|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 17:19:39 GMT
Have you read Briffa's study? Yes I have and he reaches some wayyyyy out conclusions. That is my point. I dismissed it after I had read it oh so many years ago as being flawed. If you read it then how on Earth did you arrive at this summary: "Briffa's study attempted to show the temp trend in a small area. That is all his study is applicable to."
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 3, 2009 17:19:40 GMT
Icefisher, If they did not "plan for" natural variations, how come most of the models exhibit variations that can result in periods of cooling or very little warming over periods of 10 years or more. Remarkably, having just checked, even Hansen Scenario A projection done in the 1980s (the high emissions scenario green curve) has an 11 year period of very little warming (entirely coincidentally, the period is 1998-2008): Because you keep saying stuff that is completely unjustifiable, we never get very far with this discussion. Who is the bozo now? Unjustifiable? If you want to compare minimum 10 year trends, why don't you figure out what the minimum trend in Hansen's 30 year old analysis (that he later abandoned for more aggressive predictions) subtract it from the the minimum observed trends, multiple the result by 10 to convert it to a century figure and subtract it from the century predictions we have been talking about. Don't just bring a picture in here with a ridiculous comparison and not quantify it. That is what you always do as you qualitiatively select AGW then assume its going to be tragic.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 17:24:00 GMT
Socold fraud is trying to pass off a single tree as evidence of the hockey stick, pretending its a bigger study, and spending what? 6 years? in a slow speed bronco chase trying to keep from being found out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Truth here doesn't matter if he is right or wrong. . . .its still fraud. I assume you therefore have the answers to the following points. Please explain. What needs to be explained? "McIntyre's use of the data from a single, more spatially restricted site, to represent recent tree growth over the wider region, and his exclusion of the data from the other available sites, likely represents a biased reconstruction of tree growth. McIntyre's sensitivity analysis has little implication, either for the interpretation of the Yamal chronology or for other proxy studies that make use of it." Well it is a defense, anyone can see that. I think the words you were trying to find were "I have no response to it" "A reworked chronology, based on additional data, including those used in McIntyre's analysis, is similar to our previously published chronologies" contradicts the idea that his chronology was flawed and was based on a single tree. Even McIntyre doesn't use the word "cherrypick" or accuse Briffa of fraud. My thinking is that if I start to look at this subject a lot of posters on this board are going to have to start looking at it for the first time too..
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 3, 2009 17:26:14 GMT
Yes I have and he reaches some wayyyyy out conclusions. That is my point. I dismissed it after I had read it oh so many years ago as being flawed. If you read it then how on Earth did you arrive at this summary: "Briffa's study attempted to show the temp trend in a small area. That is all his study is applicable to." The small area we are talking about here is effectively inside the trunk of a single tree. www.climateaudit.org/?p=7241Are you trying to tell us that Briffa would accept such a piece of work from one of his own students as a regional temperature proxy?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 3, 2009 17:33:50 GMT
Yes I have and he reaches some wayyyyy out conclusions. That is my point. I dismissed it after I had read it oh so many years ago as being flawed. If you read it then how on Earth did you arrive at this summary: "Briffa's study attempted to show the temp trend in a small area. That is all his study is applicable to." Now you are getting my point. And I did misthink-type. ON the whole he was attempting to dispute previous temperature reconstructions. But his methodology, even at that time was clearly in error. That is what my main point was and why I dismissed that paper at that time. What he was proposing defied much more widespread proxy data. It has basically come full circle as studies done worldwide show a MWP which only show his conclusions to be in effect....wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 3, 2009 17:39:09 GMT
If you read it then how on Earth did you arrive at this summary: "Briffa's study attempted to show the temp trend in a small area. That is all his study is applicable to." Now you are getting my point. And I did misthink-type. ON the whole he was attempting to dispute previous temperature reconstructions. But his methodology, even at that time was clearly in error. That is what my main point was and why I dismissed that paper at that time. What he was proposing defied much more widespread proxy data. It has basically come full circle as studies done worldwide show a MWP which only show his conclusions to be in effect....wrong. And now my mind is curious again, so I will have to re-read it. Memory can be biased....at least for older fellers.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 20:09:31 GMT
If you read it then how on Earth did you arrive at this summary: "Briffa's study attempted to show the temp trend in a small area. That is all his study is applicable to." The small area we are talking about here is effectively inside the trunk of a single tree. www.climateaudit.org/?p=7241Are you trying to tell us that Briffa would accept such a piece of work from one of his own students as a regional temperature proxy? Re-read the climateaudit post, it doesn't say that at all. Also see another part of Briffas response: www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/sensit.htm
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 4, 2009 2:09:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 4, 2009 2:17:22 GMT
Yes I have and he reaches some wayyyyy out conclusions. That is my point. I dismissed it after I had read it oh so many years ago as being flawed. If you read it then how on Earth did you arrive at this summary: "Briffa's study attempted to show the temp trend in a small area. That is all his study is applicable to." YAD06 - the Most Influential Tree in the Worldwww.climateaudit.org/?p=7241
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 4, 2009 2:48:04 GMT
Icefisher, If they did not "plan for" natural variations, how come most of the models exhibit variations that can result in periods of cooling or very little warming over periods of 10 years or more. Remarkably, having just checked, even Hansen Scenario A projection done in the 1980s (the high emissions scenario green curve) has an 11 year period of very little warming (entirely coincidentally, the period is 1998-2008): Because you keep saying stuff that is completely unjustifiable, we never get very far with this discussion. Who is the bozo now? I know its fun to throw epithets about - and we have discussed these AR4 model diagrams before - but perhaps you would care to overlay UAH or HadCrut on the AR4 graphic to show how accurate the models are?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 4, 2009 9:49:56 GMT
nautonnier,
Perhaps you would like to discuss whether icefisher's suggestion that natural variation wasn't considered till recently is supported by the fact that a 20-odd year-old model run with high CO2 shows natural variation of a similar kind to what is observed now.
