meteorologist Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 http://live.psu.edu/story/57603 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue sky Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Tree rings as proxies for temperature is stupid. Bad science done by bad scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Tree rings as proxies for temperature is stupid. Bad science done by bad scientists. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php #7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 "Scientists look at the past response of the climate to natural factors like volcanoes to better understand how sensitive Earth's climate might be to the human impact of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations," said Mann. "Our findings suggest that past studies using tree-ring data to infer this sensitivity have likely underestimated it." This is significant, climate sensitivity is an important factor in climate models. Perhaps this is why they all underestimate the Arctic warming and melt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 http://www.skeptical...om/argument.php #7 #7 has nothing to do with tree rings. Website is very opinionated, I would not consider it a credible source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Tree rings as proxies for temperature is stupid. Bad science done by bad scientists. Why? That's quite a claim.... and an insulting one, at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Tree rings as proxies for temperature is stupid. Bad science done by bad scientists. Well I'd certainly take your word for it over the word of those bad scientists. BUT WAIT!. Don't two negatives equal a positive! Wouldn't a bad scientist doing good science produce bad results. & a good scientist doing bad science would produce bad results. Therefor good scientists doing good science or bad scientists doing bad science will produce good results. Good thing they weren't evil scientists!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 #7 has nothing to do with tree rings. Website is very opinionated, I would not consider it a credible source. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm Here it discusses problems and limitations of the tree-ring proxy. Please point out their opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 #7 has nothing to do with tree rings. Website is very opinionated, I would not consider it a credible source. You don't have to consider them credible or not. Of course they have an opinion. So does everyone capable of coming to a conclusion given the scientific evidence. They base their opinion on the available peer-reviewed scientific evidence and research. Make a logical case based on the evidence, that's all we can do. What does the evidence say to you? Have you read it and understood it in detail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 There's a widely known issue with tree ring data and divergence from the insturmental series post 1960. It's explained away due to "unprecedented anthropogenic problems" that supposedly are unique in all of history to post 1960. And now you can hide the decline. Conveniently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 There is a column on Real Climate on this issue written by Mike Mann, one of the authors of the Nature Geoscience paper. Well worth a read. Did everyone notice that this issue, as well as previous issues, with tree ring proxies was brought up by paleoclimatologists and not by skeptics? The scientists in the field are not trying to hide anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 here's the awesome final line of the blog piece for those here who have zero idea how the scientific process works: Yeah yeah yeah But it's all a scam!!!! The disconnect between the entire scientific comunity and the frindge denialists and propoganda driven bloggers is amazing. Whats really sad is many people on Watts or Goodards blogs who read that final sentence and say: its just a front to make us believe they are open with the data when they manipulate it for their crazy warminiast views Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 One erroneous characterization is that scientists have been hiding the divergence problem. In fact, tree-ring divergence has been openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literarure since 1995. A perusal of the many peer reviewed papers (conveniently summarised in D’Arrigo 2008) reveal the following: The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies. http://www.skeptical...nce-problem.htm The biggest problem with proxy data is how they have been used, or rather misused. This has all been hashed and re-hashed years ago. Simply google McKitrick and McIntyre and you can read all about how proxy data has been manipulated and how the tree ring work by Mann was bad math and flawed, terribly flawed science. Neither McKitrick or McIntyre work for Exxon. And the net net is, it was still warmer in the MWP than it is today. Mann set out to eliminate this known fact, and the IPCC was all too happy to accept it. oh, and if this is what you call "peer reviewed science", well.... "So we requested his computational code to eliminate these easily-resolved differences. To our surprise he refused to supply his computer code, a stance he maintains to today. As for the proxy sequence, in building his PCs it turns out he had spliced together a number of different series in order to handle segments with missing data in the earliest part of the analysis. This was not explained in his Nature paper so Steve had not implemented it in the emulation program. We requested identification of the splicing sequence, which Mann refused to provide, so Steve worked out an emulation as best he could. In the end nothing turned on it, though Mann continues to point to it as a knock against our efforts. It is still not possible to identify the final form of the data used in MBH98 since it requires forming sequences of spliced proxy PC segments and Mann has given conflicting counts of the number of underlying vectors involved. Still, Steve’s emulation program is very close to reproducing the original hockey stick, and is as close as anyone is able to get in the absence of cooperation from Mann and his colleagues." Still the best read and best work done to show how poor the science of climate change has been. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf In the end, there is no hockey stick at all. Never was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 The biggest problem with proxy data is how they have been used, or rather misused. This has all been hashed and re-hashed years ago. Simply google McKitrick and McIntyre and you can read all about how proxy data has been manipulated and how the tree ring work by Mann was bad math and flawed, terribly flawed science. Neither McKitrick or McIntyre work for Exxon. And the net net is, it was still warmer in the MWP than it is today. Mann set out to eliminate this known fact, and the IPCC was all too happy to accept it. oh, and if this is what you call "peer reviewed science", well.... "So we requested his computational code to eliminate these easily-resolved differences. To our surprise he refused to supply his computer code, a stance he maintains to today. As for the proxy sequence, in building his PCs it turns out he had spliced together a number of different series in order to handle segments with missing data in the earliest part of the analysis. This was not explained in his Nature paper so Steve had not implemented it in the emulation program. We requested identification of the splicing sequence, which Mann refused to provide, so Steve worked out an emulation as best he could. In the end nothing turned on it, though Mann continues to point to it as a knock against our efforts. It is still not possible to identify the final form of the data used in MBH98 since it requires forming sequences of spliced proxy PC segments and Mann has given conflicting counts of the number of underlying vectors involved. Still, Steve’s emulation program is very close to reproducing the original hockey stick, and is as close as anyone is able to get in the absence of cooperation from Mann and his colleagues." Still the best read and best work done to show how poor the science of climate change has been. http://www.uoguelph....hockeystick.pdf In the end, there is no hockey stick at all. Never was. Thanks, You believe global warming to be all a hoax, a covered up fabrication or simply put...a lie. The world has not warmed above that of recent natural variability. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Thanks, You believe global warming to be all a hoax, a covered up fabrication or a simply put...a lie. Got it. Ignore the facts presented. Ignore the work of M&M, ignore the lack of openess from Mann. Just ignore it all. I guess you have to. I don't believe it's a hoax, I believe climate science is more of a cult. Where the outcome is desired and signals to the contrary are ignored. That's what the work by M&M can only conclued. It's clear. It's obvious. You can ignore it, but it's plain to see. Doesn't make it a conspiracy, that I don't believe. I believe they believe, it's just that the work does not hold up to the rigors of real review. Again, that's what M&M shows us. They should be thanked, they should be lauded for their work. They aren't oil guys, they aren't deniers (btw, they actually acknowledge we are seeing recent warming and believe we are responsible to some extent), just a couple of math nerds who took down a revolution. The fact is that it has been warmer. That's what the data available shows. That's what the historical record shows. It's inconvenient to the movement because if it's been warmer only a few hundred years ago, then this warming isn't all that unique. Mann tried to eliminate this, but he was wrong. So while we are seeing very mild warming trend, it's not that unique and not really that alarming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamarack Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Was glad to see that drought was thought to be part of the Alaska growth decline. In my short (25 yr) experience tracking tree growth in a mesic climate, I've found May-August rainfall (especially, the lack thereof) to be well correlated with diameter increment. There was essentially no correlation with temperature. Tree rings taken from more extreme sites may provide better information re temp, but I think that variations in growing season precip would still be very important to include in the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Cheet Did you ever think to check what kind of degrees these guys have? An economist and a Political science major may not be the best ones to follow regarding climate change. Would you ask a weatherman to correct a bank presidents balance sheet? And while they "don't work for Exxon", one is Chairman of the Board of a mining and exploration company after a 30 year career in the mining business and the other is a fellow at Canada's most arguably most right wing think tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php #16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE LAST 2,OOO YEARS Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676 You can download it for free chaptrer 4 "Tree Rings" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Cheet Did you ever think to check what kind of degrees these guys have? An economist and a Political science major may not be the best ones to follow regarding climate change. Would you ask a weatherman to correct a bank presidents balance sheet? And while they "don't work for Exxon", one is Chairman of the Board of a mining and exploration company after a 30 year career in the mining business and the other is a fellow at Canada's most arguably most right wing think tank. falling back on degrees is for losers. Mann was wrong, doesn't matter what his degree is. M&M were right. There is no hockey stick and there was a MWP. It was warmer, and that is really the bottom line. The attempt to re-write history was rebuked. You can claim McIntyre's work is nefariouis because he was a stats guy for mining companies. Seems logical that he would do what he did. The analogy of a weatherman and the balance sheet is stupid. Mann's work was all about math. And M&M showed the math was wrong, cherry picked data was used and the results were statistically not very likely. McIntyre is a stats guy, so your analogy is pretty off base. Wegman agreed. Who did he work for? I know many really want to believe it, but you can't just make it up, you have to prove it. We can feel like there is something, we can speculate, but when your work is presented as fact that Trillions of dollars needs to be spent now, that without change the world is doomed, your work better damn well be valid. It wasn't. We should be thanking M&M, they should get a Nobel for their work. I know the HS wasn't and isn't the end all be all of the debate. But it played perhaps the biggest role in the mass hysteria over global warming. It was front and center in both the IPCC report and used by the Goracle. And btw, this is all extremely relevent to the thread title. Mann's work and the HS was all about Tree rings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 even if they were physicists, their paper has been completely rebutted. Actually, no it hasn't. It has been corroberated. Please look up Wegman's report to congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wegman A 2006 report to Congress by a team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman found the criticisms of the hockey stick graph by McIntyre and McKitrick to be "valid and compelling."