Fleeing Giant Squid

[icefisher]

After Steve McIntrye exposed the ubersmall sampling and single tree dependence on the most used proxy for building the hockeystick to diminish historical temperatures, the hockey team is attempting to move on and in the words of Steve McIntyre:

"As previously noted, the moving-on defence never acknowledges the correctness of criticisms of the old data set; neither do they rebut the criticisms of the old data set. They just "move on" using a cloud of ink as a camouflage, sort of like a giant squid or team of giant squids in flight."

So here is a good article that takes apart the "new chronology" offered up as alternative to the one used over the past 9 years to build the case for global warming.

www.climateaudit.org/?p=7720#more-7720[/img]

In Briffa's own words CRU "stressed" the importance of homogeneity in their work and in fact claimed that McIntyre's choice of a substitute population may have been inappropriate.
However, Briffa provided no analysis, beyond an already falsified process of rejecting populations that do not correspond to an expected response.

It seems the dendro community is somewhat bereft of tools for testing populations for homogeneity, but McIntyre was able to find one used by Esper for rejecting chronologies of trees for use in RCS reconstructions.

Here are the results of using the Esper tools:

Homogeneity result of Briffa selected living trees archive with the subfossil archive of older trees used in both the original and new studies by CRU:


Homogeneity result of McIntyre selected living trees with same subfossil archive of older trees.

[nautonnier]

Strange that the arguable proxy records from a very small group of trees on a northern peninsula can be taken as a proxy for the entire world temperatures; whereas the actual temperature records from UK and mainland Europe and historical records and art are not proof that the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age were world wide events.

Those twenty trees must be really special - even if they are not statistically significant

[sigurdur]

Briffa's paper is garbage, all papers building on that garbage are garbage. It is that simple.
I find it hard to believe that there is even an arguement from the scientific side. Have they really sunk so low?

[sigurdur]

Nov 12, 2009 18:32:28 GMT nautonnier said:

Strange that the arguable proxy records from a very small group of trees on a northern peninsula can be taken as a proxy for the entire world temperatures; whereas the actual temperature records from UK and mainland Europe and historical records and art are not proof that the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age were world wide events.

Those twenty trees must be really special - even if they are not statistically significant

I do think he was only trying to show a proxy temp for that 400 square kilometers. IT obviously had no standing on world wide temps.

[nautonnier]

Nov 12, 2009 18:42:23 GMT sigurdur said:

Nov 12, 2009 18:32:28 GMT nautonnier said:

Strange that the arguable proxy records from a very small group of trees on a northern peninsula can be taken as a proxy for the entire world temperatures; whereas the actual temperature records from UK and mainland Europe and historical records and art are not proof that the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age were world wide events.

Those twenty trees must be really special - even if they are not statistically significant

I do think he was only trying to show a proxy temp for that 400 square kilometers. IT obviously had no standing on world wide temps.

And the citations in other papers all acknowledge that limitation do they? And he corrected them if they didn't provide the limitations? It is the use by citations that I was talking of have you ever seen that caveat on the threads here? e.g. "well it was only the Yamal peninsula that had those temperatures and the global temperatures cannot be inferred from them."

[sigurdur]

Nov 12, 2009 19:02:16 GMT nautonnier said:

Nov 12, 2009 18:42:23 GMT sigurdur said:

I do think he was only trying to show a proxy temp for that 400 square kilometers. IT obviously had no standing on world wide temps.

And the citations in other papers all acknowledge that limitation do they? And he corrected them if they didn't provide the limitations? It is the use by citations that I was talking of have you ever seen that caveat on the threads here? e.g. "well it was only the Yamal peninsula that had those temperatures and the global temperatures cannot be inferred from them."

No I haven't seen that limitation, but it should go without exception. IF a scientist used that paper as a basis for anything other than that small area, that is clue number one that the resulting paper is worthless as well as the author doesn't understand scienctific analysis.

[stevenotsteve]

I present my AGW Briffa paper.

But Mr Briffa, this is a Turd!


It may look like a turd but bear with me. Now I will rub it with my magic Brillo/Briffa pad and just look at the difference.



Wow! That is amazing. It's a Diamond.

But why does it still smell like S**t.

We are still working on that one.

End of AGW lesson.