Replies

You are correct I am repeating myself because I had this same argument with WOSG, We first covered Keigwin and I showed that he thinks that the change was caused by a shift in currents. Then you bring him up!

Same with deMenocal. I already posted about him above yet you bring him up again. I even quoted him. Someone asked him about the use of his data to show a MWP and he said "Peter deMenocal, an associate professor at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, used sediment records off the coast of Africa as a proxy for ocean-surface temperatures. He says Mr. Soon and his colleagues could not justify their conclusions that the African record showed the 20th century as being unexceptional. "My record has no business being used to address that question," the Columbia scientist says. "It displays some ignorance putting it in there to address that question."

This is what I mean by going around in circles. When you bring up something new I will consider it.

In regards to your answers, I wish you well and an looking forward to seeing you post something about them. However as you work through the data, please ask yourself if you have corrected for all the things that you accused Mann of not correcting for.

In regards to Mann, if you are convinced then you should publish your results. However nothing you have yet posted backs up one of your assertions.

Now, I am engaged in another good discussion (this one on radiative forcing functions) so good night.

Y.

Peter deMenocal, an associate professor at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, used sediment records off the coast of Africa as a proxy for ocean-surface temperatures. He says Mr. Soon and his colleagues could not justify their conclusions that the African record showed the 20th century as being unexceptional.

That's essentially what I said as well. Maybe it wasn't clear or maybe you just skimmed it and thought I used it to justify the conclusion that 20th century was unexceptional. No, I did not. Since his data is very coarse and at least 88 years old, it says nothing about the 20th century, exceptional or otherwise.

Well you are welcome to end this discussion without addressing my concerns about Mann. As for your suggestion for me to write a paper, I would accept Soon's with all its errors as far superior to anything I could put together. However since I have not made up my mind like you have, I am willing to keep researching the raw data and commenting on all of it whether it supports my view or not. The example above is just one case, Jones98 was another that could support the hockey stick provided I can figure out his normalization technique for 1960 onwards. Otherwise I must judge it to be inconclusive (or tweaked and therefore useless like the Crowley-Lowery dataset).

But you are also welcome to provide your own analyses of the data. I think it would serve your case better than simply pretending to scientifically review the Soon paper.