I was going to pick out the similar plot in AR4 (which was published in 2007), but since Icefisher's statement claimed that natural variation was a recent addition to models to deal with the recent alleged cooling I thought I'd go back to earlier pre-IPCC projections.
PS I assumed Icefisher likes "epithets" as he uses them a lot.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 4, 2009 12:14:24 GMT
nautonnier, Perhaps you would like to discuss whether icefisher's suggestion that natural variation wasn't considered till recently is supported by the fact that a 20-odd year-old model run with high CO2 shows natural variation of a similar kind to what is observed now. Your running like a scared deer Steve! I asked you to quantify the similarity, adjust it to a century scale and subtract it from the century long estimate of warming from the IPCC and then tell us just how similar it is. AGW does not stand up to actually quantifying anything. Only with smoke and mirrors does it amount to natural variation of the scale we are currently experiencing. You are getting desperate Steve looking for any bump in the data to try to argue they considered natural variations. I was going to pick out the similar plot in AR4 (which was published in 2007), but since Icefisher's statement claimed that natural variation was a recent addition to models to deal with the recent alleged cooling I thought I'd go back to earlier pre-IPCC projections. PS I assumed Icefisher likes "epithets" as he uses them a lot. LOL! Again you have to make up stuff I said. I never claimed natural variation was a recent addition to models. As far as I am concerned they still are not including it. Obviously they have to incorporate the recent actual temperature record in new model runs. But I am sure thats only because its pretty difficult to con the public with a burled tree ring series as a temperature proxy when you have some satellites looking down and recording the actual global temperatures.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 4, 2009 12:29:05 GMT
"Conclusions: There is no sign whasoever of a Hockey Stick shape with serious uptick in the twentieth century, in the thermometer records. Yet these records are clearly very consistent with each other, no matter how long the record or how cold, high, or maritime the locality, with a distance span of over a thousand miles. Neither does the Hockey Stick consistently show in the treerings except in the case of a single tree. Even with thermometer records that are incomplete and suffering other problems, the "robust" conclusion is - "Warmist" treering proxy temperature evidence is falsified directly by local thermometer records." Like Steve, Socold cannot bring a numerical analysis to bolster his case for Briffa's science. Yet the net is full of quantitative analyses showing the scam for what it is. He and Steve will instead continue to rely on weaselly words and golden idols.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 4, 2009 13:10:54 GMT
The statement you had tried to connect two separate issues. Obviously you don't realise they are separate issues.
You are talking about the warming since WWII - the lion's share of warming is likely to be due to CO2, and most of the changes in the models has been related to getting more accurate data on CO2 and aerosol forcing. So this quote's reference to modifcations in the historical temperature record to fit to the models is not clear. I think your recollection is wrong or confused.
I lost interest in this argument when I realised that it doesn't tell me anything about whether or not the MWP was globally warmer than now. I'm not terribly impressed by "quantitative analyses" on "the net". Publish and be damned I say.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 4, 2009 13:19:20 GMT
"Conclusions: There is no sign whasoever of a Hockey Stick shape with serious uptick in the twentieth century, in the thermometer records. Yet these records are clearly very consistent with each other, no matter how long the record or how cold, high, or maritime the locality, with a distance span of over a thousand miles. Neither does the Hockey Stick consistently show in the treerings except in the case of a single tree. Even with thermometer records that are incomplete and suffering other problems, the "robust" conclusion is - "Warmist" treering proxy temperature evidence is falsified directly by local thermometer records." Like Steve, Socold cannot bring a numerical analysis to bolster his case for Briffa's science. Yet the net is full of quantitative analyses showing the scam for what it is. He and Steve will instead continue to rely on weaselly words and golden idols. Because you keep ignoring it: www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/sensit.htm
|
|