@andrew
I’m not interested in their opinion of what is wrong with Lindzen’s slides. *You* raised the point, so I’m interested in *your* opinion.
And to be perfectly honest, if Colose told me the time, I’d still want to check the speaking clock rather than trust him. An appeal to his ‘authority’ gets you minus brownie points.
Brandon:
“I have no idea what you mean here. BEST doesn’t use any tree ring records. All it uses is actual, measured temperatures.”
About the tree-ring density vs width data sets, someone had a link to BEST’s data set listing, and about 3 were density and the rest were width. It was on BEST’s web site. It’s been a while since I went there, but that is what I saw. I was in a great discussion about tree-rings then, and wanted to see which were used how much. And they were there, listed as dendro such and such, all in one section.
Ah! Here it is! http://tiny.cc/ia634
Does that answer the question?
Steve Garcia
Chris G, if you’re going to respond to me, I ask you read what I post. You say:
Nope, I’m still looking at two distinct lines, clearly labeled. Actual runs from 1905 to 1995, and reconstructed runs from 1400 to ~1980.
This makes no sense. I have never said anything which suggested there would not be two lines. Using data from one line to modify data in another line does not preclude two lines from being shown. You’re disagreeing with my by pointing out a completely irrelevant fact.
Really? If he had continued his reconstructed line there would have been no divergence? That would be an odd thing since it shows up in most other tree-ring proxies.
This makes no sense. Mann’s reconstructed record was not a “tree-ring proxy.” Do you actually know what his paper says?
Regardless, Mann’s reconstructed temperatures did diverge from observed temperatures toward the end. That’s the entire reason behind his “trick.” It just didn’t have Keith Briffa’s tree ring series, the one where the “divergence problem” got its name. You cannot take me saying something doesn’t have “the divergence problem” as meaning it doesn’t diverge from another series.
I guessed he had truncated the reconstructed data in order not to show the decline.
You guessed wrong. Mann did not truncate the reconstructed data. I have no idea what your guess was based on, but I find it peculiar you had to guess even though you claim the “calculations are described in the Methods section, and supplementary information.” If what Mann did was described in his work, why are you having to guess at what he did?
If he had padded it, why does it stop before the actual data?
Because, as I told you originally:
Put simply, he appended the observed record to the end of his reconstructed record, smoothed the combined record, then truncated the resulting record at the point the original reconstructed record ended. In other words, he used the observed record to modify the reconstructed record without any explanation or justification.
You’re saying a lot of things you wouldn’t say if you took the time to read what is being discussed. I don’t understand that.
As for who you trust, I’ll tell you what. Once you can accurately describe anything Mann did, I’ll discuss whatever you want from DeepClimate. Until then, how about we focus on resolving the issues at hand?
Chris G, your claim is here false, and you haven’t offered the slightest shred of evidence to support it.
Cut the Orwellian speak. Do you doubt that Earth is cooling on multi-millennial time scale (~10 ka)?
Thanks for spotting that the article I linked to was 7 years out of date, Bruce. I gather the bottom line is that diesel for passenger vehicles is not economically viable. Since truck operators seem to prefer diesel, where’s the cutoff and what factors matter? Size? Annual mileage? Other?
Brandon -
I should have included this in the last comment…
[Steve Garcia] If the DP only affects some measurements, why does Briffa – and Schweingruber and others – still have a problem with it? Last I heard they still throw their hands up in despair.That’s simple. There are only a handful of tree ring series which show the “right” answer. People want to these series to be useful. They don’t like the idea of giving up on one of them. That’s especially true since if they give up on each of these series with major validity issues, they’ll wind up with none that give the “right” answer. Who do you think wants to publish a study which says, “Tree ring data gives us no useful information on this issue”?
Well, that is what I mean by having a problem with it.
I simply cannot understand why the dendroclimatologists aren’t all over this, trying to understand the underlying biology. Since they’ve not found it, your assessment here is as likely to apply to them as it does to Briffa and Schweingruber and the other climatologists.
BTW there was a good exchange in the CG 2 emails between a one dendroclimatologist and two others. He was critical because they didn’t understand the biology and were too lazy to look into it. He evidnetly would do this at conferences and really piss everyone off. The rebuttals in the emails were all addressing dendroCHRONOLOGY, the dating of tree-rings, saying WTF are you challenging that for? They never did address his criticism, about tying rings to climate, just throwing up a straw man and lambasting him for something that he wasn’t even challenging. It was pretty pathetic. The main rebuttal guy was the guy who I saw elsewhere referred to as the “Father of dendroclimatology.” He didn’t seem to know the difference between his own discipline and dendrochronology. If you are curious, I can find that for you.
Steve Garcia
feet2thefire, I don’t know where you got that link from, but it’s not a link to the “BEST’s data set listing.” It’s not even on BEST’s website. It’s on Nature’s.
Wait a second… I recognize that list. That’s the list of proxies used in Mann’s original 1998 paper, the one which created the hockey stick!
I don’t know who gave you that link, but they really mislead you.
