archive-org.com » ORG » C » CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG

Total: 491

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Jacoby #1: A "Few Good" Series « Climate Audit
    insect infestation wind or ice storm etc that disturb the trees Or there can be ecological factors that influence growth We try to avoid the problems but sometimes cannot and it is in data processing that the non climatic disturbances are revealed We strive to develop and use the best data possible The criteria are good common low and high frequency variation absence of evidence of disturbance either observed at the site or in the data and correspondence or correlation with local or regional temperature If a chronology does not satisfy these criteria we do not use it The quality can be evaluated at various steps in the development process As we are mission oriented we do not waste time on further analyses if it is apparent that the resulting chronology would be of inferior quality If we get a good climatic story from a chronology we write a paper using it That is our funded mission It does not make sense to expend efforts on marginal or poor data and it is a waste of funding agency and taxpayer dollars The rejected data are set aside and not archived As we progress through the years from one computer medium to another the unused data may be neglected Some researchers feel that if you gather enough data and n approaches infinity all noise will cancel out and a true signal will come through That is not true I maintain that one should not add data without signal It only increases error bars and obscures signal As an ex marine I refer to the concept of a few good men A lesser amount of good data is better without a copious amount of poor data stirred in Those who feel that somewhere we have the dead sea scrolls or an apocrypha of good dendroclimatic data that they can discover are doomed to disappointment There is none Fifteen years is not a delay It is a time for poorer quality data to be neglected and not archived Fortunately our improved skills and experience have brought us to a better recent record than the 10 out of 36 I firmly believe we serve funding agencies and taxpayers better by concentrating on analyses and archiving of good data rather than preservation of poor data I guess I won t be getting the data It would be my position that if they picked 10 of 36 sites they used all 36 sites in their study Imagine this argument in the hands of a drug trial Let s suppose that they studied 36 patients and picked the patients with the 10 best responses and then refused to produce data on the other 26 patients on the grounds that they didn t discuss these other patients in their study It s too ridiculous Like this Like Loading Related This entry was written by Steve McIntyre posted on Feb 6 2005 at 7 48 AM filed under Archiving Jacoby Multiproxy Studies Proxies and tagged gaspe jacoby Bookmark the permalink Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed Bre X 2 the Skeptical Geologist Thompson 1 Inconsistent Dunde Versions 8 Comments per Posted Feb 6 2005 at 5 47 PM Permalink hi there the link to the complete letter doesn t work yours etc Steve McIntyre Posted Feb 8 2005 at 8 55 AM Permalink This has been fixed Steve fFreddy Posted Jul 2 2005 at 9 24 AM Permalink You have to wonder what he perceived as his mission The strong implication was that it was to achieve the hockey stick result His colonel should explain to him that a scientist s task is to find the truth whatever it may be As of 2 July the link is not working again fFreddy Posted Jul 2 2005 at 9 30 AM Permalink Sorry that referes to the Hockey Team link at the top TCO Posted Aug 9 2005 at 8 47 AM Permalink A few good men is a rational policy if the reasons for data exclusion make sense If you exclusde data because you can prove a confounding factor then that is reasonable although including it and doing multiple regression might still be superior However if you exclude the data because they don t fit the story then that is not reasonable Of course if that is happening one may never see it for instance if there is not throwarw comment about the 36 sites looked at In this case the only way to go after it is to replicate experrimental work Steve McIntyre Posted Aug 9 2005 at 8 57 AM Permalink The only reason that has been provided is whether the data has an upward 20th century trend But if you have highly autocorrelated data a certain percentage will have trends just from the statistics The issue become statistical and you need to see all the data just as mining promoters have to report bad drill holes and drug companies have to report cases where the drug didn t work There is NO justification for Jacoby s behavior and the acquiescence of all levels of climate scientists journals NSF and peers is a disgrace He s refused to even identify the location of the Gaspe site when I wanted to arrange for re sampling TCO Posted Aug 9 2005 at 9 12 AM Permalink If you really want to resample pick your own site Have a person in the field presumably the one who will do the sampling advise on relevant conditions to make it meaningful If your results differ you won t be able to determine what mistake was made in the earlier work But you will be able to show that a seperate good study came up with a different answer TCO Posted Sep 11 2005 at 2 46 PM Permalink The jarhead s paper should not have been accepted The reviewers should have asked the obvious question you are asking Doesn t

