98% of the earth's surface is hotter now than at any time in the past 2000 years

Berkeley Earth disagrees with you.

https://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

 

I am my own person. I have no sock puppet accounts on this site or any other.

 

Using the overlap period ARGO tells us that the pre-ARGO datasets were likely accurate enough to draw conclusions with confidence.

ARGO provide convincing evidence that the energy imbalance on the planet is at least 0.6 W/m^2 which is inline with theoretical models of the climate system given the current state of aerosol, solar, GHGs, etc. forcings.

 

To compute a global mean temperature you calculate the mean from a dataset of individual temperature measurements. The propagation of error is defined by the error of the mean formula Em = Ei/sqrt(N) where Em is the error of the mean and Ei is the RMS error of the individual samples. If you had 100,000 measurements (about what a modern reanalysis constructs) each with an RMS error of 2C then the computed global mean temperature would have an error of 2/sqrt(100,000) = 0.006C. In reality reanalysis has slightly higher error for the mean for reasons outside the scope of this post. Even conventional datasets like those from Berkeley Earth publishes errors of about 0.05C for the monthly global mean temperature and that's with far less measurements than reanalysis. But, if it's millions of measurements you demand then understand that the most data hungry reanalysis datasets already do process over 100 million measurements every single day.

 

Mann is an embarrassment to science.

 

So what ???

That analysis has nothing to do with actually determining the UHI effects on individual measurements. Why haven’t they looked at Barrow Alaska for example. Why haven’t they compared the US land data to everything else.

 

Math errors.

Failure to eliminate biasing factors (ie, location and time biases). Failure to select from RandN, Failure to normalize by paired RandR, Failure to declare variance, Failure to calculate margin of error given said variance.

 

I don't believe I've made any math errors here. You might get me on the RMS error of ±2C for a reanalysis grid cell, but the strict quantification of the error of the mean is as I said. I've also already mentioned that the error is actually higher than strictly calculated for other reasons. My point was that there is diminishing returns as you add more thermometers. Even just a few thousand is enough to compute a global mean temperature with a low enough error that conclusions can be made. Nobody argues that hundreds of millions of thermometers is required; not even skeptics.

Here is the methods paper from Berkeley Earth in case you are curious.

https://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf

 

I'm not a big fan of Mann either. But the fact is that the original MBH98 work (one the first comprehensive northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions) has been corroborated by the overwhelming majority of studies which have used wildly different techniques, subsets of data, proxy types, etc. And those that came to other conclusions (like McKitrick and McIntrye) have been found to use flawed methods or used cherry-picked data. But even if you disagree with all of that MBH certainly didn't commit fraud necessitating criminal prosecution. None of that really matters though...no matter how the story is spun Mann has not lost his case against Ball and the FCPP.

 

The historical data shows that the MWP was warmer than today. There were no glaciers in Iceland, graves have been found in the permafrost in Greenland, fresh water wells full of ice have been found in Greenland, and of course there is the 1500 person “Pompeii of Greenland” found buried under glacial sand.

 

Yes, you are making math errors. You are not eliminating biases, for starters.

The thermometers that you are making use of are NOT uniformly spaced across the globe, nor are they simultaneously read by the same observer. This is not eliminating location and time biases. That is a math error. Not declaring a variance is also a math error. I have personally observed temperature variances of around 20degF per mile, and it is on record that temperature can vary by as much as 49degF in 2 minutes. That high of a variance makes it quite difficult to bring the margin of error down to a number that I would deem accurate.

Let me explain. The Earth has some 197 million sq miles of surface area. Now, we need to declare how many thermometers we are making use of. I will make use of the highest number that I am aware of, to your benefit. NASA makes use of some 7,500 thermometers (NOT uniformly spaced, but for sake of argument, I will assume that they are). That means that there would be one thermometer for every 26,266 sq miles of surface area (about the size of the State of West Virginia). What you are trying to tell me, and why I am not convinced of your claims, is that ONE thermometer can accurately measure the temperature of the whole State of West Virginia.

Even if you had 197 million thermometers, so you had one thermometer for every sq mile of surface area, temperature can still vary by as much as 20degF per mile. That still leaves a rather large margin of error.

 

I don't understand why you made claims about the Ball matter by linking to a document filed by FCPP. Ball asserted that Mann didn't belong at Penn, rather in The Pen. Clearly meaning the Penitentiary. You claim he apologized and lost, claim you have linked to evidence of both, when what you linked to is not the disposition of the Ball case and most certainly is not an apology by Ball. Hopefully these are innocent errors on your part.

What actually occurred is that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

Mann responded to the dismissal of his lawsuit in typically mean-spirited and dishonest fashion: “The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on [sic] the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay.” The dismissal was for failure to obey a court order, and the delay went on for eight years.

So, we should see Mann-Fraud file an appeal within the week?

 

And suddenly your back after a very long absence right after I point out a brand new poster in here is you. Interesting.

 

So you think all of the worlds leading experts have all made the same math errors and have neglected even the most obvious methodological problems like quality control and bias correction?

Did you read how Berkeley Earth handles computing the global mean temperature, the considerations they take into account, and how they report the margin of error on their estimates?

I'm curious...what do you think the margin of error is on global mean temperature computations say from Berkeley Earth. Show your work.

 

We can get a moderator involved to help adjudicate this if you want.

