|
Post by magellan on Nov 4, 2009 14:33:23 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.htmLOL.... not unlike saying "read IPCC". Some of us have been following the hockey stick for 3+ years and are quite familiar with the inner workings. socold, if you have moderate to advanced math/statistics knowledge, may I suggest wading through Jeff Id's post on Briffa's "response"? Briffa is regirgitating more of the same. noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/fixing-briffas-latest/
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 4, 2009 15:12:48 GMT
LOL.... not unlike saying "read IPCC". This is a bit of a childish dismissal is it not? You asked for "a numerical analysis to bolster his case for Briffa's science" but now you don't seem to want it. My opinion is you don't understand it. Fine, neither do I, but then I haven't said "ClimateAudit posts? LOL ... not unlike saying "read creationist websitees" Actually I have grave doubts that anyone on this forum has followed it in sufficient detail to understand it. I have grave doubts that most of the commenter's at CA understand it. What I think we have is a very expert level discussion going on between McIntyre, Briffa etc, which is impossible for laypeople to follow unless they have spent almost all their spare time reading up on the subject. But what is coming out of it are a load of probably false accusations like "Briffa relies on one tree". Actually I don't have advanced statistical knowledge, nor am I familiar with reconstruction methods. And that prevents me from being able to analyze Jeff Id's posts or ClimateAudit's posts, or Briffas posts. It could be that Briffa's response was wrong. Or it could be that Jeff Id's post is wrong. I cannot even tell what CA has argued in the past and what Briffa has addressed. Are we just seeing a batch of new zombies raised when the previous ones are slain? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 4, 2009 15:45:09 GMT
Have you looked at the data? It is eminently understandable. In the original series YAD06 stands out to even the untrained eye. Thirteen trees do not a world climate proxy make. Further one tree is an outlier in the group. Although a bit daunting noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/fixing-briffas-latest/still pretty understandable.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 4, 2009 16:04:01 GMT
Have you looked at the data? It is eminently understandable. In the original series YAD06 stands out to even the untrained eye. Thirteen trees do not a world climate proxy make. Further one tree is an outlier in the group. Although a bit daunting noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/fixing-briffas-latest/still pretty understandable. There is nothing in that link about a single tree. Either Briffa's response has extinguished that claim, or it still exists. But that post you link to doesn't tell me either way. Briffa's response seems to compare the chronologies from multiple sites, which I assume means they can't all contain the same tree. www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/sensit.htmSo does the claim that it's all based on a single tree still stand?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 4, 2009 16:25:18 GMT
What I think we have is a very expert level discussion going on between McIntyre, Briffa etc, which is impossible for laypeople to follow unless they have spent almost all their spare time reading up on the subject. But what is coming out of it are a load of probably false accusations like "Briffa relies on one tree". LOL! Even Briffa isn't disputing the impact on his original analysis of one tree! He isn't because quite simply he can't! What he is doing in his recent rebuttal is trying to show the tree was right! But even Briffa's latest analysis does not include adequate samples at the point in time the hockey stick blades emerge. Each of this rebuttal analyses needs to be pruned and when you do the blades get cut off. And as JeffID points out he hates even doing this sort of analysis because statistical sampling is really based upon known attributes and it its is known via frequent identified diversion problems that tree rings do not correspond well to temperature.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 4, 2009 19:49:36 GMT
What I think we have is a very expert level discussion going on between McIntyre, Briffa etc, which is impossible for laypeople to follow unless they have spent almost all their spare time reading up on the subject. But what is coming out of it are a load of probably false accusations like "Briffa relies on one tree". LOL! Even Briffa isn't disputing the impact on his original analysis of one tree! He isn't because quite simply he can't! What he is doing in his recent rebuttal is trying to show the tree was right! But even Briffa's latest analysis does not include adequate samples at the point in time the hockey stick blades emerge. Each of this rebuttal analyses needs to be pruned and when you do the blades get cut off. And as JeffID points out he hates even doing this sort of analysis because statistical sampling is really based upon known attributes and it its is known via frequent identified diversion problems that tree rings do not correspond well to temperature. The main original CA complaint centered on this graph Which uses Briffas method on a different but nearby site than Briffa used and finds a disagreement. This suggested Briffas result was not robust, ie using a different set of data from a nearby site instead yielded a different direction in the 20th century. Makes sense to me, although this was actually really a question to Briffa at most, not a "proof Briffa committed fraud". CA has categorically denied Briffa committed fraudBut there is a magic tendency for people who read CA's ponderings to go away assuming fraud has been proven. In fact the tendency is so magical that one wonders if CA posts aren't somehow giving off the impression of fraud accusation by accident. Anyway it was that graph which sparked off all the outright accusations of fraud against Briffa in the Telegraph and others. It was this complaint that Briffa addressed in most detail. There was of course the data release issue, but by all accounts Briffa was not in a position to give the data as he didn't own it and by some accounts