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/06/jacoby-1-a-few-good-series/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive


  • 1999_darrigo_memoir excerpt « Climate Audit
    Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-by-darrigo/1999_darrigo_memoir-excerpt/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • coppermine_and_thelon « Climate Audit
    David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-by-darrigo/coppermine_and_thelon/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 2006_location_map « Climate Audit
    Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-by-darrigo/2006_location_map/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 2006_CNWT_annotated « Climate Audit
    Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-by-darrigo/2006_cnwt_annotated/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • CNWT_reconciliation « Climate Audit
    2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000 NOTICE Click on the Reply link to respond to

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-by-darrigo/cnwt_reconciliation-2/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • cnwt_compare « Climate Audit
    David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-by-darrigo/cnwt_compare/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Cherry-Picking by D’Arrigo « Climate Audit
    they do this kind of stuff and it gets accepted with a straight face Hey it s SCIENCE 97 agree Jit Posted Jan 29 2016 at 2 33 PM Permalink Reply Do the used Thelon cores resemble the discarded ones I mean do the used cores have the divergence problem that the overall reconstruction has or do they buck the trend If they are representative of the rest of the Thelon 20th pattern it seems strange to discard them equally if they are anomalous among Thelon cores the suspicion would be they were selected for that reason Steve McIntyre Posted Jan 29 2016 at 3 15 PM Permalink Reply Good question Here s a comparison of STD chronologies for the 12 Thelon update cores black used in CNWT vs one of the 351 Thelon update cores not used red The 12 included Thelon cores do not carry forward to the present but end in 1925 on an uptick It would be interesting to know why they were included MrPete Posted Jan 30 2016 at 10 55 AM Permalink Reply It s clear why they were selected They contain the signal and the rest of course are just noise It would be great to encapsulate this new perspective in a telecommunications filter chip A patentable advance I am sure I wonder if such an illustration might help scientists such as these begin to comprehend what it takes to create a truly effective analytical paradigm In theory at least the selection and analytical methods could be encapsulated in a chip and duplicated charles the moderator Posted Jan 30 2016 at 11 08 PM Permalink Here is the filter you are looking for Thanks CTM David Jay Posted Jan 31 2016 at 6 35 AM Permalink YOu re familiar with DSP chips welcome to the EASP chip Ex Ante Signal Processing markbul Posted Jan 29 2016 at 3 46 PM Permalink Reply Deathbed archiving Good God does it really take that to share data Steven Mosher Posted Jan 31 2016 at 4 58 PM Permalink Reply cant take it with you mpainter Posted Jan 31 2016 at 6 29 PM Permalink Reply Apparently he managed to take some of it with him From Steve McIntyre in the post The archive regrettably continues to be incomplete for example MXD data from Labrador later used in Wilson et al 2016 was withheld from the 2014 archive and has not been archived in connection with the later publication David Brewer Posted Jan 29 2016 at 4 57 PM Permalink Reply Highest temperatures in the whole period at the end of the 16th century Tell it to the marines What the graphs really show is hundreds of years of red noise You also wonder why these people even bother to cherry pick when they clearly know that temperature and tree ring widths aren t linearly correlated anyway As D Arrigo put it in 1999 It would be interesting and useful to see how the trees have been faring over this recent period Are the warmer temperatures spurring more growth Or is the warming increasing evapotranspiration in the area creating drier conditions that stress the trees and stunt their growth Geddit She knows there is warming If the tree rings have got wider that means warming if they have got narrower that also means warming So why bother doctoring the selection of the tree rings in the first place And people make careers out of this sort of mental mush Careers in science mpainter Posted Jan 29 2016 at 6 10 PM Permalink Reply Yes that is the point Quite successful careers Tells us a lot doesn t it bit chilly Posted Jan 30 