13 thoughts on “Mann Update”

1. Steyn mentions the climate scientists’ uncertainty that tree rings track low frequency temperature changes, which made me wonder something.

   The high frequency response might show up because a tree leafed out too early in the spring, or a pine wasted some growth potential by trying to switch into warm weather mode and guessing wrong about what the temperature would be. From the Journal of Tree Physiology is this:

   Trees that developed at elevated temperatures did not simply accelerate growth but followed different developmental trajectories than unwarmed trees, allocating more biomass to leaves and less to roots and growing taller for a given stem diameter.

   Over longer time frames, altered temperatures could allow the trees to compensate their root/leaf ratios over the course of many seasons, re-optimizing their configuration for the local environment. So the tree rings would show high-frequency variations and suppress long-term variations and tending to smooth out the effects of long-term temperature shifts, making them less useful as a proxy, if useful at all.

   Absent such long-term compensating responses, using just a simple model that says ring-width = k * temperature, you should find that tree ring width should also show a correlation with latitude, and a very strong correlation within the same species. Google can’t even find a single study or image from such a study (tree ring width versus latitude). It seems to be a set of unexamined data that should exist but doesn’t.

   I’d expect a similar behavior regarding rainfall. If it’s been rainy for many years the root systems can be shallow, and if the climate shifts to drier conditions it will take the tree several years to grow deeper roots and re-adapt, creating a short-term downward trend in the ring width, but after re-adaption the ring width would return to normal even though the climate remained drier.

   It could be that tree rings’ temperature response, or what there is of it, is a function of dT/dt over some timescale instead of just T, so fat rings would reflect consistent seasonal temperature (perhaps along with rainfall) while thin rings would be an indication of rapidly shifting temperatures.

2. Mann accused Bolt of lying, was called out, retracted his statement and apologized.

   Would Mann have filed suit if Rand and Steyn had promptly retracted their “molested data” claim and apologized?

   1. Of course he wouldn’t have. The threat to file the suit was to get us to do so. But unlike him, we have nothing to apologize for.

      1. You have nothing to apologize for because your claims were true?

      2. Though his claims were in fact true, I maintain that he does owe Jerry Sandusky an apology for associating a winning football coach and serial pedophile with a disgraceful excuse for a scientist and human being.

   2. I don’t know if you saw this piece from a few days ago on the collapse on Weaver and Mann’s lawsuits against Tim Ball, because they wouldn’t release their metadata, but it is highly significant.

      Mann’s failure to take actions required to move the Ball case forward clinches a key piece of Steyn’s lawsuit against Mann.

      1. I keep seeing reference to that, but do not know how reliable it is. Anthony Watts has little sympathy for the Slayers, and is quashing the story, claiming it is unfounded. I don’t know if that is because of bad blood, or if it is indeed unfounded. I haven’t really seen it repeated by anyone else, though, so I’m keeping my powder dry.

         1. Watts refers to this comment from Steve McIntyre, which appears to confirm that the death of the lawsuit lawfare filing has been exaggerated.

         2. Interesting. I suppose perhaps that someone was watching the clock and not noting that the courts move in their own time.

   3. The only reason Mann deleted his tweet is that he is already involved in so many other lawsuits. This is the first time Mann has moderated his outrageous behavior.

      Mann would likely have sued even if the defendants had apologized because the purpose of the suit is to use the legal process to punish his critics.

3. Mann seems a lot more concerned with his critics than his research. It seems to me that the musings of some blogger or conservative columnist shouldn’t matter that much to someone who does science for a living. After all, it’s not like National Review is the magazine of record for climate science. This just looks like some thin skinned academic trying to silence his critics.

   1. As Dr. Judith Curry has stated, it seems Mann spends half his time pursuing those who he claims have defamed him, and the other half defaming others.

      And, yes, I think we are seeing the Streisand effect in action. He’d have been better off not drawing attention to those who, if his science were solid, would have no impact on the opinions of those who matter.

   2. I don’t quite remember Einstein filing lawsuits against everyone who questioned special or general relativity, but then he had the universe on his side and was committing something called “science” instead of molesting innocent data sets.

Comments are closed.