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".
  • Cherry-Picking by D’Arrigo « Climate Audit
    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for example MXD data from Labrador later used in Wilson et al 2016 was withheld from the 2014 archive and has not been archived in connection with the later publication David Brewer Posted Jan 29 2016 at 4 57 PM Permalink Reply Highest temperatures in the whole period at the end of the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 seems to be

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-by-darrigo/?replytocom=766517 (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Cherry-Picking by D’Arrigo « Climate Audit
    that 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-by-darrigo/?replytocom=766695 (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Cherry-Picking by D’Arrigo « Climate Audit
    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 seems

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-by-darrigo/?replytocom=766597 (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Steve McIntyre « Climate Audit
    transcript of the Brady appeal before Goodell has been released and it s astonishing to see how the sausage was made It raises many issues one of which I ll discuss in today s post Posted in Uncategorized Tagged brady Comments 10 Goodell and Deflategate Science Jul 29 2015 11 00 AM Yesterday Roger Goodell released his decision on the Brady appeal Most of the early discussion has been about Brady s destruction of his cell phone Brady has contested the NFL s characterization of this incident here see cover here saying that he had replaced a broken phone that they had already told the NFL that Brady was not going to Posted in Uncategorized Comments 107 Raymond Bradley and the Grand Old Duke of York Jul 7 2015 8 44 PM In today s post I ll return to more typical Climate Audit programming Upside down Mann s mentor Raymond Bradley has somewhat surprisingly published an article Balascio et al 2015 that supports a longstanding Climate Audit criticism of varve proxies Bradley and coauthors did not report that their interpretation of an important Baffin Island series is upside down to the Posted in Uncategorized Tagged balascio big round bradley holocene hvitarvatn kulusak miller Comments 74 Older posts Newer posts Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/author/stevemcintyre/page/2/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Uncategorized « Climate Audit
    before Goodell has been released and it s astonishing to see how the sausage was made It raises many issues one of which I ll discuss in today s post By Steve McIntyre Tagged brady Comments 10 Goodell and Deflategate Science Jul 29 2015 11 00 AM Yesterday Roger Goodell released his decision on the Brady appeal Most of the early discussion has been about Brady s destruction of his cell phone Brady has contested the NFL s characterization of this incident here see cover here saying that he had replaced a broken phone that they had already told the NFL that Brady was not going to By Steve McIntyre Comments 107 Raymond Bradley and the Grand Old Duke of York Jul 7 2015 8 44 PM In today s post I ll return to more typical Climate Audit programming Upside down Mann s mentor Raymond Bradley has somewhat surprisingly published an article Balascio et al 2015 that supports a longstanding Climate Audit criticism of varve proxies Bradley and coauthors did not report that their interpretation of an important Baffin Island series is upside down to the By Steve McIntyre Tagged balascio big round bradley holocene hvitarvatn kulusak miller Comments 74 Older posts Newer posts Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/category/uncategorized/page/2/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Glacier Bay, Alaska « Climate Audit
    understanding of the boundary values that kicked off this mode we ve been in since the onset of the Q Dano Posted Aug 24 2006 at 4 14 PM Permalink 21 You need to show the stats that say it s unpredecented versus what time frame what confidence interval etc Click the links Until you prove that it s more then a bump on a gnat s posterior I don t care Prove isn t very scientific Steve You sound like a denialist rather than one wishing for a scientific discussion See you could fire up Galileo and carve a nice niche out for yourself answering that gnat question esp since a gnat movement could affect agriculture And if you cared you could git you some of all that enviro grant money sloshing around out there But perhaps you re up for a policy staffer job somewhere and your non science approach will sway one elected not caring in the answer that way Best D Neil Fisher Posted Aug 24 2006 at 4 27 PM Permalink Re 4 you say Again I would point to graph A in Fig 8 from the Thompson recent PNAS article The current period appears anomalous with the long term trend Indeed maybe we did trade an impending ice box for a hot house There appears to be a significantly larger anomaly 12 11k years ago In any case graphs B D E do not appear to show a similar anomaly so perhaps it s the source of graph A that is anomalous It s the odd man out is it not For someone that suggests we should be looking at the overall picture and not individual proxies it s strange to me that you d focus on just one graph and one that s so clearly anomalous compared to the others it