2016 at 12 19 PM Permalink Reply indeed it does the tenacity of mr mcintyre is utterly astounding very very impressive mpainter Posted Feb 1 2016 at 11 19 AM Permalink Reply D Arrigo expresses the intention to gather data and investigate the posit that given warming there are two alternative hypotheses 1 growth is augmented or 2 growth is stunted She wants to determine which of the alternatives obtain She collected copious data from two populations but these showed opposite signs Here she is faced with inconclusive data She might drop the investigation as unfruitful or she might consider another hypothesis i e warming could have diverse effects on growth or none or other factors came into play What she must not do according to the tenets of rigorous science is discard one dataset and base her conclusions on the other But this is what she did maxberan Posted Feb 1 2016 at 1 28 PM Permalink Reply What you are asking for there is the job of a tree physiologists not a climatologist Climate science poses the question the other way round given a wide or narrow tree rings was the weather warmer or cooler in that year This distinction at the root of the Bayes formula is like the so called prosecutor fallacy conflating the two probabilities a given the guilt of the prisoner what is the probability that he was near the scene of the crime quite high compared with b given the prisoner was near the scene of the crime what is the chance he was guilty much lower In fact the issue is treated not in a bottom up fashion but empirically much as if one were calibrating an instrument whose sensor tree rings is imperfectly controlled by the variable of interest temperature but might exhibit a sufficiently powerful correlation to be useful as a thermometer Indeed that is why they are called proxies No harm in an empirical approach but of course it no way lets the climatologist off the hook of establishing the calibration honestly Data dredging in all its guises plays havoc with the degrees of freedom when testing for significance seldom accounted for with any rigour It comes in when adjusting for tree age for serial correlation for selecting trees selecting time slices pooling data and extracting modes of variation through principal components analysis mpainter Posted Feb 1 2016 at 2 18 PM Permalink I did not mean to be asking Please see the quote of d Arrigo above at D Brewer taken from the post She poses the problem re stated by me You seem to be saying that she lacks the competence to address it no tree physiologist I do not disagree with such an assessment and I agree with your assessment of the fallacy of their approach I find it strange that their field the study of tree rings and the factors of tree growth should exclude competence in botany and particularly tree physiology Surely they are conversant in this but perhaps not The above d Arrigo statement is pregnant with implications reflecting on the faults of their methods Follow the Money Posted Jan 29 2016 at 5 06 PM Permalink Reply Inclusion of the QUE Quebec in D Arrigo 2006 raises ringer suspicions to me In the paper the relevant graph indicates recent curves quite like the usual temperature reconstructions plastered onto spaghetti graphs More than the paper s other NA series Further the paper s map situates the QUE trees nowhere near a tree line rather near the St Laurence River in the south of the province The paper itself stresses the ring measurements are from high elevation and latitudinal treeline trees So we are not dealing with Australian Climate Science Ltd here wherein almost any tree can be a treemometer But what of the QUE series I could not find location coordinates in the paper s supporting information If the QUE series is not treeline its inclusion would be quite suspect in the purview of a paper that specifies the use of treeline specimens Was the QUE series produced pursuant to a relevant different paper that opined on their significance Stephen McIntyre Posted Jan 29 2016 at 6 34 PM Permalink Reply The Quebec site in D Arrigo et al is the Gaspe site which has been written about at length in connection with Mann et al 1998 together with an update that was withheld for many years The precise location of the Gaspe trees is not known but there is some high country in Gaspe The trees themselves are cedars which form stripbark under stress and my guess is that there is some stripbark in the Gaspe sample opluso Posted Jan 30 2016 at 6 36 AM Permalink Reply Although the precise location of the trees may not be available the general lat long location for three Gaspe tree ring records is provided at the paleoclimatology link for ncdc noaa Selecting tree ring data on the global mapping system and zooming into the Gaspe penninsula shows three closely spaced locations in the Riviere Bonaventure QC region http gis ncdc noaa gov map viewer app cdo cfg paleo theme paleo layers 0000000000000001 The lat long locations are given as St Anne River Cook 48 58 65 92 Ed s Gaspe Cook 48 533 65 916 New Gaspe Jacoby 48 5 65 9 It is possible to use Google Maps to locate approximately lat long positions