Nov 27 2009

CRU Knew Of “Upside Down Mann”

If peer review was so great with AGW then the mistake Michael Mann made in his chronology, noted my Steve McIntyre, would have been corrected. It has not been, according to WUWT and the review of Mann’s latest AGW report.  What is really mind boggling is that the CRU emails clearly show the alarmists agreed with McIntyre without hesitation – privately:

From: Jonathan Overpeck

D et al – Please write all emails as though they will be made public.

Since the recon in Science has an error, I think you do need to publish a correction in Science. In that, you can very briefly not it didn’t affect the calibration, nor the final result. I don’t think you have a choice here. And I don’t think RealClimate alone is the place for this, although RC could be good for the bigger list of issues. Don’t do it on Mc;s blog. But, it would be good to hear from Ray and Mike, since they have the most experience in getting it right.

On 9/5/09 8:44 AM, “Darrell Kaufman” <[1]Darrell.Kaufman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:

Regarding the “upside down man”, as Nick’s plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.

On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Nick McKay wrote:

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

So why is it still upside down? My guess is the CRU data and code is so bad they don’t know how to undo it!

Comments Off

Comments are closed.