Dec 26, 2016 at 8:20 PM | Phil Clarke,

Have any Climate Scientists yet found anything wrong with Gergis 2016? Has the paper been withdrawn? Not according to Joelle Gergis. Her web page lists the following from 2016:

38. Ashcroft, L., Allan, R.J., Benoy, M., Bridgman, H., Gergis, J., Pudmenzky, C., and Thornton, K. (2016). Current climate data rescue activities in Australia. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences (in press).

37. Gergis, J., Neukom, R., Gallant, A., and Karoly, D.J. (2016). Australasian temperature reconstructions  spanning the last millennium. Journal of Climate : 5365–5392.

36. PAGES2k Consortium, including Aus2k coauthor Gergis, J., (2016). A global multi-proxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era. Scientific Data (in review).

35. Abram, N.J., McGregor, H.V., Tierney, J.E., Evans, M.N., McKay, N.P., Kaufman, D.S., K.J., Thirumalai, K., Martrat, B., Goosse, H., Phipps, S.J., Steig, E.J., Kilbourne, K.H., Saenger, C.P., Zinke, J., Leduc, G., Addison, J.A., Mortyn, P.G., Seidenkrantz, M.S., Sicre, M.A., Selvaraj, K., Filipsson,H.L., Neukom, R., Gergis, J.,  Curran, M., and von Gunten, L. (2016). The onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents. Nature  34. Oreskes, N., Conway, E.M., Karoly, D.J., Gergis, J., Neu, U., and Pfister, C.,  (2016). The denial of global warming. Palgrave Handbook of Climate History (in press).

33. Hope, P., Henley, B.J, Gergis, J., Brown, J., and Ye, H. (2016). Time varying spectral  characteristics of ENSO over the last millennium. Climate Dynamics (in revision).

32. Damodaran, V., Allan, R.J., Ogilvie, A.E., Demarée, G.R., Gergis, J.,  Mikami, T., Mikhail, A.,  Nicolson, S.E.,  Norgarrd, S., and Hamilton, J. (2016). The 1780s: Global Climate Anomalies, Floods, Droughts and Famines. Palgrave Handbook of Climate History (in press).

31. Gergis, J., and Henley, B.J. (2016). Southern Hemisphere rainfall variability over the past 200 years. Climate Dynamics DOI 10.1007/s00382-016-3191-7.

30.  Gergis, J., Ashcroft, L. and Garden, D. (2016). A climate history of Australia. Palgrave Handbook of Climate History (in press).

Climae Scientists can't self correct, so it isn't Science, even though it has been Peer Reviewed by other Climate Scientists, and has been published in Climate Science journals.

Entropic Man, what I had in mind, was as per the IPCC original, proposed by Hubert Lamb and linked by Martin A @ 11:58.

This was an approximation, I believe, based on many sources from science, history, geography, geology, archaeology, writings various etc.

Mann fabricated his own, discarding "evidence" that didn't match the newly agreed, and, as it turned out, highly remunerative climate science script.

What did you learn as a pupil at school? That the Climate had been the same, since God created a flat Earth?

Entropic Man, you could learn something about Climate Science by reading the info on Hubert Lamb.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lamb

He started the CRU at UEA. Unfortunately, some of his successors got to emotionally and financially intertwined with Mann. The ClimateGate E-Mails revealed they did not trust Mann at all, because he misrepresented evidence. But Phil Jones revealed his own "honesty" over UHI.

Mann still claims he was exonerated over ClimateGate, but that is not true either, unless you trust Mann and refuse to consider you might be wrong. Climate Science refuses to consider evidence which disproves their rewriting of history.

If Climate Scientists can't trust each other, why should anyone else trust them? Trump doesn't, but you still do.

Entropic Man, you could learn something about Climate Science by reading the info on Hubert Lamb.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lamb

He started the CRU at UEA. Unfortunately, some of his successors got to emotionally and financially intertwined with Mann. The ClimateGate E-Mails revealed they did not trust Mann at all, because he misrepresented evidence. But Phil Jones revealed his own "honesty" over UHI.