the data owned by the Russian author had reached CA back in 2004. But it's not like we are going to hear a retraction from people accusing Briffa of refusing to give out the data. Nevermind I don't care, not many people take op-ed articles in the telegraph seriously anyway. Anyway in Briffa's response he did a further sensitivity test to investigate the above graph from CA. Briffa included all data in the region, both the data from his original study and the data from McIntyre's nearby site as well as other neighboring data. www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/sensit.htmThe result of this larger scale sensitivity analysis including all the extra data supports Briffas previous reconstruction: You only get the black line of the CA sensitivity analysis if you use one specific site. If you pick them all you get the one above. Furthermore Briffa plots all the sites and shows the CA black line one - labelled Schweingruber - is an out-lier. To me this suggests the CA result was not robust rather than Briffa's original result. Of course I do have questions like why the other site would be an outlier, but then that's a question not an "until I get an answer I will assume it's wrong". There are indeed a lot of questions especially for someone like me who has no idea about ring chronologies, etc. Ie there are the questions of how tree ring growth changes over time, questions about the wider region, specific sites, etc. There are obviously a whole host of "arguments" that can be drawn from this stuff. It's a scientific field afterall. But we've seen one question now answered by Briffa. We also learnt for example that he didn't cherrypick sites but had used the data as compiled by the Russian. I can't remember that complaint exactly - it was something like he cherrypicked 5 sites from 12, which was an earlier accusation (again not by CA which categorically denied Briffa was accused of cherypicking, perhaps by CA commenters, but certainly outside CA).
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 4, 2009 20:48:14 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.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 4, 2009 21:26:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 4, 2009 21:35:44 GMT
LOL! Even Briffa isn't disputing the impact on his original analysis of one tree! He isn't because quite simply he can't! What he is doing in his recent rebuttal is trying to show the tree was right! But even Briffa's latest analysis does not include adequate samples at the point in time the hockey stick blades emerge. Each of this rebuttal analyses needs to be pruned and when you do the blades get cut off. And as JeffID points out he hates even doing this sort of analysis because statistical sampling is really based upon known attributes and it its is known via frequent identified diversion problems that tree rings do not correspond well to temperature. Which uses Briffas method on a different but nearby site than Briffa used and finds a disagreement. This suggested Briffas result was not robust, ie using a different set of data from a nearby site instead yielded a different direction in the 20th century. Makes sense to me, although this was actually really a question to Briffa at most, not a "proof Briffa committed fraud". CA has categorically denied Briffa committed fraudBut there is a magic tendency for people who read CA's ponderings to go away assuming fraud has been proven. In fact the tendency is so magical that one wonders if CA posts aren't somehow giving off the impression of fraud accusation by accident. Anyway it was that graph which sparked off all the outright accusations of fraud against Briffa in the Telegraph and others. It was this complaint that Briffa addressed in most detail. There was of course the data release issue, but by all accounts Briffa was not in a position to give the data as he didn't own it and by some accounts the data owned by the Russian author had reached CA back in 2004. But it's not like we are going to hear a retraction from people accusing Briffa of refusing to give out the data. Nevermind I don't care, not many people take op-ed articles in the telegraph seriously anyway. Anyway in Briffa's response he did a further sensitivity test to investigate the above graph from CA. Briffa included all data in the region, both the data from his original study and the data from McIntyre's nearby site as well as other neighboring data. www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/sensit.htmYou only get the black line of the CA sensitivity analysis if you use one specific site. If you pick them all you get the one above. Furthermore Briffa plots all the sites and shows the CA black line one - labelled Schweingruber - is an out-lier. To me this suggests the CA result was not robust rather than Briffa's original result. Of course I do have questions like why the other site would be an outlier, but then that's a question not an "until I get an answer I will assume it's wrong". There are indeed a lot of questions especially for someone like me who has no idea about ring chronologies, etc. Ie there are the questions of how tree ring growth changes over time, questions about the wider region, specific sites, etc. There are obviously a whole host of "arguments" that can be drawn from this stuff. It's a scientific field afterall. But we've seen one question now answered by Briffa. So what anything new have you shown? Briffa admits that each of his new reconstructions are lower than his original. Further they are lower despite how they are all influenced upward by low core counts at the blade end as demonstrated by JeffID. Considering this guy is an expert at tree rings he probably could do a thousand reconstructions. . . .but likely he can't find one higher than his original or I am sure we would have seen it by now. You might not call that fraud, and maybe it isn't from a strict legal point of view. . . .but maybe it should be. Its not very pretty hearing an expert plead ignorance and try to excuse what he did as and attempt to only determine the historical temperature record for a very small area. I mean what interest does a CRU scientist have in small areas in Siberia? Seems rather conspiratorial to then standby and watch the rest of the team build global reconstructions off of it and claim robustness eliminating any ONE reconstruction when there are two such deviant reconstructions as this. No doubt we will hear a million excuses but this is really embarrassing for the science community.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 4, 2009 22:56:45 GMT