Clicking around for the most precise of the three positions Ed s Gaspe pointed to an area about 200 meters northwest of the end of what appeared to be a J shaped logging or tree farm access road about 35 40 km north as the crow flies of the point where Quebec 299 intersects with 132 near New Richmond https goo gl maps M8suo4RqT332 Follow the Money Posted Jan 30 2016 at 4 28 PM Permalink Reply Thank you much opluso for the map Definitely not treeline specimens No treelines to be seen and nowhere near the latitudinal treeline edge of far north Quebec Steve I remember reading about Gaspe I recall the stripbark matter and perhaps I conflated Gaspe with the White Mountain bristlecones who also have stripbark issues but also are a treeline species by nature I suppose I read Quebec in the past and assumed north Quebec at its tree line My point putting aside the stripbark and other interpretive issues of Gaspe the inclusion or consideration of any Gaspe rings in D Arrigo 2006 should be viewed as a failure of the paper on a geographic basis The paper clearly states only treeline specimens were used Tree ring width and limited density Luckman and Wilson 2005 data derived from living and subfossil wood of coniferous tree species were compiled from 66 high elevation and latitudinal treeline North American and Eurasian sites I do not remember if the geographic disqualification of the Gaspe data for the purposes of D Arrigo had been addressed Looking at the present map you provide above QUE stuck out like a sore thumb for me Steve the precise location of the Gaspe series is a mystery I asked D Arrigo and JAcoby for a precise location to permit re surveying They refused to provide it I recall that there is some high ground in the Gaspe the northern extension of the Appalachians and it is possible that these trees came from an altitudinal treeline See https alavigne net Outdoors ImageGallery 2006 08 05 08 NewBrunswick for hike to altitudinal treeline in that latitude at 4000 feet But it s not at all clear There is also some evidence that they didn t opluso Posted Jan 30 2016 at 5 23 PM Permalink Google maps offers a terrain option under the menu selections Using this gives you a topo map and from the link I provided it looks like the Ed s Gaspe location is above the 400 meter elevation contour close to 500 m MikeN Posted Feb 1 2016 at 10 56 AM Permalink Reply Steve located some trees from the original study when he wanted to try and update a reconstruction Perhaps someone should go hunting in Quebec davideisenstadt Posted Jan 29 2016 at 8 24 PM Permalink Reply Steve Thank you for the cogent analysis It really is this bad apparently Most of the really horrific outcome that arise from misuse of statistical analysis involve ignoring the most basic assumptions that form the basis for the entire enterprise Ignoring for example that the behavior of group of sub prime mortgages bundled into CDOs would most likely not be independent of each other set investors up with a bunch of crappy investments that were more likely to perform poorly in an economic downturn the covariance of the underlying mortgages increased risk not decreased it and one didn t have to be econometrician in order to anticipate this outcome Ex post selection of data without clear rational protocols established before data are collected and analyzed is unforgivable and should be intolerable It boggles the mind NeedleFactory Posted Jan 29 2016 at 9 02 PM Permalink Reply If authors will go to such lengths to cherry pick for certain results what prevents their archiving just the portion of the data that supports those results opluso Posted Jan 29 2016 at 10 23 PM Permalink Reply It would be unseemly to suggest that professional ego and personal greed have anything to do with a decision to cherry pick data when the need arises The millions of dollars at stake are simply a coincidence From D Arrigo 2006 We thank the National Science Foundation Earth System History program and the NOAA Climate Change and Detection program for funding this research An example from the NSF Grant archives June 1 2004 ARLINGTON Va The National Science Foundation NSF has awarded the Tree Ring Laboratory of Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory LDEO Columbia University a 5 5 million grant to study one of the largest climate systems affecting the globe Asian monsoons The five year study will apply the science of tree ring analysis dendrochronology to key questions regarding the processes that drive development of the monsoon and its various characteristics through different regions This is the single largest award for tree ring research from NSF and represents an aggressive investment in tree ring research The tree ring reconstructions of Asian monsoon climate dynamics project is led by scientists Edward Cook Rosanne D Arrigo Brendan Buckley and Gordon Jacoby all of LDEO NSF AntonyIndia Posted Jan 30 2016 at 2 30 AM Permalink Reply Nothing visible was published with that US 5 5 million grant from 2004 onwards I guess they could n t find any teak wood hockey sticks Tree growth in a monsoon