Mann still claims he was exonerated over ClimateGate, but that is not true either, unless you trust Mann and refuse to consider you might be wrong. Climate Science refuses to consider evidence which disproves their rewriting of history.

If Climate Scientists can't trust each other, why should anyone else trust them? Trump doesn't, but you still do.

apologies, did not intend to repeat, but got 403 Forbidden Error.

EM has flipped into a bizarre mode, arguing for the hs and the Mwp at the same time, the better to defend the indefensible... The laughs rollick on.

hunter, in Climate Science, "evidence" is only important, when Climate Scientists decide it is. Trump is going to disinvest US Taxpayers from Climate Scientists, to demonstrate his evaluation of Climate Science, and the evidence it has generated to date.

Zero.

Re the 'Lamb' curve published in IPCC 1990

…as far as palaeoclimatologists were concerned the diagram was nothing more than how it was originally described in the caption: a schematic. So where did the schematic diagram come from and who drew it? It can be traced back to a UK Department of the Environment publication entitled Global climate change published in 1989 (UKDoE, 1989), but no source for the record was given. Using various published diagrams from the 1970s and 1980s, the source can be isolated to a series used by H.H. Lamb, representative of central England, last published (as figure 30 on p. 84) by Lamb (1982). Figure 7 shows the IPCC diagram with the Lamb curve superimposed – clearly they are the same curve. The ‘Central England’ curve also appeared in Lamb (1965: figure 3 and 1977: figure 13.4), on both occasions shown as an ‘annual’ curve together with the extreme seasons: winter (December to February) and high summer (July and August).

…

In summary, we show that the curve used by IPCC (1990) was locally representative (nominally of Central England) and not global, and was referred to at the time with the word ‘schematic’.

So, Lamb was a plot of CET only, whereas MBH was of the Northern Hemisphere. Still waiting for that contradictory study…..

Sorry, forgot the cite

http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/jones09.pdf

And here is McIntyre on the Lamb curve

So I think that we have a solution to the provenance of IPCC 1990 Figure 7c. It is derived from the rounded CET from Lamb 1965 Figure 3 top panel, with portion after 1400 smoothed somewhat. It has been converted to anomaly deg C (using the average of the entire period) and extended to include the average CET for the period 1950-1984.

https://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/

Phil Clarke, what evidence do you have to prove the Hockey Stick is an honest representation?

Simply reciting old worn-out Hockey Teamster chestnuts may satisfy gullible politicians, but they don't occupy No 10 Downing Street anymore, and the people in The White House have been voted out too.

If you want to preserve something of Climate Science, jettison the complete rubbish, and try something more plausible than Mann's Hockey Stick.

Dec 27, 2016 at 10:48 AM | Phil Clarke, as it was William M Connolley who asked Steve McIntyre to find the source of the graph, was he frustrated that as a non computer generated depiction, it could not be readily modified, adjusted or homogenised?

With William M Connolley's track record of rewriting history and science via Wikipedia, it must have been a great disappointment to him then, and presumably still is.

Is this why you posted? So that William M Connolley's contribution to data manipulation could be demonstrated again, and prove to Trump that in Climate Science, not much is trustworthy or reliable, and Trump might just aswell flush it all out, when he drains the swamp?

If only Mann had not decided to usurp Lamb. Hillary Clinton might have become President, Miliband Prime Minister, and the EU might not be facing extinction. William M Connolley and the UK Green Party may have re defined the future, aswell as the past.

Science will be be so much better once John Holdren is no longer the President's special science advisor. His part of the Swamp is particularly malodorous, and Trump may need to make sure no further contamination of Environmental Science occurs, possibly with some form of lifelong containment?

Who would have thought the Hockey Teamsters, could cause so much damage to the Science Environment, and Green Progressives, all over the World. The original lies were bad enough, but the subsequent conspiracy to cover it all up has really done some damage.

