|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 5, 2009 15:52:41 GMT
What is all boils down to, is that Briffa's paper was and is a worthless paper. Too much ado about nothing. And also, any papers later that used Briffa are worthless as well. End of story isn't it? I personally don't think Briffa committed any fraud. He IS guilty of garbage in, very poor methology, and then garbage out. The sad thing is that there are still people defending poor work. Put it to bed....call and ace an ace and a spade a spade. Actually no. There is nothing in the peer reviewed literature suggesting Briffa's work is worthless and I am afraid accusations on a blog don't count for much. For example we now now at least 2 accusations made against Briffa's work were false, but only because Briffa responded to them. Which in turn was only because the Telegraph and Register articles appeared accusing him of fraud. Briffa has no obligation to respond to every blog post made about his paper. Socold: You are making my point. Briffa's originala paper stunk from the onset. The arguement of peer review acceptance is hollow as the peers didn't review the methodology etc. So what if one paper is bad. Briffa goofed.....admit it and lets move on. To argue that it has validity with the knowledge available now is quit absurb.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 5, 2009 15:55:32 GMT
Oh....and by the way. I am not going by what the Telegraph etc are printing. I am going by scientific integrity.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 5, 2009 16:59:42 GMT
There clearly are natural temperature variations in the reconstructions: Since the only issue is the exaggerated height of the modern period, arising from reconstructions that the authors of which admit are as high as you can assemble without out cherry picking individual cores (utilizing undersized and/or cherry picked datasets, which strangely seems to be a practice endorsed as OK by the hockey team members) can we assume the LIA and MWP representation in those datasets are randomly selected? If so, it seems that the MWP is mighty close to the modern warming period anyway you slice it. Dang, this is really awkward feeling. . . .can one have any faith in anything?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 5, 2009 19:01:42 GMT
Actually no. There is nothing in the peer reviewed literature suggesting Briffa's work is worthless and I am afraid accusations on a blog don't count for much. For example we now now at least 2 accusations made against Briffa's work were false, but only because Briffa responded to them. Which in turn was only because the Telegraph and Register articles appeared accusing him of fraud. Briffa has no obligation to respond to every blog post made about his paper. Socold: You are making my point. Briffa's originala paper stunk from the onset. The arguement of peer review acceptance is hollow as the peers didn't review the methodology etc. So what if one paper is bad. Briffa goofed.....admit it and lets move on. To argue that it has validity with the knowledge available now is quit absurb. Briffa's paper seems to be standing up to criticism. All we have left are some minor nitpicks over issues that do not significantly affect the results. So much for the "fraud".
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 5, 2009 19:06:22 GMT
Deleted: too confrontational
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 5, 2009 19:27:03 GMT
Briffa's paper seems to be standing up to criticism. All we have left are some minor nitpicks over issues that do not significantly affect the results. So much for the "fraud". I don't know how you can say that when Briffa isn't even defending it. Unless you have a link to some defense from Briffa I haven't seen.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 5, 2009 19:34:37 GMT
Briffa's paper seems to be standing up to criticism. All we have left are some minor nitpicks over issues that do not significantly affect the results. So much for the "fraud". I don't know how you can say that when Briffa isn't even defending it. Unless you have a link to some defense from Briffa I haven't seen. He defended the main criticism in my opinion which was that if you use data from a nearby region instead of the data he used, the result is very different from the 20th century. He showed that including all data from both regions and others shows little change in the result. Of course there are loads of other questions, but aside from a few nitpicking ones (eg why didn't he specify the post-1990 core counts in the 2000 paper) there seem to be only open ended ones (how do trees age? How do trees work as thermometers? Why does the schweingruber set show a decline in the 20th century?). Which are really questions about the science which are not specific the Briffa's paper. Of course CA might come up with some problem with Briffa's reconstruction using all regions, we'll have to wait and see. but the (non-ca) claims that he committed fraud by cherrypicking sites is now found to be false. Edit Reason: emphasis that the fraud claims were not from CA
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 5, 2009 22:11:09 GMT
I don't know how you can say that when Briffa isn't even defending it. Unless you have a link to some defense from Briffa I haven't seen. He defended the main criticism in my opinion which was that if you use data from a nearby region instead of the data he used, the result is very different from the 20th century. He showed that including all data from both regions and others shows little change in the result. Indeed many tree ring datasets show divergence problems with modern temperature records. Thats why many feel using them is more like reading tea leaves in the bottom of a teacup. They simply are not dependable proxies for temperature. Keep in mind divergent problems where the data actually goes in the opposite direction as the temperature is a good indicator the data can also go in the right direction with excessive gusto. In other words a claim of divergence is not a defense. Further, CA's reconstruction with the combined data did not have a divergent issue. The only reason to pick Briffa's original series over a combined dataset is confirmation bias. Of course there are loads of other questions, but aside from a few nitpicking ones (eg why didn't he specify the post-1990 core counts in the 2000 paper) there seem to be only open ended ones (how do trees age? How do trees work as thermometers? Why does the schweingruber set show a decline in the 20th century?). Which are really questions about the science which are not specific the Briffa's paper. Of course CA might come up with some problem with Briffa's reconstruction using all regions, we'll have to wait and see. but the (non-ca) claims that he committed fraud by cherrypicking sites is now found to be false. Edit Reason: emphasis that the fraud claims were not from CA I agree it is in the realm of possibilities he just happened to accidentally pick the series with the biggest hockey stick blade from among at least 36 local potential datasets, I mean isn't that exactly what a drunk would do? Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag and the intuitiveness of what really went on simply cannot be buried in jargon. The facts are on the table and I can assure you that the vast majority are going to fall on one side of the line and the most ardent AGW defenders are going to fall on the other. . . .just like they did in the OJ Simpson trial. Sometimes all the evidence in the world is insufficient.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 6, 2009 1:45:13 GMT
He defended the main criticism in my opinion which was that if you use data from a nearby region instead of the data he used, the result is very different from the 20th century. He showed that including all data from both regions and others shows little change in the result. Indeed many tree ring datasets show divergence problems with modern temperature records. Thats why many feel using them is more like reading tea leaves in the bottom of a teacup. They simply are not dependable proxies for temperature. Keep in mind divergent problems where the data actually goes in the opposite direction as the temperature is a good indicator the data can also go in the right direction with excessive gusto. In other words a claim of divergence is not a defense. Further, CA's reconstruction with the combined data did not have a divergent issue. The only reason to pick Briffa's original series over a combined dataset is confirmation bias. Of course there are loads of other questions, but aside from a few nitpicking ones (eg why didn't he specify the post-1990 core counts in the 2000 paper) there seem to be only open ended ones (how do trees age? How do trees work as thermometers? Why does the schweingruber set show a decline in the 20th century?). Which are really questions about the science which are not specific the Briffa's paper. Of course CA might come up with some problem with Briffa's reconstruction using all regions, we'll have to wait and see. but the (non-ca) claims that he committed fraud by cherrypicking sites is now found to be false. Edit Reason: emphasis that the fraud claims were not from CA I agree it is in the realm of possibilities he just happened to accidentally pick the series with the biggest hockey stick blade from among at least 36 local potential datasets, I mean isn't that exactly what a drunk would do? Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag and the intuitiveness of what really went on simply cannot be buried in jargon. The facts are on the table and I can assure you that the vast majority are going to fall on one side of the line and the most ardent AGW defenders are going to fall on the other. . . .just like they did in the OJ Simpson trial. Sometimes all the evidence in the world is insufficient. Icefisher: Excellent analogy. For our friends from a different plantet, OJ Simposon played football. He married a beautiful woman. Man was jelous and abusive. Killed wife, evidence to a normal person is overwhelming, but a jury of his peers found him innocent. Sometimes it does look like 2+2=4.5
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 6, 2009 1:46:03 GMT
He defended the main criticism in my opinion which was that if you use data from a nearby region instead of the data he used, the result is very different from the 20th century. He showed that including all data from both regions and others shows little change in the result. Indeed many tree ring datasets show divergence problems with modern temperature records. Thats why many feel using them is more like reading tea leaves in the bottom of a teacup. They simply are not dependable proxies for temperature. Keep in mind divergent problems where the data actually goes in the opposite direction as the temperature is a good indicator the data can also go in the right direction with excessive gusto. In other words a claim of divergence is not a defense. Further, CA's reconstruction with the combined data did not have a divergent issue. The only reason to pick Briffa's original series over a combined dataset is confirmation bias. Of course there are loads of other questions, but aside from a few nitpicking ones (eg why didn't he specify the post-1990 core counts in the 2000 paper) there seem to be only open ended ones (how do trees age? How do trees work as thermometers? Why does the schweingruber set show a decline in the 20th century?). Which are really questions about the science which are not specific the Briffa's paper. Of course CA might come up with some problem with Briffa's reconstruction using all regions, we'll have to wait and see. but the (non-ca) claims that he committed fraud by cherrypicking sites is now found to be false. Edit Reason: emphasis that the fraud claims were not from CA I agree it is in the realm of possibilities he just happened to accidentally pick the series with the biggest hockey stick blade from among at least 36 local potential datasets, I mean isn't that exactly what a drunk would do? Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag and the intuitiveness of what really went on simply cannot be buried in jargon. The facts are on the table and I can assure you that the vast majority are going to fall on one side of the line and the most ardent AGW defenders are going to fall on the other. . . .just like they did in the OJ Simpson trial. Sometimes all the evidence in the world is insufficient. socold could always read entire threads at CA to get the facts, but why be confused by facts? www.climateaudit.org/?p=7575Indeed, it seems to me that Briffa did not actually contradict or rebut any specific empirical or statistical observation in any of my Yamal posts nor did he try to defend the aspects of Yamal methodology that were specifically criticised. Briffa's defence was in effect the classic Team defence - "moving on". Briffa argued that they can "get" a Stick from an expanded data set that was neither used in AR4 nor ever previously presented. Obviously, criticisms of the Yamal data set used in AR4 do not necessarily extend to the new data set; it has to be evaluated on its own merit. Equally however, the belated presentation of the "new" data set, whatever its merits may ultimately be, cannot "refute" or "rebut" criticisms of the existing data set. They may ultimately render discussion of the Yamal data set used in AR4 as moot, but they cannot "refute" any valid criticism. And for those who've tracked the Gavin's Guru (Tom P) threads, he was RC's choice to debunk SM. Unfortunately for RC, and Tom P, he was baked pretty bad. www.climateaudit.org/?p=7575#comment-364749socold, in the end SM is going to win this. It may be necessary to hold another Congressional hearing (doubtful with the eco-nuts running the place now), but if you have a good grasp on the history of this, Briffa is gonna lose. BTW, has anyone read about the upside down graph Mann used?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 6, 2009 8:45:13 GMT
He defended the main criticism in my opinion which was that if you use data from a nearby region instead of the data he used, the result is very different from the 20th century. He showed that including all data from both regions and others shows little change in the result. Indeed many tree ring datasets show divergence problems with modern temperature records. Thats why many feel using them is more like reading tea leaves in the bottom of a teacup. They simply are not dependable proxies for temperature. Keep in mind divergent problems where the data actually goes in the opposite direction as the temperature is a good indicator the data can also go in the right direction with excessive gusto. In other words a claim of divergence is not a defense. Further, CA's reconstruction with the combined data did not have a divergent issue. The only reason to pick Briffa's original series over a combined dataset is confirmation bias. Thanks to the instrumental record we know what temperature has done in the past 100 or 50 years. Therefore if that region has shown warming in the instrumental record then any proxy record better show warming too - or else it isn't a good temperature proxy. So what you call "confirmation bias" is actually validation that the proxy matches up with recently observed warming. Anyway, if anything the proxy series with a downturn in the 20th century (the green one) is the odd one out, irregardless of what the instrumental record does:
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 6, 2009 14:20:40 GMT
Thanks to the instrumental record we know what temperature has done in the past 100 or 50 years. Therefore if that region has shown warming in the instrumental record then any proxy record better show warming too - or else it isn't a good temperature proxy. So what you call "confirmation bias" is actually validation that the proxy matches up with recently observed warming. Anyway, if anything the proxy series with a downturn in the 20th century (the green one) is the odd one out, irregardless of what the instrumental record does: That is still confirmation bias, because your bias in eliminating the green series is because the other series give you the result you want. You want the trees at Yamal to be an indicator of temperature and reject the notion that they are not. The point is statistic samples need to be random and if you eliminate any because of the result that is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is kind of nice way to say cherry picking, though cherry picking implies intentional choice and confirmation bias allows for ignorance and stupidity. . . .a conundrum auditors face all the time. Some people just have jobs they should never have had.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 6, 2009 14:28:24 GMT
Thanks to the instrumental record we know what temperature has done in the past 100 or 50 years. Therefore if that region has shown warming in the instrumental record then any proxy record better show warming too - or else it isn't a good temperature proxy. So what you call "confirmation bias" is actually validation that the proxy matches up with recently observed warming. Anyway, if anything the proxy series with a downturn in the 20th century (the green one) is the odd one out, irregardless of what the instrumental record does: That is still confirmation bias, because your bias in eliminating the green series is because the other series give you the result you want. You want the trees at Yamal to be an indicator of temperature and reject the notion that they do not. I see what you are saying, but if the majority do track temperature then I disagree dismissing all of them because one doesn't
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 6, 2009 17:39:22 GMT
That is still confirmation bias, because your bias in eliminating the green series is because the other series give you the result you want. You want the trees at Yamal to be an indicator of temperature and reject the notion that they do not. I see what you are saying, but if the majority do track temperature then I disagree dismissing all of them because one doesn't Perhaps the easiest to understand performing cherry picking without realizing it. rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/There are well over 1000 posts on this subject on Lucia's blog. After a while it's not difficult to sift out the chaff from the wheat.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 6, 2009 18:06:53 GMT
I see what you are saying, but if the majority do track temperature then I disagree dismissing all of them because one doesn't I think more than a majority is needed. Also Yamal is just one area. The nearby Polar Urals which I recall has a larger number of cores and the divergent trees rule in the majority. Keep in mind these new datasets are all lower than the one Briffa used in 2000. Briffa is focusing exclusively on the 2008 datasets (moving on) and as McIntyre states the work being done is much more transparent and therefore much more acceptable as good scientific work. We also have a surge in publications enforcing archiving standards. Steve McIntyre has essentially improved the state of science immensely due to his efforts. Steve should win a prize for this. McIntyre will also be posting a piece of work on these 2008 data sets in a day or so. Therefore, this discussion has just begun.
|
|