s presented with Steve Sadlov Posted Aug 24 2006 at 4 28 PM Permalink RE 26 Now you re splitting operational definition hairs In generally accepted practice if one can demonstrate something at some industry standard confidence interval I ve seen 95 often used it is generally considered to be proven Stop playing games you know well enough the intent of what I wrote there The burden is on the alarmists to using again my factory anlogy demonstrate that over a given swath of time the characteristics being measured are out of spec If you are looking at one year the spec limit will be very forgiving and you d need to show are very large deviation If you are looking at some longer time frame obviously the limit becomes tighter to a point Of course innate variation constitutes an evental convergence and once the time frame grows sufficiently and encompasses innate variation sufficiently a convergence limit is approached asymptotically Again harkening to the factory the alarmist shouts shut down the line in response to every minor excursion Of course there do need to be alarm limits no doubt But the stats need to define them Dano Posted Aug 24 2006 at 4 32 PM Permalink 25 Well Dano my man I ve got news for you for all practical purposes we are still in the Quaternary Sure But technically scientifically you ve forgotten that the Holocene geological epoch is within the Quaternary period Epochs define times within geological periods and are marked by a particular distinctive character Subunits if you will But you haven t been clicking my links abooo ve to be able to grasp the distinctiooo n Best D Steve Sadlov Posted Aug 24 2006 at 4 59 PM Permalink RE 29 I ve actually read all of your stinkin links It s good that you recognize we are still in the Q So tell me based on that would you or would you not expect some rapid climate transitions to be the norm Dano Posted Aug 24 2006 at 5 31 PM Permalink 30 So tell me based on the recognition that we are still in the Quaternary would you or would you not expect some rapid climate transitions to be the norm Well we have to look at the Holocene as we re in that So hmmm hmmm looking at the Holocene hmmm we see that the atm CO2 ppmv conc is today unprecedented So looking back is not very helpful So I can t give an expectation on that basis We need something else HTH D jae Posted Aug 24 2006 at 5 32 PM Permalink 26 Dano thanks for the link It contained the following Historical records from 900 to 1300 A D in Europe indicate that this was a time of changes in atmospheric circulation known as the Medieval Warm Period In high latitude regions this was largely beneficial grapes were grown in England and the Norse founded colonies first in Iceland and then in southern Greenland But in arid regions a warmer climate especially when accompanied by drought can cause significant difficulties for farmers A fifty year drought occurred between 1130 and 1180 A D It was during this period that soil and water conservation features such as grid borders terraces and check dams began to be built in the Four Corners area Funny that Mann and the rest of the team can t find this in the proxies Sounds like it affected the USA at least the West as well as Europe Hmmmm jae Posted Aug 24 2006 at 5 44 PM Permalink Aside from the obvious issues here s what puzzles me about the sequence when they reported the original radiocarbon dating of the logs the most recent reported advance was 1 6 to 1 2 Kyr BP By jove I think the climatologists are about to start recognizing the MWP and LIA like the old days Could it be that they no longer have to fear trying to publish something that does not agree with the famous hockey sticks Dano Posted Aug 24 2006 at 5 50 PM Permalink 32 Funny that Mann and the rest of the team can t find this in the proxies emphasis link added My 273 Best D jae Posted Aug 24 2006 at 7 48 PM Permalink Oh Dano here s the one I m used to Dano Posted Aug 24 2006 at 8 06 PM Permalink 36 here s the one I m used to Huh You get your data from a media outlet that captions the chart for a 600 yr graph from a first paper that didn t look back as far as the MWP as a thousand years despite the x axis being labeled to 1350 No doubt some here will take pleasure in reading that I m speechless Best D MrPete Posted Aug 24 2006 at 8 17 PM Permalink Huh You read your media by interpreting at less than face value not understanding that they say The IPCC s version showed temperature variation over 1 000 years not their own and not only that but clicking on the chart shows the whole thing back to 1 000 years Yes no doubt some here will take pleasure in reading that you re speechless Unfortunately you weren t Instead you decided to say enough to demonstrate that even a little speech is enough to demonstrate fallibility D Best p Brooks Hurd Posted Aug 24 2006 at 8 31 PM Permalink Re 36 Dano I do not know why the BBC editors chopped the graph off at 1350 for the article but as you found out in 37 the full graph that the BBC should have used had a 1 000 year duration The 2 000 year multi proxy graphic from your link shows a MWP but the LIA is minimized Dano Posted Aug 24 2006 at 8 34 PM Permalink 37 So you are correct I m fallible Expanding my knowledge now and reading the arty I see this For Professor Jones the priority now is obtaining as much data as he can to reduce the error bars in the chart He is working to obtain so called dendroclimatic