Entropic Man:

"Somewhere in here, one of the deniers refers to Steyn deposing Mann in court. Does this imply that the discovery is done in advance or on the day.

With all of Mann's data and procedures already publicly available and filed with the court there seems no point in going over it again. There is probably nothing more to gain.

Steyn, on the other hand, has published no defence that I know of (links please if he has published a defence) Deposing him may be more interesting."

You'll probably already have gathered that IT literacy is not at the top of my limited skills-sets, so I'm unable to produce a link to such things as pleadings in the Mann case against Steyn and others. I suspect that pleadings are not available on-line. In higher-profile Courts it is increasingly common for judgments to be made available on-line by the Court, but I suspect that the details of a case (such as pleadings - as statements of case and the defence are known - are rarely put up on the Court's website. I stand to be corrected, however, if the situation is different here.

Again, for fear of being misunderstood, I repeat that my knowledge of US law and Court procedures is very limited, even though their system is loosely based on that which applies in England & Wales. The point of divergence was so long ago, that their systems in many ways only vaguely resemble ours.

In case it helps, a brief and rough and ready explanation of civil Court procedures might not come amiss. Basically a case is started when one party (traditionally called the plaintiff, but in this country now usually called the claimant) issues proceedings, by writ or summons usually, (depending on the Court). They then have to follow up (if not included in the issuing document) by serving on the party they are suing (usually called the defendant) and filing their statement or particulars of claim with the Court. The Defendant then either fails to do anything (in which case judgment might be gained by default) or by filing and serving their defence. They can also take the opportunity to counterclaim at this stage. As I understand from what Steyn says on his website, he has counterclaimed, then it strikes me as almost inconceivable that he can have failed by this stage to have served and filed his defence. If a counterclaim is made, the plaintiff/claimant should then file and serve a defence to the counterclaim, or else the defendant might be able to obtain judgment on the counterclaim by default.

Some jurisdictions have a standard procedure set out in Court rules for taking the case to trial; in some places, the Court will, either of its own volition or on the application of one of the parties, then issue directions for the next stages in the case up to trial. It can include things like making provision for expert witnesses, and possibly exchanging witness statements (experts and ordinary witnesses alike). It will also always make provision for disclosure and inspection of documents. In English law under the Civil Procedure Rules, the parties have to disclose "what documents exist or may exist that are or may be relevant to the matters in issue in the case". Note that this doesn't simply mean providing a list of documents you intend to rely on, but disclosing all documents that "exist or may exist that are or may be relevant to the matters in issue in the case".

To be precise,in England & Wales, CPR 31.6 provides for standard disclosure as follows:

"Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed
31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only–
(a) the documents on which he relies; and
(b) the documents which –
(i) adversely affect his own case;
(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or
(iii) support another party’s case; and
(c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction."

In a case such as Mann has brought against Steyn and others, and including Steyn's counterclaim against Mann, that list will surely be extensive, on both sides.

Once lists of documents have been exchanged, then the parties can apply to each other for copies of documents they haven't previously seen and would like to see. Again, Court rules often go into a great detail regarding what can and can't be asked for, for example restricting the process where requests might be disproportionate.

Sometimes parties can make applications to the Court along the way, asking for an Order that the other party should do something or seeking an Order that the other party be punished for failing to do something; or (as in this case) seeking to strike out a claim (or defence) on some legal ground or other.

Once these applications (if any) are out of the way, and once all the Court's directions for bringing the case to trial have been complied with, so that the Court and both parties understand everything about the case and have all relevant information either available to them or in their possession, the case can proceed to trial. At that stage, in England & Wales at least, the Court hears the evidence of the parties and any witnesses, who can be examined, cross-examined and re-examined (the latter in an attempt to rectify or minimise any damage sustained during cross-examination). The Court also hears legal representations, i.e. submissions on the relevant law, and how it applies to the facts and evidence in this case.

