperature
and/or salinity.

So they are saying temperature changes drove CO2 changes.

By the way these, like essentially all Stomata-based CO2 measurements are moderately but consistently higher than the ice-core data. This is handled rather discreetly in the paper. The CO2 values are “normalized” in Figures C and D. The absolute values (292-319 ppm) are mentioned in the text, but without any comment, except that they are in accord with other stomata-based record. There is one sentence in the material and methods section though: “It should be noted that, in general, CO2 data derived from stomatal frequency analysis have higher average values (ca 300 ppmv) compared with the IPCC baseline”. Period.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/10/03/0807624105.full.pdf

Steve: No, it’s not as good a place as any. It doesn’t have anything to do with Mann et al 2008. Please revive some other thread.