 

FACT: Mann is the plaintiff in case against both the FCPP and Ball. They are listed as codefendants in the same case.

FACT: Mann has never refused to provide the methods and data that went into the MBH98 work.

FACT: Mann has already received a favorable judgement against defendant #1 in this case.

FACT: Mann has not failed to obey a court order in this case (or any case that I'm aware of).

FACT: Ball petitioned the court for dismissal due to his age, health, and lack of credibility. You might think I'm joking about the lack of credibility, but I'm not.

Again, the case # is VLC-S-S-111913. I invite you to check the court records yourself.

Additionally...

FACT: MBH98 methods are documented in the Nature publication already and the source data and even source code used to process it have always been available to the public for review.

FACT: MBH98 has been investigated for fraud many times. No court or investigative committee have referred MBH for criminal prosecution or concluded that fraud even occurred.

FACT: MBH98 has been analyzed critically by many experts regarding its contents and conclusions. MBH98 has overwhelming and widespread scientific support.

For what its worth though I have no argument against your assertion that Mann is mean spirited. And yes, Mann has already said that he will appeal the dismissal. That fact actually lends support to your assertion that he is mean spirited since the dismissal was granted because of Ball's age, health, and lack of credibility.

 

Don't really care who or what you are I just find it interesting that a new guy shows up that seems just like you and says he knows you even though he's as I said new here and then you show up after I say he may be you. Twin brother? Doppelgänger? Double from outer space? Real life friend?

 

Temp data from 2K doesn't tell us a damn thing about temp data from 1900, which is why you have to fall back on such weasel words.

Confidence is one thing; knowldge, quite another. I wonder if any of you people get that.

Multiple user accounts are prohibited here, so you should report them both. Beyond that, you're not doing your credibility any good with such attacks which, as far as the rest of us can tell, have no basis in fact.

 

As always, I appreciate your reply. Please keep in mind that I never discussed FCPP, I was discussing Ball.

He hasn't provided it, and because he did not provide, his suit against Ball was dismissed.


In Paragraph 3 above, what is Mann referring to that he "delayed" which is Mann speak "he never provided to the court as instructed"?

Only you are talking about FCPP

His 30 days are up this week, we will see.

Final question, if Mann already has a ruling in his favor, why in the world would he be threatening to appeal?

 

My credibility in your eyes means nothing to me and I'm not attacking anyone so relax. I can't help but find it interesting that a new guy shows up that reminds me of a regular that had disappeared. When I asked him if he'd changed his name he said no but I know who your talking about and he is a very smart guy that probably got tired of the deniers in here. It's only natural to wonder how a brand new name is so familiar with an old reg. Then a suddenly the old reg shows back up and out of the blue says I'm me not the other guy. It gets curiouser and curiouser.
As far as running to the mods why would I do that? I only want to know their relationship but if they'd rather not disclose that I'll just have to guess. Brothers, buds,work associates, doppelganger, clone , body snatchers? "Enquiring minds want to know" LOL
Don't take this forum so serious. Nothing is being solved here it's fun and games and really all of us should be doing something far more productive.

 

The FCPP and Ball are codefendants in the same case. They are codefendants because the FCPP and Ball are party to the same incident.

There is no court record that Mann was ever asked to provide methods or data related to MBH98 or any of his publication.

Why would anyone even bother to ask? Everything is already available to the court, FCPP, Ball, or anyone else who wishes to review it. See here.

I'm talking about case # VLC-S-S-111913. How can we have an intelligent discussion about this case if we ignore parts of the case?

The ruling was specific to defendant #1...the Frontier Centre for Public Policy...only. The reason is because the FCPP settled with Mann separately from Ball.

Ball, likely seeing that his codefendant already admitted wrongdoing and settled with Mann, wisely petitioned the court for dismissal before a judgement could be issued against him. His petition was on grounds of his age, health, and lack of credibility and nothing more. It has nothing to do with the fake news about Mann's refusal to obey court orders.

Do you think someone's age, health, and lack of credibility gives them a free pass on defamation?

 

You make up things in the form of a question and then ask me to deny your fabrication? What, are you 9 years old?



I also see that you didn't answer any of the questions I asked you about paragraph 3:

i) What did Mann delay in doing that resulted in the Court dismissing his case?
ii) If he already has a favorable ruling, why is he appealing?

Please see Mann's take below.

 

Yes, I do.

They make many math errors as well.

I have no reason to do so. I am not the one claiming that the Earth is warming.

 

The delay is due to Ball...specifically his health. He had heart surgery in 2017 and suffers from diabetes. This has prevented him from setting the matter for trial. The delay has nothing to do with Mann.

Because Mann is mean spirited? He feels like Ball's age, lack of credibility, and health are insufficient reasons to dismiss a suit before it had been adjudicated by trial or settled out of court like what had occurred with defendant #1. I'm okay with pushing forward despite Ball's age and lack of credibility. I don't personally feel like those are defensible positions. But, I actually feel for Ball in regards to his health. This has to be extremely stressful for him and worrying about a trial in a case in which his codefendant has already acknowledged wrongdoing has to be making his health situation worse. Personally, I think Mann should give it up and leave the guy in peace. It doesn't sound like Ball will ever be healthy enough to mount a defense anyway.

 

Well, I think we have both communicated our positions to the extent possible while we wait for the judge's written findings.

Take care,
Zorro