tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post6550433792476039849..comments2024-03-28T11:03:41.050-05:00Comments on Unlocked Wordhoard: The Medieval Warm Period and the CRU E-MailsDr. Richard Scott Nokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01348275071082514870noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-81096526335065531742009-11-28T09:26:13.770-06:002009-11-28T09:26:13.770-06:00I can't read that extract as cherry-picking. H...I can't read that extract as cherry-picking. He's talking about providing extra data to diminish the stand-out effect of the MWP graph, if anything, but as the Brigand above says, it's chronological span that's being expanded, not datasets that preach the climate change gospel being buried. The point, for either side, is that, for example, Greenland doesn't tell us about global climate, it tells us about Greenland (the knock-on problem being that the same is true of Arctic ice-cores, or, well, anything really).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-92056475710036672952009-11-26T08:00:37.883-06:002009-11-26T08:00:37.883-06:00I've got an expert looking at the e-mails and ...I've got an expert looking at the e-mails and the subsequent papers published. He'll need a few days, what with the holiday and all. I'll post his comments when I get them.Dr. Richard Scott Nokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01348275071082514870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-24103337474606666572009-11-26T01:49:26.435-06:002009-11-26T01:49:26.435-06:00Out of my depth here, but I think that further con...Out of my depth here, but I think that further context may put Mann's e-mail, part of which you quote, in a better light. First, <a href="http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=319&filename=1054736277.txt" rel="nofollow">here</a> is a link to one site where that e-mail has been posted. On that page, it is the last in a chain that started the previous day. In the exchange, Mann and his colleagues agree to provide a short position paper to the journal <i>Eos</i>, mainly in response to paper (published in a different journal) that is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming and that they feel is 1) bad science and 2) getting a lot of popular attention: the Discovery Channel, for instance, has reported on it. Their effort is explicitly intended to be not a full scholarly paper reporting any newly obtained results: the <i>Eos</i> editor advises that it "can be as long as 1500 words, or approximately 6 double-spaced pages. A maximum of two figures is permitted. A maximum of 10 references is encouraged...". It is, to some degree, an op-ed piece (albeit one with figures and citations) meant to convey what they feel is the current understanding of the science to a broader audience.<br /><br />It appears that when Mann expresses a desire in the e-mail to "contain" the Medieval Warm Period in one of the two figures by showing trends for two rather than one millennia, he means that the beginning of the MWP would not be shown in a diagram for 1001-2000 A.D. He wants to give it some context. However, there was at the time of the position paper apparently no global or hemispheric temperature reconstruction for the period 1-1000 A.D. that incorporated all the different temperature measurements that he believes shows the best picture -- although he notes that he has one being reviewed for publication. So he proposes instead to use other data sets. From the end of that e-mail:<br /><br />"In addition to the "multiproxy" reconstructions, I'd like to Add Keith's maximum latewood density-based series, since it is entirely independent of the multiproxy series, but conveys the same basic message. I would also like to try to extend the scope of the plot back to nearly 2K. This would be either w/ the Mann and Jones extension (in review in GRL) or, if that is deemed not kosher, the Briffa et al Eurasian tree-ring composite that extends back about 2K, and, based on Phil and my results, appears alone to give a reasonably accurate picture of the full hemispheric trend."<br /><br />Note Mann's desire to give a "reasonably accurate picture" using his various sources, and his interest in "independent" work that verifies other study.<br /><br />As for his use of the term "putative" to describe the MWP, I gather that while climatologists acknowledge that temperatures in and near the north Atlantic were notably warm at times in that period, they also have records indicating that was not true elsewhere. <a href="http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf" rel="nofollow">This</a> [small pdf] is the paper in <i>Eos</i> to which that e-mail discussion led. Note the chart showing different medieval temperatures at different places.<br /><br />Additionally, Gary Schmidt in comments at his "Real Climate" blog indicates that <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf" rel="nofollow">this chapter</a> [very large pdf] eventually grew out of the position paper. You may find the subsection on the MVP of interest.N.E. Brigandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601573470596905112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-34528506414175467832009-11-24T20:19:40.085-06:002009-11-24T20:19:40.085-06:00Irregardless.Irregardless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-21076779719161921832009-11-24T12:44:30.748-06:002009-11-24T12:44:30.748-06:00Thanks for posting on this. Outside of the illicit...Thanks for posting on this. Outside of the illicit way in which these emails were obtained, I find two elements of the story to be particularly distressing: <br /><br />(1) The appearance of impropriety in the way research experts handle and present data. We just don't live in a world right now where people trust science and scientists, who are cast as untrustworthy 'elites' following a dastardly agenda against traditional values. The mere appearance of impropriety in this one case will have ramifications across disciplines, I predict. <br /><br />(2) The willingness of commentators to make broad assertions about all climate researchers and all climate data. It's hasty generalization and ad hominum time, folks, and I've seen lots of it in just a few days. It's a sad state of affairs for those of us doing and teaching critical thinking.<br /><br />The common thread in these two items concerns the ethics of data, or the ethics of using data to make reasonable inferences/interpretations.Jon Myerovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18305236659409847419noreply@blogger.com