or tree ring data from long lived trees in Russia Argentina Chile New Zealand Tasmania and North America He also wants to obtain more data from corals as well as documentary evidence from China and Japan Imagine that Someone going out and doing fieldwork Anyone here taking notes Anyone Fieldwork Hello Ah well Let s contrast with the next lines Dr Legates says he has preliminary calculations that indicate the uncertainty in Mann and Jones record is probably twice as large as they indicate Huh sounds familiar what s he doing about it This he suggests means that recent temperature trends do not show unprecedented global warming Professor Legates adds that he plans to work on his analysis for publication in a scientific journal Alright A forthcoming paper It s been two years now lessee lessee humph No paper but look at that network analysis Disappointing surely Best D jae Posted Aug 24 2006 at 9 43 PM Permalink dano you are a dishonest environmental organization s shill period jae Posted Aug 24 2006 at 9 45 PM Permalink and oh BTW that was a purposful ad hom Dano What a deceitful person Hope your sponsoring organization is proud of you Willis Eschenbach Posted Aug 24 2006 at 11 30 PM Permalink Re 8 Danàƒⶬ I looked at the Abrupt link I noted that there were some very rapid changes in temperature noted as an Abrupt Climate Change I did not see 1 Any indication of a tipping point 2 Any source for the data 3 Any explanation why the colder it got the less snowfall they say accumulated I went to the rest of the site where they feature an interactive presentation so help me an interactive presentation of the MBH 1998 study Gosh Danàƒⶬ I was so impressed to quote someone I know when is your paper on the tipping point going to be published Truly Danàƒⶬ saying it s not published means nothing and is getting boring I m considering replacing you with a Danàƒ ot that simply repeats it s not published yet which journal has accepted your abstract Here s something you could do instead think about what people write and respond intelligently w PS please don t bother citing MBH 98 sites that contain graphs with no attribution or supporting data it just makes you look stupider than I know you are muirgeo Posted Aug 25 2006 at 1 42 AM Permalink Re 9 11 So Steve you ve given me Dano that the long term Holocene trend has been one of generalized cooling Now I want to address your other complaint that Georgie is trying to stir hysteria about is a mere small wiggle not unlike all the other small wiggles superimposed onto the wave First I noticed you had to use Dano s come link to find any similiar uptick as none exist in the PNAS graph And even with this you had to go back 8 000 years to beat the current one uptick isn t my point made Doesn t this evidence somewhat support the spaghetti graphs Mann s claim Isn t this growing uptick already looking pretty anomalous Especially consider this uptick only has 100 200 years behind it and really has only recently the last 50 years been coming on strong above natural variability In other words what would you expect the uptick of a very anomalous period to be when it has only just started In fact it is very close to what has been predicted You apparently want the uptick to be very obvious so you can have certainty I on the other hand would like to avoid an obvious uptick because it ll be happening on my grand kids time Finally look at the y axis in Dano s graph 1 C of variability seems to describe the whole of the Holocene that s not much and that s why they call it the Holocene Now extend the graph out another 100 years into the future and add 2 0 C of warming current and approximate IPPC predicted trends to the y axis and you ll have your full uptick And if that s what the graph my grandkids would be plotting as the data rolls in for their time then yeah call me hysterical because there is no way I m gonna chance that future to them That would be totally irresponsible Willis Eschenbach Posted Aug 25 2006 at 1 44 AM Permalink Re 6 gbalella muirgeo you say Certainly it appears to be the coldest period of the Holocene The trend during the Holocene while variable seems to be one of a generalized cooling trend suddenly interrupted by something I suggest the industrial revolution Again I would point to graph A in Fig 8 from the Thompson recent PNAS article The current period appears anomalous with the long term trend Indeed maybe we did trade an impending ice box for a hot house So being a naturally suspicious fellow I went to look at the PNAS article Unfortunately it turns out that Thompson is engaged in his usual plain and fancy footwork The Graph A comes from Ice Core 2 in Thompsons earlier study on Huascaran It claims that the à Å 18O changes from 19 5 to 17 0 since the LIA What s the problem Well when you look at figure 3 in the Thompson paper available at http www sciencemag org cgi reprint 269 5220 46 pdf it is clear that the à Å 180 average never goes much below 18 so the big warmup is maybe half to one unit not two units as he shows His graph also places the coldest part of the LIA at the year 1400 so if your explanation for the subsequent warming is the industrial revolution you need to have a serious discussion with Thompson about dates All in all Thompson has put forth an effort worthy of Michael Mann gbalella muirgeo you have this incredibly foolish habit of believing what you read Whether or not