Based on the above, and assuming that the procedures of the US case dealing with the Mann/Steyn litigation broadly follow this format, then everything EM has said (and I have quoted above) is probably wrong. But the assumption I make is just that - an assumption - and not based on certain knowledge. To that limited extent I hope it clarifies what may be going on (or not going on!) in the Court case.

Margin a

Lamb's graph which you linked has no values on the Y axis.Nor does it have confidence limits. Could you oblige?

It also looks like a hockey stick.

EM

http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/jones09.pdf

Appendix A.

Mark Hodgson has kindly given an explanation of why Phil Clarke may be wrong in the celebration at the top of this thread, and why Entropic Man may have quoted and relied upon an unreliable source.

In response:

Entropic Man 8:53 "Ooooh look! Squirrel!"

Phil Clarke 9:41 "And this is how Climate Scientists colour in their squirrels!"

Climate Science is a dead squirrel. It has nibbled it's nuts for the last time. If you buried a dead squirrel underneath Mann's Hockey Stick, it might be a closer resemblance to H.Lamb's depiction of past climate, though I think Trump would prefer to see Mann's Hockey Stick buried with the rest of Climate Science, and without a trace ever being seen again.

Phil Clarke, Martin A, golf charlie

Thanks to Martin for the graph and Phil for basic calibration information.

I can now put numbers on the Lamb graph.

It peaks in 1350 at 14.4C. It then drops to about 13.6C in 1650 and recovers to 13.8C in 1850.

From 1880 it rose by 0.3C to 14.1C in 1965 and 14.8C today

In summary, the Lamb temperatures peaked around 1350, dropped over the subsequent 500 years and then warmer in the 20th century to values higher than during the MWP.

It still looks like a hockey stick!

Entropic Mann 10:51, no it doesn't.

Mann had to flatten and smooth. If Lamb's original had looked like a Hockey Stick, Mann would not have had to fabricate one, and all the other fabricators, upto and including Gergis would not have had to use false science to replicate it.

I am not a Lawyer, but:

fraud, noun

wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

synonyms:fraudulence, sharp practice, cheating, swindling, trickery, artifice, deceit, deception, double-dealing,duplicity, treachery, chicanery, skulduggery, imposture, embezzlement; 

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/12/27/phil-jones-steps-down/#comments

Some interesting "comments", plus interesting extracts from the ClimateGate E-Mails, detailing some of the adjustments deemed necessary and how to obtain the required results.

Not exactly "Science" is it?

Why bother doing experiments to establish the range of temperatures that water can boil at, by varying the pressure, when you can just recalibrate the thermometer to produce the result you want? Or simply adjust the records, years after the experiment was carried out?

Lamb produced the best estimates he could, and drew a line. Mann adjusticated data to produce the graph he wanted. Which is exactly what Climate Science is

@Mark Hodgson. The situation is this. Mann has sued Steyn for defamation, in that he called Mann's hockeystick "fraudulent", triggering a demand for discovery from Steyn. Steyn counter sued and this is what happened:

"While Dr. Mann agrees with Mr. Steyn that discovery should move forward on Dr. Mann's claims, discovery cannot move forward on Mr. Steyn's counterclaims.

Plaintiff opposes the motion to stay discovery and argues that, at a minimum, the court should permit him to proceed with discovery against Defendant Steyn... Beyond that, Plaintiff takes the ironic – albeit legally correct – position that he should be able to proceed with discovery against Steyn, but Steyn should be precluded from taking discovery on his counterclaim because Plaintiff's anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss the counterclaim triggers an automatic statutory stay.

While Dr. Mann agrees with Mr. Steyn that discovery should move forward on Dr. Mann's claims, discovery cannot move forward on Mr. Steyn's counterclaims."

Judge Weisberg.

The ACLU, the Reporters Committee for Press Freedom, the American Society of News Editors, the Association of American Publishers, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia (The Village Voice et al), NBC Universal, Bloomberg News, the publishers of USA Today, Time, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The Detroit Free Press, The Seattle Times, The Arizona Republic and The Bergen County Record have all declared themselves amici curiae, friends of the court, in support of Mark Steyn's free speech case (not Mark Steyn personally).

