Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
while perusing Old Rocks latest link that defends MBH98,99, I found this rather concise comment on Briffa's pre-2013 work....
Who was the author?
And any response to Orogenicman? Hockey sticks are everywhere because that's what the Earth's temperatures have actually done.
No.. Hockey sticks are everywhere because authors append HIGH TEMPORAL RESOLUTION data to weak GLOBAL proxy studies that have no TEMPORAL resolution to show short term temperature events.. Using just 75 mud, ice, wood studies in a failed attempt to cover the entire globe --- will produce data so filtered --- IT HAS TO LOOK FLAT...
Who was the author?
And any response to Orogenicman? Hockey sticks are everywhere because that's what the Earth's temperatures have actually done.
No.. Hockey sticks are everywhere because authors append HIGH TEMPORAL RESOLUTION data to weak GLOBAL proxy studies that have no TEMPORAL resolution to show short term temperature events.. Using just 75 mud, ice, wood studies in a failed attempt to cover the entire globe --- will produce data so filtered --- IT HAS TO LOOK FLAT...
So, just to summarize, you believe that hockey sticks exist because for them not to exist would devastate your conspiracy theory that climate scientists are evil wizards out to destroy civilization while making the world safe for greenies. Got it.
No.. Hockey sticks are everywhere because authors append HIGH TEMPORAL RESOLUTION data to weak GLOBAL proxy studies that have no TEMPORAL resolution to show short term temperature events.. Using just 75 mud, ice, wood studies in a failed attempt to cover the entire globe --- will produce data so filtered --- IT HAS TO LOOK FLAT...
So, just to summarize, you believe that hockey sticks exist because for them not to exist would devastate your conspiracy theory that climate scientists are evil wizards out to destroy civilization while making the world safe for greenies. Got it.
Would have been better if you didn't cork off with that bullshit.. Calls attention to the fact that you ADDRESSED NOTHING of substance in my last post...
while perusing Old Rocks latest link that defends MBH98,99, I found this rather concise comment on Briffa's pre-2013 work....
Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval period actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this claim depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the Polar Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber produced a much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very different story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from their climate reconstruction papers.
In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated from tree ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced Hockey Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising in the 20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an undisclosed number of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the individual tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn't release his raw data.
Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data.
Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.
Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published a paper using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict data-sharing rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and this time an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to release their data. A short while ago the data appeared on the Internet. Steve could finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite.
It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn't show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.
But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa's small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.
After reading those allegations, honestly, how is anyone expected to trust many of the studies coming out with data to "prove" global warming? While we should hope that scientists are in the business of pursuing truth and presenting facts, the reality now is that many scientists are pursuing purely politicized interests. As we all know, once trust is lost, it is terribly difficult to recover. Thankfully, there are scientists and others, like McIntyre, McKitrick, and the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, who seem to be pursuing truth and holding other scientists accountable.
And who was the author?
If there is empirical data to support it, by all means show us.
Which of the many hockey sticks do you want to see?
Bristlecone series
Glacial retreat
Yamal without YAD06
Boreholes
Ice Cores
Instrumental record
Tree rings from across the planet
And so on. That's why it's so amusing that denialists fixate on the single tree YAD06. That all even after McIntyre got caught cherrypicking what Yamal data sets he'd use, since cherrypicking was the only way he could get the hockey stick to vanish. And after he'd already gotten the data from the Russians, but lied and said Briffa was withholding it, even though Briffa didn't own the data and couldn't give it away.
If there is empirical data to support it, by all means show us.
Which of the many hockey sticks do you want to see?
Bristlecone series
Glacial retreat
Yamal without YAD06
Boreholes
Ice Cores
Instrumental record
Tree rings from across the planet
And so on. That's why it's so amusing that denialists fixate on the single tree YAD06. That all even after McIntyre got caught cherrypicking what Yamal data sets he'd use, since cherrypicking was the only way he could get the hockey stick to vanish. And after he'd already gotten the data from the Russians, but lied and said Briffa was withholding it, even though Briffa didn't own the data and couldn't give it away.
warmers fixated on the Hockeystick graph, and then the spagetti graphs for a very long time. YAD061 is a prime example of what is wrong with many of the proxy series, that is why it is brought up. cherrypicking and the use of improbable data, combined with truncation of data that is inconvenient, is simply not good science.