climate is mostly depending on rainfall not so much on temperature I have a teak tree in my garden http www ldeo columbia edu tree ring laboratory tree ring research asian monsoon asian monsoon references davideisenstadt Posted Jan 30 2016 at 6 09 AM Permalink Reply well there is this http www sciencemag org content 328 5977 486 short But one paper for 5 5 million does seem a bit sparse charles the moderator Posted Jan 30 2016 at 6 37 AM Permalink Are you Shuklish You don t look Shuklish Richard Drake Posted Jan 30 2016 at 6 39 AM Permalink Bit of a washout AntonyIndia Posted Jan 30 2016 at 9 05 AM Permalink That study uses tree rings not as thermometers but as pluvio meters Here is another one http www pnas org content 107 15 6748 full opluso Posted Jan 30 2016 at 10 40 AM Permalink That study uses tree rings not as thermometers but as pluvio meters I m not sure the authors of that study had received the message that climate was perfectly stable until major fossil fuel burning began They may want to reconsider their conclusions sarc off verdeviewer Posted Jan 30 2016 at 12 08 PM Permalink Reply According to this http www nsf gov awardsearch showAward AWD ID 0402474 that 5 5 million grant produced 61 papers and 3 books that are apparently more concerned with ENSO and drought than AGW AntonyIndia Posted Jan 31 2016 at 12 43 AM Permalink Reply Good find and good conclusion Now DÁrrigo et al are back on the CAGW tree temperature track and in Mongolia they found a recent up tick but also conformations for both the LIA and the MCA http www sciencedirect com science article pii S0277379115002255 mpainter Posted Jan 31 2016 at 1 27 AM Permalink The study is paywalled naturally From the abstract Recent warming 2000 2005 exceeds that from any other time and is concurrent with and likely exacerbated the impact of extreme drought 1999 2002 that resulted in massive livestock loss across Mongolia Extreme drought and warming What do the tree rings record Not the drought narrow rings but the warming wider rings So in this study trees are once again thermometers not rain gauges Methinks however that I detect a disparity between results wider rings and growth conditions extreme drought One would expect that extreme drought would be the determinative factor of growth bernie1815 Posted Jan 30 2016 at 7 36 AM Permalink Reply Steve Another astonishingly powerful coherent and penetrating analysis that poses some really tough questions to the scientists involved Have you heard from Rob Wilson on this Steve Posted Jan 30 2016 at 8 43 AM Permalink Reply The D arrigo et al location map shows quite a few sites from which cores were taken While I am quite miffed by their exclusion of data from thelon what impact does this have if you consider the work As a whole If none of the other core sites show this same discrepancy this is a one off interesting to note but of no consequence to the results of the complete body of work Or am I missing something here Steve The complete body of work is very contaminated by ex post selection of sites and data snooping If you re read the various posts on Yamal Polar Urals you will see that the controversy was about ex post selection of sites which yielded a HS when another seemingly equally plausible selection did not After controversy arose Briffa and coauthors spent three years trying to figure out how to salvage a sort of stick eventually finding a combination of sites that sort of worked with Gavin Schmidt at realclimate declaring that other combinations of sites were WRONG Many of the canonical regional chronologies were also done by Jacoby and D Arrigo Is it plausible that this is the only location in which they did this sort of thing I don t think so I have some work in progress on Gulf of Alaska and divergence depends on which modern sites are chosen Nor do people in the field see anything incorrect about ex post selection of sites that go up to circumvent the divergence problem A number of articles based on such practices have passed peer review Imagine if such practices were embedded in portfolio management advertising mpainter Posted Jan 30 2016 at 9 08 AM Permalink Reply You seem to be missing a lot This matter has a history follow the links provided by Steve McIntyre in the post Read his email exchange with Cook Jacoby s release of the data just prior his death after refusing to do this for nine years is tantamount to snip Steve Posted Jan 30 2016 at 9 42 AM Permalink Reply Mpainter I m not missing that at all I have read the whole story including yamal Simple question could be served with a simple answer While I find even this single example deplorable and beyond belief this passes for good science again what impact does this have on the complete work If it has none than I can keep this gaff in perspective snip I agree with the snipped point and have also snipped the reader s comment that you objected to I agree there was a delay and obfuscation in not providing data to Mac but it could also be having delayed as long as they could as Mac mentioned they were required to archive data per their contractual obligations