Michael Mann on the other hand does not have one amicus curiae from the scientific community, or anywhere else. Telling.

It is clear that Michael Mann will not go to court. Would you, if you had had to withdraw false claims of being a Nobel Laureate from you deposition? Or if you had made repeated claims to have been exonerated by multiple bodies when no such thing has occurred? This from Steyn's brief to the court:

"In his later court filings, Mann has made equally preposterous and objectively false claims. For example, Mann has claimed that he has been "exonerated" by such bodies as the University of East Anglia, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and even by the government of the United Kingdom, none of which have investigated Dr Mann at all, never mind "exonerated" him.

The audacity of the falsehoods in Mann's court pleadings is breathtaking. For example, on page 19 of his brief below dated January 18, 2013, he cites the international panel chaired by the eminent scientist Lord Oxburgh, FRS as one of the bodies that "exonerated" him, whereas on page 235 of Mann's own book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars , he states explicitly that "our own work did not fall within the remit of the committee, and the hockey stick was not mentioned in the report." It is deeply disturbing that a plaintiff should make such fraudulent claims in his legal pleadings."

If Michael Mann goes to trial he'll have to provide discovery, and will have to defend the use of dodgy statistical methodologies. Steyn wants him in court under oath with full discovery.

Phil Clarke: "So, Lamb was a plot of CET only, whereas MBH was of the Northern Hemisphere. Still waiting for that contradictory study….."

You surely cannot be unaware that the hockey stick uptick in the 20th Century was as a result of a single set of bristlecone pines in the South West USA? A series documented by Graybill and Idso who specifically warned against using them as a temperature proxy for the last 150 years.

"The average of those sites [a network of high-elevation temperature-sensitive tree-ring sites in the Great Basin and Sierra Nevada of Hughes and Funkhouser, unpublished], plotted in Figure 5, is based on many ring-width series, each one being 500 years or longer, without individual growth surges or suppressions and from "strip-bark" five-needle upper forest border pines of great age. Such record is not a reliable temperature proxy for the last 150 years as it shows an increasing trend in about 1850 that has been attributed to atmospheric CO2 fertilization." [Graybill and Idso, 1993]

Or that Briffa's hockey stick was dependent upon one tree in Yamal?

The truth is that all proxy reconstructions are at best indicative of what might have been, but tree rings are particularly unreliable:

"The main reason that our confidence in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions is lower before A.D. 1600 and especially before A.D. 900 is the relative scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence. Other factors limiting our confidence in surface temperature reconstructions include: the relatively short length of the instrumental record (which is used to calibrate and validate the reconstructions); the fact that all proxies are influenced by a variety of climate variables; the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time; the lack of agreement as to which methods are most appropriate for calibrating and validating large-scale reconstructions and for selecting the proxy data to include; and the difficulties associated with constructing a global or hemispheric mean temperature estimate using data from a limited number of sites and with varying chronological precision. All of these considerations introduce uncertainties that are difficult to quantify." NAS Council Report

They go on to say that there is not much confidence in proxies prior to 1650AD and almost none in proxies prior to 900AD, but that some confidence can be drawn where there are multiple proxies indicating the same temperatures.

Basically MBH 1998 was based on one set of trees in South West USA known to be untrustworthy and given nearly 400 times the weighting of other proxies because of the PC detrending used by Michael Mann, while Hubert Lamb's reconstruction is based on one set of thermometers in Central England. Tweedledum meet Tweedledee.

Mark Hodgson, Martin A & geronimo.

It is interesting that Entropic Man and Phil Clarke are equally adamant that Climate Science has never got anything wrong, hence Climate Science has never found any of its own mistakes, through the Peer Review process, or even through Blogs.

If only Climate Science had accepted that Mann's Hockey Stick was a botched lash-up of carefully selected data, Climate Science would not now be facing extinction. Obviously wealthy individuals, Trust Funds etc, are welcome to keep financing it privately, but Taxpayers have had enough.