Briffa2013 looks almost exactly like the skeptics said it should look, once a more complete set of data was used. yet Briffa 2008, and previous Briffa papers are still contaminating all the spagetti graphs from the 00's. I personally have a strong cynicism for all proxy reconstructions and I dont think they should ever be combined with high resolution temperature data because the public simply does not understand the difference in reliability and certainty between the two types of information.
Flac explained to you why all low resolution proxy series with appear hockeystick-like with modern data grafted on to the end. the Briffa series in MBH actually was a reverse hockeystick. if the correlation of treerings to temps was bad in the last half of the 20th century, why should we believe it was reliable at all other times? the Polar Ural series was dumped once additional trees were added. why was a series with a few trees going in the right direction used but then ignored when it had a much bigger data base? could it be because it no longer supported CAGW? isnt that cherry picking? will researchers now use Briffa 2013 with its broken hockeystick or will they use the past versions?
Which of the many hockey sticks do you want to see?
Bristlecone series
Glacial retreat
Yamal without YAD06
Boreholes
Ice Cores
Instrumental record
Tree rings from across the planet
And so on. That's why it's so amusing that denialists fixate on the single tree YAD06. That all even after McIntyre got caught cherrypicking what Yamal data sets he'd use, since cherrypicking was the only way he could get the hockey stick to vanish. And after he'd already gotten the data from the Russians, but lied and said Briffa was withholding it, even though Briffa didn't own the data and couldn't give it away.
warmers fixated on the Hockeystick graph, and then the spagetti graphs for a very long time. YAD061 is a prime example of what is wrong with many of the proxy series, that is why it is brought up. cherrypicking and the use of improbable data, combined with truncation of data that is inconvenient, is simply not good science.
Briffa2013 looks almost exactly like the skeptics said it should look, once a more complete set of data was used. yet Briffa 2008, and previous Briffa papers are still contaminating all the spagetti graphs from the 00's. I personally have a strong cynicism for all proxy reconstructions and I dont think they should ever be combined with high resolution temperature data because the public simply does not understand the difference in reliability and certainty between the two types of information.
Flac explained to you why all low resolution proxy series with appear hockeystick-like with modern data grafted on to the end. the Briffa series in MBH actually was a reverse hockeystick. if the correlation of treerings to temps was bad in the last half of the 20th century, why should we believe it was reliable at all other times? the Polar Ural series was dumped once additional trees were added. why was a series with a few trees going in the right direction used but then ignored when it had a much bigger data base? could it be because it no longer supported CAGW? isnt that cherry picking? will researchers now use Briffa 2013 with its broken hockeystick or will they use the past versions?
Except that there is no evidence that any of the hockey sticks are wrong, and plenty of evidence that the deniers lied, as the McIntyre (who is not a scientist) example aptly demonstrates.
The three curves show the data with different weights assigned to it, the red being the strongest and the blue being the weakest that the authors think is merited
warmers fixated on the Hockeystick graph, and then the spagetti graphs for a very long time. YAD061 is a prime example of what is wrong with many of the proxy series, that is why it is brought up. cherrypicking and the use of improbable data, combined with truncation of data that is inconvenient, is simply not good science.
Briffa2013 looks almost exactly like the skeptics said it should look, once a more complete set of data was used. yet Briffa 2008, and previous Briffa papers are still contaminating all the spagetti graphs from the 00's. I personally have a strong cynicism for all proxy reconstructions and I dont think they should ever be combined with high resolution temperature data because the public simply does not understand the difference in reliability and certainty between the two types of information.
Flac explained to you why all low resolution proxy series with appear hockeystick-like with modern data grafted on to the end. the Briffa series in MBH actually was a reverse hockeystick. if the correlation of treerings to temps was bad in the last half of the 20th century, why should we believe it was reliable at all other times? the Polar Ural series was dumped once additional trees were added. why was a series with a few trees going in the right direction used but then ignored when it had a much bigger data base? could it be because it no longer supported CAGW? isnt that cherry picking? will researchers now use Briffa 2013 with its broken hockeystick or will they use the past versions?