Steve McIntyre Posted Jan 30 2016 at 11 06 AM Permalink OVer the years NSF has been extraordinarily lax in requiring authors to archive data Even before Climate Audit right at the start of my interest in the field I was extremely frustrated at the failure of Jacoby and others to archive data used in prominent studies but even more frustrated by the complicity of NSF in non archiving I wrote a detailed complaint to NSF in 2004 including Lonnie Thompson as well as Jacoby NSF totally blew me off saying that the authors had archived data which was true The problem was that their archive was incomplete and did not include data relevant to analyses I don t know that the eventual Jacoby archiving was required under his original grants They obtained special funding in 2012 to archive data and the 2014 archiving seems to have been in response to that Frustratingly it remains incomplete Lonnie Thompson and Ellen Mosley Thompson are other serial non archivers incomplete archivers of the same vintage Given the supposed importance of their ice core drilling you d think that they would want to leave the most detailed possible archive of data as a memorial of their work But instead they ve provided sketchy and incomplete archives even after complaints They too are getting older mpainter Posted Jan 30 2016 at 11 34 AM Permalink Reply A twinge of conscience Jeff Alberts Posted Jan 30 2016 at 11 01 AM Permalink Reply Seems to me that in the case of Yamal it s not just ex post selection but overweighting of one core to essentially override any others in the selection Like Mann s extreme overweighting of Greybill Bristlecones to the exclusion of just about all else Steve you re misdiagnosing Yamal There wasn t any Mannian weighting at Yamal The issue in the original chronology was that there were relatively few late cores and that the location from which they came was inhomogeneous with subfossil cores davideisenstadt Posted Jan 30 2016 at 11 32 AM Permalink Reply I have noted before that for these researchers each tree provides its own pattern of variance and their primary trick is to weight and sum them in different ways until they get a combination that looks something like recent climatic behavior its more of a parlor trick than anything else Back in the day we called this enterprise kitchen sink econometrics Jeff Alberts Posted Jan 30 2016 at 8 47 PM Permalink Reply Hmm ok Well then I guess I fail to see any climatic much less climactic significance to Briffa s Yamal series davideisenstadt Posted Jan 30 2016 at 11 26 AM Permalink Reply The fact that these scientists dont understand the implication of ex post selection of data without a prior articulated protocol for discarding data reveals them to be at best innumerate Simply put they should be denied access to the tools of applied statistical analysis until they can show competence at the same level as say an undergraduate social work student This is obscene and not in good way Craig Loehle Posted Jan 30 2016 at 10 34 AM Permalink Reply The strange logic seems to be that non responders have something wrong with them and can thus be dropped But if most of your trees are not responding to climate the whole enterprise is undermined It would be like only selecting veterans with PTSD and dropping the non responders to war time stress and then extrapolating their health behaviors to the entire group Steve I prefer the example of portfolio managers choosing their portfolios ex post to circumvent the divergence problem MrPete Posted Jan 30 2016 at 11 02 AM Permalink Reply I ve seen this If you re a non responder to stress then you must be bottling up a huge stress internally etc etc etc I was given a prescription for a comprehensive neuro psych evaluation once on the basis that I couldn t possibly be the relatively calm peaceful person I appear to be There was just too much major stress in my life for that to be true I switched to a less antsy doctor Jeff Alberts Posted Jan 30 2016 at 10 58 AM Permalink Reply Curious Are core samples for individual trees considered intensive properties Meaning averaging the results with other cores from other trees are a no no kenfritsch Posted Jan 30 2016 at 11 54 AM Permalink Reply The problems with in sample data selection and use cannot be discussed too often in my estimation and particularly with regards to climate science where too many scientists evidently have a very large and difficult to understand mental block SteveM your thread introduction reminds us of these problems I have tried mightily to understand this block with not only climate scientists but others to whom I have been exposed I have to harken back to my experiences with a stock investment blog where I found that those who had the most difficult time understanding the problems were more often than not those working in the hard sciences I have speculated that the problem comes from those who have had experiences running experiments under controlled and repeated conditions Somehow they forget that you cannot have the control and repitions with invesments and climate In hard sciences you can