Chris I agree completely with your comments here – both on the scientific flaws in Lindzen’s talk (which I have yet to see much discussion on here – not a surprise), and on your disappointment in the route Judy’s blog has taken. I check in every so often out of curiosity as an EAS/Ga Tech grad, but am unimpressed. It’s good to see you commenting – there are people out there that appreciate your thoughts. Keep it up.
There is nothing too ridiculous for people to state in complete seriousness. WebHubTelescope provides an example:
Increase of greenhouse gases by 87%?
Co2 only has increased by 40%. Notice how Manacker has to stand up for a fellow skeptic no matter how ridiculous his claim is.
Look at the first two sentences here. The direct implication is CO2 is the only relevant greenhouse gas. That’s obviously untrue, but it’s also not specifically stated.
The real problem is WebHubTelescope dismisses manacker’s claim out-of-hand (and rhetorically based on that untrue implication) despite the fact manacker provided the exact way in which he calculated it. Incidentally, I actually did an almost identical calculation elsewhere on this page (I did it first manacker!) for the same basic reason as manacker. It was an obvious test to try, and it was perfectly valid.
Despite this, WebHubTelescope simply hand-waves it away while making snide remarks (actually only one of them). Hoorah for meaningful discussions people refuse to have.
vaughan,
You’ve misunderstood an important point.
Max, quite rightly, says, it’s “simple math”.
The rest of us might prefer simply math.
For all you kinds out there, here’s a summary of the carbon cycle.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/02/29/3442312.htm
What’s missing?
Maybe a few inconvenient measurements.
@martin lack
Hold down the CTRL key. and simultaneously hit the ‘f’ key. This will summon up a ‘find’ box, in which you can type whatever characters you wish to find (eg ‘timg56′).
This is a standard feature of most browsers (not of any particular chatroom) since at least a decade. Works in Explorer, Firefox, Word etc etc. And a very minimal bit of research suggests that its history may go back to OS/2 and IBM’s CUA (1988). Maybe even further back to EMACS.
I am surprised that somebody of your oft-asserted intellect and qualifications has not found it before. But now you know. I’m sure it will save you oodles of time in identifying those you wish to browbeat.
Mark;
In my experience, those who pose questions in that maundering manner are trying to set up an inescapable “Gotcha!” and in effect are speechifying, not asking at all.
The listeners they imagine they are so impressing are actually thinking, “Gah! What a self-important twat! Sit down, twat!”
Vaughan Pratt, did you just tell manacker he was wrong about the rate of increased in CO2 levels because if you take his rate back in time far enough, it gives too low a value? That’s how I’m reading your comment, but…
That’s stupid. Almost any rate of change given is an estimation. If you extrapolate out far enough, they’ll usually give you a wrong answer. It’s a meaningless point, and it certainly doesn’t invalidate anything. The most it can do is allow you to tell manacker he’s wrong to say “the past” is the past because he’s only looking at one part of the past, not “the last 200 years.” Not only is it a stupid point based purely on semantics, it begs the question of why limit ourselves to only the last 200 years? Maybe the next time manacker talks about the “[p]ast increase of atmospheric CO2 level,” you should tell him he’s wrong because of what things were like millions of years ago!
I hope I’m just misreading you. If not, you’re contradicting manacker based entirely upon a stupid and meaningless point rather than simply saying something like, “When you say ‘the past,’ you’re only talking about the last XX years, right?”
On his blog, Martin states he was NOT allowed to ask questions……
Judging on Lack’s Open Letter to Lindzen which just rambles on and on about a lot of stuff about how clever he (Lack) is and never gets to the point (if there is one), I’m not surprised he got closed down.
@Martin Lack:
When you get on the pot you have to p**s in it. You have to walk the walk not just talk the talk . Be quick and to the point. If you are really asking somebody questions it should be to find out what the questionee thinks, not to show off about how clever you think you are.
Such a latter strategy is doubly counter-productive. First you reinforce other people’s views that you are a tedious windbag, and second you prevent others asking better questions that might reveal the ‘hidden truths’ you are so convinced are there.
Ask one quick hard question in 10 seconds. Don’t make a 15 point rambling lecture/statement. Nobody cares about your views..it is Lindzen’s they have come to hear.
Martin,
If you are wrong about the coming “mass extinction event” and are successful in banning the use of fossil fuels, you will be the enemy of humanity just like Rachel Carson was an enemy of humanity for her “work” on getting DDT banned.
One very successful part of Linzden’s talk was his characterization of alarmists like you. You appeal to “consensus,” but you don’t know what the “consensus” is. Or perhaps you know, but are misleading people. Hansen’s 6C is not consensus. He is a contrarian.
His 6C climate sensitivity is purely circular. In his 1988 paper, which I have already cited to you, he puts a sensitivity into his model that would explain the previous warming. He comes right out and admits it. And, there is nothing wrong with doing that. But, then he runs the model, is not accurate over 20 years, and changes the model to make it accurate. And, the big “proof” for CO2 being the driver is “nothing else can explain the warming.”
Then, of course, reality still isn’t matching the models, so we have to come up with other explanations besides, of course, the sensitivity being too high. Aerosols, that is it.
And, Martin, how do Hansen’s grandchildren feel about him jetting all over the globe on $26,000 vacations collecting $500,000 “prizes?”