Except that there is no evidence that any of the hockey sticks are wrong, and plenty of evidence that the deniers lied, as the McIntyre (who is not a scientist) example aptly demonstrates.
McIntyre, the statistician, has not been shown to be a liar. furthermore, when he has been shown to be mistaken in some small detail he promptly admits to it and adds corrections to his papers. unlike the majority of the major climate scientists.
I am not an expert on temperature proxies but there is certainly enough evidence out there to be suspicious on both its reliability and how it is used.
on of the spagetti graphs that the IPCC used had a borehole line on it, but it only went back 200 years. why is that? it may be because going further back does not fit the CAGW meme.
The three curves show the data with different weights assigned to it, the red being the strongest and the blue being the weakest that the authors think is merited
the borehole data that goes all the way back to 1000 sure looks like Lamb's proxy based graph from the first IPCC Report.
from an interesting site- Hide the Decline
I was actually looking for this graphic-
if we leave in the deleted end pieces of Briffa's series, what sort of correlation to temperatures does it have? why is it OK to just use the parts that you want? if the first 100 years doesnt work, and the last 50 years doesnt work, why do we think the middle 300 years work?
Except that there is no evidence that any of the hockey sticks are wrong, and plenty of evidence that the deniers lied, as the McIntyre (who is not a scientist) example aptly demonstrates.
McIntyre, the statistician, has not been shown to be a liar. furthermore, when he has been shown to be mistaken in some small detail he promptly admits to it and adds corrections to his papers. unlike the majority of the major climate scientists.
I am not an expert on temperature proxies but there is certainly enough evidence out there to be suspicious on both its reliability and how it is used.
on of the spagetti graphs that the IPCC used had a borehole line on it, but it only went back 200 years. why is that? it may be because going further back does not fit the CAGW meme.
The three curves show the data with different weights assigned to it, the red being the strongest and the blue being the weakest that the authors think is merited
the borehole data that goes all the way back to 1000 sure looks like Lamb's proxy based graph from the first IPCC Report.
from an interesting site- Hide the Decline
I was actually looking for this graphic-
if we leave in the deleted end pieces of Briffa's series, what sort of correlation to temperatures does it have? why is it OK to just use the parts that you want? if the first 100 years doesnt work, and the last 50 years doesnt work, why do we think the middle 300 years work?
So, just to be clear, you want to compare and contrast climate change issues by citing propaganda from a conservative web site run by one guy with a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical engineering (who's claim to expertise is technical sales) and another with a Bachelor's degree in Psychology (who doesn't even work in the field in which he has a degree, but instead has "expertise" in corporate management, operations, logistics, accounting, and customer service)? REALLY? This isn't any better than citing a certain denier who also happens to be a message therapist, and nothing more. No doubt if you need brain surgery, you will insist on consulting an auto mechanic.
McIntyre, the statistician, has not been shown to be a liar. furthermore, when he has been shown to be mistaken in some small detail he promptly admits to it and adds corrections to his papers. unlike the majority of the major climate scientists.
I am not an expert on temperature proxies but there is certainly enough evidence out there to be suspicious on both its reliability and how it is used.
on of the spagetti graphs that the IPCC used had a borehole line on it, but it only went back 200 years. why is that? it may be because going further back does not fit the CAGW meme.
the borehole data that goes all the way back to 1000 sure looks like Lamb's proxy based graph from the first IPCC Report.
from an interesting site- Hide the Decline
I was actually looking for this graphic-
if we leave in the deleted end pieces of Briffa's series, what sort of correlation to temperatures does it have? why is it OK to just use the parts that you want? if the first 100 years doesnt work, and the last 50 years doesnt work, why do we think the middle 300 years work?