[15] Mann's hockey stick has been completely and utterly dismantled as bad math at best, cherry picking and creating a desired outcome at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 falling back on degrees is for losers. Mann was wrong, doesn't matter what his degree is. M&M were right. There is no hockey stick and there was a MWP. It was warmer, and that is really the bottom line. The attempt to re-write history was rebuked. You can claim McIntyre's work is nefariouis because he was a stats guy for mining companies. Seems logical that he would do what he did. The analogy of a weatherman and the balance sheet is stupid. Mann's work was all about math. And M&M showed the math was wrong, cherry picked data was used and the results were statistically not very likely. McIntyre is a stats guy, so your analogy is pretty off base. Wegman agreed. Who did he work for? I know many really want to believe it, but you can't just make it up, you have to prove it. We can feel like there is something, we can speculate, but when your work is presented as fact that Trillions of dollars needs to be spent now, that without change the world is doomed, your work better damn well be valid. It wasn't. We should be thanking M&M, they should get a Nobel for their work. I know the HS wasn't and isn't the end all be all of the debate. But it played perhaps the biggest role in the mass hysteria over global warming. It was front and center in both the IPCC report and used by the Goracle. And btw, this is all extremely relevent to the thread title. Mann's work and the HS was all about Tree rings. And there are emails that show that other "team members" had concerns also... Wilson: I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Could you cram the X-axis in a little tighter....maybe make the distance between 1900 and 2000 like 1/8"...that way all the detail would be gone and you'd have a much better representation of a hockey stick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Ignore the facts presented. Ignore the work of M&M, ignore the lack of openess from Mann. Just ignore it all. I guess you have to. I don't believe it's a hoax, I believe climate science is more of a cult. Where the outcome is desired and signals to the contrary are ignored. That's what the work by M&M can only conclued. It's clear. It's obvious. You can ignore it, but it's plain to see. Doesn't make it a conspiracy, that I don't believe. I believe they believe, it's just that the work does not hold up to the rigors of real review. Again, that's what M&M shows us. They should be thanked, they should be lauded for their work. They aren't oil guys, they aren't deniers (btw, they actually acknowledge we are seeing recent warming and believe we are responsible to some extent), just a couple of math nerds who took down a revolution. The fact is that it has been warmer. That's what the data available shows. That's what the historical record shows. It's inconvenient to the movement because if it's been warmer only a few hundred years ago, then this warming isn't all that unique. Mann tried to eliminate this, but he was wrong. So while we are seeing very mild warming trend, it's not that unique and not really that alarming. You have no facts to ignore. Michael Mann and his hockey stick graph do not stand alone as the one and only research done on the matter of temperature reconstructions. Here is what a Congressionally mandated report of the National Academy of Sciences had to say. Read it and read it good. NAP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 you are quite the glutton for punishment. If it wasn't for us non-intellects, you'd have no real avenue to acquire self achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Actually, no it hasn't. It has been corroberated. Please look up Wegman's report to congress. http://en.wikipedia....i/Edward_Wegman A 2006 report to Congress by a team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman found the criticisms of the hockey stick graph by McIntyre and McKitrick to be "valid and compelling."[15] Mann's hockey stick has been completely and utterly dismantled as bad math at best, cherry picking and creating a desired outcome at worst. Wegman's report has been thoroughly debunked, and Wegman and at least one of his co-authors are under investigation for academic misconduct. The Mann et al paleoclimate reconstruction has been validated by several independent teams. Of course, since your mind is closed that fact won't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 how does that statement you made square with the link to something he wrote this week about the need for further study of the hypothesis he and his colleagues have just published in Nature? Most people change their tune when they are caught acting a certain way. he wasn't singing this tune when M&M were asking him for information 10 yrs or so ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 And there are emails that show that other "team members" had concerns also... Wilson: I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. LOL. Yes, yes there are those. This all brings back some fond memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Looks like we can just ignore the National Academy of Sciences. See my post #34. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 You have no facts to ignore. Michael Mann and his hockey stick graph do not stand alone as the one and only research done on the matter of temperature reconstructions. Here is what a Congressionally mandated report of the National Academy of Sciences had to say. Read it and read it good. NAP You know they arn't going to read anything that scientific. The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. They conclude: Mann was wrong, The hockey stick handle was too short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.