you are a sceptic about AGW you should definitely learn to be a sceptic about scientific papers In any case since we appear to be at the cold end of the Holocene I would say that a few degrees of warming will not drive the polar bears extinct w muirgeo Posted Aug 25 2006 at 1 58 AM Permalink Re 18 Of course there is the other big question about the phase relationship which truly leads and which truly lags Comment by Steve Sadlov I always like this one Well Steve how about we look at the CO2 trends from our current Earth experiment to see when they started going up Then we can compare those to contemporaneous temperature trends and we should be able to honestly see which one went first muirgeo Posted Aug 25 2006 at 2 18 AM Permalink Re 44 so the big warmup is maybe half to one unit not two units as he shows Willis I can t seem to get access to the Science paper So could you tell us what the lowest or warmest recent 18O numbers are and when was the last time they were exceeded Willis Eschenbach Posted Aug 25 2006 at 2 20 AM Permalink Re 46 gbalella muirgeo you say I always like this one Well Steve how about we look at the CO2 trends from our current Earth experiment to see when they started going up Then we can compare those to contemporaneous temperature trends and we should be able to honestly see which one went first Then you reference two graphs one that starts in the year 1000 and the other that starts in 1880 to see which one started going up first Please tell me this is a joke you can t possibly be serious In addition Steve Sadlov was clearly talking about the initiation and termination of the ice ages where it is quite clear and agreed by all that the temperature changes first followed by the CO2 w Willis Eschenbach Posted Aug 25 2006 at 2 24 AM Permalink Re 17 Danàƒⶬ thank you for your link http www climate unibe ch clim recon images indermuehle99nat fig1 gif showing that CO2 increased steadily throughout the Holocene Of course you also are aware that temperature dropped steadily throughout the Holocene As gbalella muirgeo said Certainly it the LIA appears to be the coldest period of the Holocene The trend during the Holocene while variable seems to be one of a generalized cooling trend Perhaps you or the man with two names would care to comment on these facts that for ten thousand years or so the CO2 was increasing and the globe was cooling w Ferdinand Engelbeen Posted Aug 25 2006 at 3 34 AM Permalink Re 46 Muirgeo and Danàƒⶩ the question of lead lags in temperature CO2 is an interesting one In the pre industrial period it is quite clear that temperature leads the dance and that CO2 follows temperature changes with some 600 years lag at the end of an ice age and with several thousands of years at the start of a new ice age The trend is 8 10 ppmv CO2 for each 1 C change As there is a huge overlap the transitions take many thousands of years this allows climate modellers to include a huge feedback from CO2 on temperature thus helping to increase decrease temperatures during transitions But there is one interesting exception in the Vostok ice core the end of the previous interglacial the Eemian The temperature and CH4 methane levels were already near their lowest before CO2 levels started to decline And the result of the 40 ppmv reduction is not measurable in the temperature record That points to a low influence of CO2 levels on temperature See the graphs here Thus

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2006/08/24/glacier-bay-alaska-2/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Proxies « Climate Audit
    80 New Light on Svalbard Apr 13 2013 10 59 PM In 1997 the 121 m Lomonosovfonna ice core was drilled in Svalbard As of mid 2009 when Hu McCulloch and I wrote CA posts on this core nothing had been published on O18 values prior to AD1400 nor had any Lomonosovfonna data been archived even for the post 1400 period Both Hu McCulloch and I in separate By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Uncategorized Tagged lomonosovfonna O18 pages2k svalbard Comments 64 The Impact of TN05 17 Apr 10 2013 5 20 PM TN05 17 is by far the most influential Southern Hemisphere core in Marcott et al 2013 it s Marcott s YAD061 so to speak Its influence is much enhanced by the interaction of short segment centering in the mid Holocene and non robustness in the modern period Marcott s SHX reconstruction becomes worthless well before the 20th century a point that they By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Marcott 2013 Ocean sediment Uncategorized Tagged holocene marcott MAT TN05 17 Comments 38 Alkenone Divergence offshore Iceland Apr 10 2013 10 35 AM The longest very high resolution alkenone core that I m aware of is Sicre et al s MD99 2275 plus splices from offshore Iceland 67N 18W It is 4550 years long its most recent value is 2001AD and its resolution is 4 years Marcott used nearby core JR51GC 35 also at 67N 18W also an alkenone record which had a By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Ocean sediment Uncategorized Tagged alkenone holocene marcott MD99 2275 sicre Comments 18 Older posts Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/category/proxies/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • glacial retreat « Climate Audit
    al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/glacial-retreat/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive



  •