use in sample results to guide you in devising controlled experiments where you can obtain out of sample data In climate science and tree rings you can look at in sample data but it can only be verified with out of sample data and unfortunately that can require long times Next best for tree rings would be to establish pre selection criteria based on physical considerations and understandings and then using all the data that that criteria selects Climate scientists wormy in the sea of temperature reconstructions do not even go that far kenfritsch Posted Jan 30 2016 at 12 07 PM Permalink Reply Climate scientists wormy in the sea of temperature reconstructions do not even go that far Would you believe that I did not say that My tablet did It should be Climate scientists doing temperature reconstructions do not even go that far mpainter Posted Jan 30 2016 at 1 36 PM Permalink Reply They cannot even go that far and sustain the conclusions so assiduously sought It has been pointed out before that any study based on their deselected data would overturn the study purporting to show a climate trend davideisenstadt Posted Jan 30 2016 at 2 11 PM Permalink this problem reaches into meta studies as well as some ignorant marginally competent researchers will mine a data set for correlations repeatedly without ever applying a bonferroni correction when computing the p scores of their research Its indefensible That this kind of crap malfeasance I didn t tolerate from 1st year students in statistics says much about this enterprise none of it good Jeff Alberts Posted Jan 30 2016 at 8 32 PM Permalink Reply I m not sure if that answered my question or not lol Steve McIntyre Posted Jan 30 2016 at 11 08 AM Permalink Reply Jacoby was a durable and enthusiastic collector of tree ring data from all over the world Interesting picture of Jacoby at Thelon in 1984 The ancient stump appears above the then treeline mpainter Posted Jan 30 2016 at 3 41 PM Permalink Reply Steve your link makes it clear that Jacoby founded tree ring climate investigation and that Rosanne d Arrigo was his student trained by him From your link Jacoby led the first reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures going back hundreds of years helping to show humans were at the root of rising heat over the last century He was also a leader in using tree rings to shed light on prehistoric droughts earthquakes tsunamis and landslides Prehistoric droughts earthquakes tsunamis and landslides Hmmm What would an audit of all of his work reveal I wonder rigorous science or cherry pies Steve a combination of things connecting tree rings in SW USA to precipitation is quite convincing Jacoby and Briffa were very early in trying to make temperature reconstructions from tree rings and were much more successful in doing so than other contemporary researchers But take care in over editorializing mpainter Posted Jan 30 2016 at 4 08 PM Permalink Reply Yes it makes perfect sense that treerings would make good indicators of precipitation or drought In such instances one would expect a population to give coherent results with no need for cherry picking I think earl the world Posted Feb 3 2016 at 5 14 AM Permalink This is clearly the same mpainter who lost all credibility over at Roy Spencer s blog today To summarize mpainter explicitly backtracked on an agreement to another first time poster to reveal his affiliation Then in response to data that shows that mpainter s postings on various climate sites over the past few weeks are essentially 24 hours a day mpainter admitted that up to 7 people take turns posting under the same name Further accusations suggest that the mpainter group makes additional posts under false names that simply echo the original mpainter posts mpainter has only one goal manipulation of public opinion Warn your friends and enemies mpainter Posted Feb 3 2016 at 2 12 PM Permalink Warn your friends and enemies Also provide shelter for your pets and protect tender vegetation Craig Loehle Posted Jan 30 2016 at 11 44 AM Permalink Reply There is a problem in general in science that scientists view their data as mine mine mine If you do an experiment and do not archive data your experiment can be replicated and thereby validated or not But with tree ring data there is no experiment But the ownership of stuff overrides the need for replication in many author s minds Unfortunately davideisenstadt Posted Jan 30 2016 at 12 05 PM Permalink Reply Funny thats what it appears they do with the data Mine mine mine andrewpattullo Posted Jan 30 2016 at 11 50 AM Permalink Reply As always Steve a wonderful and likely very laborious take down of the poor scientific standards of those seeking not to find the truth but create it The lesson I ve learned is to never play cards with these folks as the rules will only be explained once the hands are shown Brian Jones Posted Jan 30 2016 at 2 47 PM Permalink Reply I am not a scientist but it strikes me odd that I have never seen an analysis of tree ring data against real temperature data for any area Surely somewhere this data exists or can be created