So ROM, did you see how McIntyre deliberately manipulated the Tiljander graph to make it look like Mann had his upside down? Very naughty don't you think!
That's the only misleading and dishonest behaviour on display here. Libellous claims of scientists lying are easy to say but the proof is sorely lacking.
OK - Let's assume that I am prosecuting a "libellous" claim where someone has accused McIntyre of misleading and dishonest behaviour and deliberately manipulating data:
I put my case in front of my peers [the people frequenting this site] and ask them to vote
whether McIntyre is right or wrong in saying that Mann has used the Lake Korttajarvi and related proxies in a way that not intended by Tiljander, effectively "flipping them" and treating warm periods as cold and cold periods as warm in the paleorecord. [Which remember is the key period of interest]
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury,
Please consider the following 10 Y/N propositions, that I pose these to the most honourable counsel for the Defence - CeeBee,
[As I can't put Dr Mann on the witness stand, I have to put my questions to his counsel - But I assume that he will be most ably defended.
and would like you to carefully consider the arguments provided against. For all my
answers are a resounding Yes! and so I invite the hon counsel for the defence to explain why I am wrong, and ladies and gentlemen of the jury will please ask you to refrain from making up your mind until our final arguments and only voting then.
I will argue that if the conclusion is reached where all answers are agreed as Yes, then Mr McIntyre will be vindicated by the truth, and CeeBee will have to apologise on this forum for the slanderous imputations offered against the most august persona of Mr McIntyre - and say that the councel for the defense is WRONG! If on the other-hand, there is a consensus that My arguments are weak and therefore I fail to convince the most esteemed jury - I shall likewise apologise. Further I vow to attest my name and publish any such apology as drafted by the counsel for the defence.
To battle then!
To the most honoured counsel for the defence:
Please tell me where you disagree:
1) Will the most honoured counsel agree the below graph is simply a subset of the complete version in Tiljander et al (TEA p.570)] and that it is simply the X-Ray density portion rotated 90°? Y/N
For the record the complete version in its correct orientation is here
. Please also see link to TEA 2003 (Exhibit A at end of this argument should ultimate proof be required)
2) If I agree that the data in the CeeBee graph is correct… herein after the “CeeBee graph” and I note that is NOT from TEA 2003 as claimed tut - tut
will the most honoured counsel agree the only difference between the orientation in this graph and the Tiljander X-Ray density graph above is that they are mirror images. Y/N
For the record, I adjusted the sizing of (not changing the orientation) Dr Mann’s Tiljander X-Ray density graph
(from Exhibit B) and contrasted it against the Tiljander version - see here
3) Will the most honoured counsel agree that both the Tiljander graph and the CeeBee graph represent X-Ray density of the varve / layers over some 3000 years… Not temperature
4) Will the most honoured counsel agree that the latter part of the varve layer record is “strongly affected by human activities” (TEA p 575) such that “from the mid-18th century the amount of mineral material accumulation accelerated markedly towards the modern times” (TEA p571). Y/N
5) Will the most honoured counsel agree that the thickening of the layers and mineral material accumulation in the latter part of the record contributes to the increased X-Ray density at that time. Y/N
6) Will the most honoured counsel agree that “warm periods” will be correlated with a low mineral / high organic varve content, and “cool periods” will be correlated with a high mineral and low organic content. Y/N
For the record:
… the amounts of inorganic and organic matter, form the basis of the climate interpretations. Periods rich in organic matter indicate favourable climate conditions, when less snow accumulates in winter by diminished precipitation and/or increased thawing, causing weaker spring flow and formation of a thin mineral layer. In addition, a long growing season thickens the organic matter. More severe climate conditions occur with higher winter precipitation, a longer cold period and rapid melting at spring, shown as thicker mineral matter within a varve.
7) Will the most honoured counsel agree that the “hockey stick tail” in the later part of the CeeBee X-Ray density graph represents thicker mineral matter, and as such would indicate a “cool period” i.e. more severe climate conditions, with higher winter precipitation, a longer cold period… Y/N
8) Will the most honoured counsel agree that the high organic content evidenced during the “medieval warm period” would suggest that it was a “warm period” i.e. favourable climate conditions, when less snow accumulates in winter by diminished precipitation and/or increased thawing… Y/N
For the record:
An organic rich period from AD 980 to 1250 in the Lake Korttaja¨rvi record is chronologically comparable with the well-known ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (e.g. Lamb 1965; Grove & Switsur 1994; Broecker 2001). The sediment structure changes, less mineral material accumulates on the lake bottom than at any other time in the 3000 years sequence analysed and the sediment is quite organic rich (LOI 20%). Thus, the winter snow cover must have been negligible, if it existed at all, and spring floods must have been of considerably lower magnitude than during the instrumental period (since AD 1881). According to the scenarios presented by Solantie & Drebs (2001), a 2°C increase in winter temperature would decrease the amount of snow in southern Finland significantly. Under such conditions, winter snow accumulation and intense spring floods would be rare events.
9) Will the most honoured counsel agree that in the as “temperature” orientation in Mann PNAS 2008 (Exhibit B) the xraydenseave record shows the Medieval Warm period as coldest in the record, and that it includes the contaminated latter part of the record as warmest in the record. Y/N
For the record:
[Note that the Mann PNAS 2008 (Exhibit B) the xraydenseave record is to all intents and purposes the same as the CeeBee graph]
10) Will the most honoured counsel agree that, if the Mann PNAS 2008 (Exhibit B) xraydenseave record is used as indicated, then if the contaminated latter part of the record is calibrated to actual temperature and assumed as showing a warming then given that Mann's regression method is insensitive to sign, the paleo-climate record will be “flipped”– i.e. giving a cold Medieval Warm period, and a warm Little Ice Age - exactly as CeeBee's graph shows. Y/N
A scanned copy of the Tiljander A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated sediment of Lake Korttaja¨rvi, central Finland
article from Boreas 2003 (TEA in this argument)http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/paleolimnology/Tiljanderetal.pdf
Supplementary Information Mann et al PNAS ‘08