socold doesn't seem to understand is not Steve McIntyre's interest to get inside Briffa/Mann/Schmidt/Jones et al's head to determine their motive. That's a job for psychiatrists and legal scholars. He could care less. Their actions speak for themselves. So, when socold posts something in bold like CA has categorically denied Briffa committed fraud those who've been reading his blog for a long time know he doesn't play the same game as RC/Tamino etc. Yet, the evidence SM presents doesn't leave much to the imagination
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 5, 2009 0:43:48 GMT
socold doesn't seem to understand is not Steve McIntyre's interest to get inside Briffa/Mann/Schmidt/Jones et al's head to determine their motive. That's a job for psychiatrists and legal scholars. He could care less. Their actions speak for themselves. So, when socold posts something in bold like CA has categorically denied Briffa committed fraud those who've been reading his blog for a long time know he doesn't play the same game as RC/Tamino etc. Yet, the evidence SM presents doesn't leave much to the imagination That shows the character of Mr. McIntyre. He is questioning the validity of a paper and staying on topic. WE could all learn a lesson from him.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 5, 2009 0:58:30 GMT
socold doesn't seem to understand is not Steve McIntyre's interest to get inside Briffa/Mann/Schmidt/Jones et al's head to determine their motive. That's a job for psychiatrists and legal scholars. He could care less. Their actions speak for themselves. So, when socold posts something in bold like CA has categorically denied Briffa committed fraud those who've been reading his blog for a long time know he doesn't play the same game as RC/Tamino etc. Yet, the evidence SM presents doesn't leave much to the imagination That shows the character of Mr. McIntyre. He is questioning the validity of a paper and staying on topic. WE could all learn a lesson from him. Indeed! Here is how he characterizes what a lot of us quickly call [glow=red,2,300]"cherry picking". [/glow]He goes so far as to allow it to be an unconscious bias. _______________________ "Briffa's explanation of why the Khadyta River data wasn't used is (IMO) an interesting example of confirmation bias. Briffa agreed that there was nothing wrong with including the Khadyta River data in a regional chronology, but explained that this idea simply didn't occur to them. Let me state clearly that I take them at their word and that I don't have any reason to believe (nor do I think) that somewhere at CRU there is a "censored" directory with unreported adverse results with KHAD data together with verification r2 results. On the other hand - and this is the precise point that instigated my Khadyta River analysis - over at Taimyr, where there was a particularly problematic divergence problem, the divergence problem led them to look for nearby data sets even though there was a lot more data at Taimyr than Yamal. At Taimyr, they ended up adding data from up to 400 km away, including from Schweingruber data sets contemporary with Khadyta River. Arguably, Yamal has a "divergence" in the opposite direction: its blade is unreasonably big. But this was the sort of result that they "expected" and they did not "think" about doing the same sort of procedure that they had carried out at Taimyr - look for nearby qualified sites. Had they done so, Khadyta River would have turned up right away for them, as it did for me (once I was aware that they had done this sort of thing at Taimyr.) This seems like precisely the sort of confirmation bias that we've seen over and over again in this field. There seems to be more alertness to problems going the "wrong" way than there is to problems going the "right way". The "residence time" of problems going the "right way" seems to be a lot longer than the "residence time" of problems going the wrong way, imparting a bias in reconstructions at any given time." ___________________________ www.climateaudit.org/?p=7575I doubt anybody could be more succinct and at the same time gentle as any good statistician knows that when you throw the dice and the dice are not loaded you its very unlikely you will roll snake eyes a 6 times in a row. . . .[glow=red,2,300]and that it should be far more true if you are a recognized professional giving consideration to whether your work amounts to a quality effort[/glow].
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 5, 2009 15:20:30 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.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 5, 2009 15:24:24 GMT
socold doesn't seem to understand is not Steve McIntyre's interest to get inside Briffa/Mann/Schmidt/Jones et al's head to determine their motive. That's a job for psychiatrists and legal scholars. He could care less. Their actions speak for themselves. So, when socold posts something in bold like CA has categorically denied Briffa committed fraud those who've been reading his blog for a long time know he doesn't play the same game as RC/Tamino etc. Yet, the evidence SM presents doesn't leave much to the imagination So the accusations of fraud are coming from your imagination... CA has categorically stated that they don't believe Briffa cherrypicked data. They didn't stay silent on it. If you disagree why not go and post on CA - "are you accusing Briffa of fraud?" Good luck
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 5, 2009 15:46:58 GMT
After quick review of the graphs that were not available in 2000 some of us can pick out the stick, but as the supporting data was not available until 2009 and the sample size reported way after the fact, many researchers used the data to produce studies based on the Yamal Briffa study. What an indefensible disaster for science. www.climateaudit.org/?p=7644Of course I am sure that someone either cannot see the stick posted above and maybe thinks that it is OK to not include the data with the study. Ever take a Physics or Chemistry lab? I did the experiment, see the nice graph that I drew, trust me.
|
|