for a period of the last 200 years or so Until someone can show that there really is a tight correlation between tree rings and temperature isn t this just BS Steve your comment is unjustified comparisons of tree ring chronologies to temperature data are very common However showing tight correlation is a different task altogether Michael Jankowski Posted Jan 30 2016 at 3 29 PM Permalink Reply Hi Brian Sometimes they try to show a local correlation Wilson Esper are well known at CA http www ldeo columbia edu jsmerdon papers 2015 grl schneideretal pdf Authors were clearly frustrated Modern warming is poorly represented in the new record questioning the ability of MXD to capture very warm temperatures And graphically they seem to show divergence problems But is that their conclusion Nope only a couple appears to be impacted by divergence suggesting deficiencies regarding spatial representation or chronology quality rather than a whole scale limitation of the proxy Michael Jankowski Posted Jan 30 2016 at 6 21 PM Permalink Reply Another one here http onlinelibrary wiley com doi 10 1029 2006JD008318 full In my experience they give a better match visually than statistically I have seen instances where tree rings correlate better to CO2 than to temperature I have concerns that the calibration and verification steps in tree ring studies aren t accounting for the CO2 enhanced growth and therefore underestimate pre industrial responses to temperature davideisenstadt Posted Jan 30 2016 at 6 33 PM Permalink Reply Mr McIntyre Im sorry that this commenter s language was too intemperate However the use of tree rings as a proxy for temperature when one cannot control for the myriad of other factors that influence tree growth brings into question the entire enterprise no Steve there are lots of issues However for editorial reasons I discourage generalized complaining about tree rings indeed generalized complaining I prefer that comments are specific MikeN Posted Feb 1 2016 at 11 00 AM Permalink Reply Brian I have the opposite complaint They do compare tree ring data to temperatures My issue is they compare the tree ring data to lots of temperature records and whichever has the best correlation they declare that that is what the treerings are measuring For example comparing to the temperature records of every month or even five day periods Joe Posted Jan 30 2016 at 5 12 PM Permalink Reply Steve does a good job of explaining the cherry picking of the tree cores for the selection in the temp reconstructions Any insight into the selection of ice cores particularly in the SH for purposes of temp reconstructions Thanks for any info retrograde orbit Posted Jan 30 2016 at 7 01 PM Permalink Reply Why do you frame D Arrigo s conduct as Unlike Briffa D Arrigo has candidly admitted to the selection of data to arrive at a preconceived result It implies malice on D Arrigo s part yet there is nothing in your paper or the references that would support the presumption of malice as opposed to maybe misguided zeal Steve I don t agree that my words imply malice as opposed to misguided zeal I did not consider such issues and did not opine on that sort of issue I believe that the facts adduced here support the specific claims made in my post I avoid extrapolations as much as possible Craig Loehle Posted Jan 30 2016 at 7 24 PM Permalink Reply To borrow from The Big Short she isn t confessing she is bragging She thinks it is a clever way to solve a problem Steve a reasonable analogy Yes D Arrigo and other dendros think that ex post selection is a clever way to circumvent the divergence problem They don t think of it as cheating But to someone who understands ex post selection from the perspective of portfolios it is an admission all the same Jeff Id Posted Feb 2 2016 at 3 52 PM Permalink Reply Bragging eh I never saw this comment that way Not a strong review of her intellect Jeff Id Posted Feb 2 2016 at 5 50 PM Permalink Reply When Mann Briffa Cook all spend months coming up with infinitely more complex regressions to perform the same operation at least they know what they are doing and try to hide it inside of nonsense language Briffa s papers universally make me laugh Every one of them I ve read has some sort of paper crushing language stuffed in the middle that potentially flips the whole conclusion Yet the conclusion still stands To brag about it though She may have missed the idea a little Brian Jones Posted Jan 31 2016 at 12 52 AM Permalink Reply Steve the whole point of the exercise seems to be that the entire climate scientist group both sides is quarrelling about whether the temperature of the world has gone up one or two degrees or fractions of a degree over the last 100 years or so and whether it is caused by humans It is hard for non scientist to take anyone serious who purports to do this over centuries using tree rings when the precision required is obviously missing Even the veracity of the satellite data

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-by-darrigo/?replytocom=766516 (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive



  •