So, just to be clear, you want to compare and contrast climate change issues by citing propaganda from a conservative web site run by one guy with a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical engineering (who's claim to expertise is technical sales) and another with a Bachelor's degree in Psychology (who doesn't even work in the field in which he has a degree, but instead has "expertise" in corporate management, operations, logistics, accounting, and customer service)? REALLY? This isn't any better than citing a certain denier who also happens to be a message therapist, and nothing more. No doubt if you need brain surgery, you will insist on consulting an auto mechanic.
Last time I checked --- it was OK to be a used car dealer and serve on the Senate Intelligience Commitee or the Energy Committee. Has that rule changed?
You should really address the ASSERTIONS and the REFERENCES given --- and not waste time impeaching sources because you don't like them.. Was there NOT a graph in that GRL Letter 1997 paper that is referenced in IAN's post? Do you doubt it exists?
Huang and Pollack, GRL Volume 24, 1997, page 1948 --- details on how to "tune" a borehole sample to fit your agenda...
The IPCC and Mann, the Hockey Stick, people here are in Denial, the IPCC and Mann lied. They got busted, literally destroying data, ignoring conclusions, and starting over.
but people are dumb, if they can google it they believe the result they find.
You know, I find it astounding how many non-scientists these deniers tend to quote mine. If NASA relied on such out-of-the-field people these deniers do, they would never have gotten off the launch pad.
I find it astounding that you guys ignore the ideas behind the science and would rather just appeal to authority.
I find it astounding that you guys ignore the ideas behind the science and would rather just appeal to authority.
I find it astounding that you would make such a statement. Argument from authority is a class of argument, not a fallacy. It can be used improperly, but it is most assuredly not inherently false.
Wikipedia:
Argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
1) cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
2) cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
3) any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
[As you can see, Ian, we have made none of these errors while they are absolutely rife on the denier side of the argument]
In our case, the authorities to which we appeal ARE subject matter experts. Their IS a very strong consensus among the experts and we are NOT attempting to make a deductive claim based on their opinions.
So... suck eggs dude. ;-)
you have been saying, "they are climate scientists, so we should believe them".
So, just to be clear, you want to compare and contrast climate change issues by citing propaganda from a conservative web site run by one guy with a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical engineering (who's claim to expertise is technical sales) and another with a Bachelor's degree in Psychology (who doesn't even work in the field in which he has a degree, but instead has "expertise" in corporate management, operations, logistics, accounting, and customer service)? REALLY? This isn't any better than citing a certain denier who also happens to be a message therapist, and nothing more. No doubt if you need brain surgery, you will insist on consulting an auto mechanic.
Last time I checked --- it was OK to be a used car dealer and serve on the Senate Intelligience Commitee or the Energy Committee. Has that rule changed?
You should really address the ASSERTIONS and the REFERENCES given --- and not waste time impeaching sources because you don't like them.. Was there NOT a graph in that GRL Letter 1997 paper that is referenced in IAN's post? Do you doubt it exists?
Huang and Pollack, GRL Volume 24, 1997, page 1948 --- details on how to "tune" a borehole sample to fit your agenda...
You should address your denier spokesmens' utter lack of qualifications in scientific matters. Until you do, you have no credibility in these discussions. A mechanical engineer, a B.S. in Psychology, a former DJ, and a message therapist? These are the best you people can do? Really? How pathetic is that?
nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) Discoveries - Top Scientists Promote Innovative, Multidisciplinary Global Problem-Solving Strategies - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
"If you want science students to be more mathematical, you can't solve the problem just by sending them off to the math department,' said Bialek. "Instead, we need to teach them how math is integrated into the scientific world."
So, for example, although freshmen are typically introduced to probability in math classes and to gas laws in physics classes, freshmen in Princeton's interdepartmental program are introduced to these topics in a single class that shows how probabilistic concepts apply to problems ranging from the ideal gas to genetics to Brownian motion. Such classes are accompanied by group exercises that introduce students to the types of collaboration required of professional scientists.
Princeton's program, according to Bialek, targets freshmen for the same reason that schools should introduce foreign languages to children as early in their education as possible: the younger you are, the easier it is to become bilingual and to become fluent in multiple scientific disciplines.
