Michael Hardner Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Great! Then please explain how someone could use your the Tiljander dataset to predict neighborhood income temperatures in 1920s 1000s from telephone poles varve x-ray density by only using data from 2000 1850 onwards to determine the correlation between poles density and income temperature because that is only period where you have neighborhood income temperature data. Would the results of such an analysis be meaningful? That's why I need to look more closely at whether your analogy is indeed the case. Waldo seems to be saying that there is a reconstruction with the 4 controversial proxies left out - do you acknowledge that ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 your understanding 'more of this' won't be realized by you continuing to coddle to TimG's nonsense. I take exception to the accusation that I am coddling, when I'm only trying to understand. in over 3.5 years nothing other than the likes of TimG's parroting shriek has come forward to formally challenge... what are "they" waiting for... is there a problem? No formal challenge in 3.5+ years <=> TimG nothingness Yes, you've said that. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
TimG Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) That's why I need to look more closely at whether your analogy is indeed the case.Why is it so hard? Look at the paper. You can see that the author unequivocally states many times that high X-ray density equals cooler temperatures. Yet when you look at the raw data you see that in the last 150 years or so the X-ray density INCREASES during a period when temperatures have rises. The author also clearly states that this inconsistency in the last 150 years is contamination most likely caused by agriculture runoff.In short, what basis do you have to reject clearly stated claims by the Tiljander paper authors? Waldo seems to be saying that there is a reconstruction with the 4 controversial proxies left out - do you acknowledge that ?Sure. But this is another example of Mann dishonesty. Mann 2008 contained two claims (these are copied from the text in the abstract):1) Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. 2) If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstruction that waldo keeps whinging about INCLUDES tree rings. If you try to produce a reconstruction with no tree rings and no tiljander the reconstruction fails validation which means claim 1) is false and a formal correction to the paper needs to be issued. You, yourself, were deceived by lack of a correction because you thought this paper did not depend on tree rings when it does. Now Mann knows this and so does waldo because I have told him many times in the past. For him to keep bringing up the TREE RING reconstruction as an argument why Tiljander does not matter is rather pathetic dishonesty on his part and one of the reasons why I generally ignore him. Edited March 23, 2012 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Why is it so hard? Look at the paper. You can see that the author unequivocally states... yes, the author does unequivocally state... the following inconvenient truth for you, hey? ...the proxy author, Tiljander, from your declared authoritative source paper , summarily states: However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated. yes... from your declared authoritative source: difficult... but could be estimated; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible. as you say... "why is it so hard"? Why is it so hard for you, your fellow parroting McIntyre soldiers... and McIntyre himself? Why is it so hard? So hard to formally challenge the paper? Is there a problem? Quote
TimG Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) yes, the author does unequivocally state...Yes, unequivocally in the abstract: http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/others/Tiljanderetal.pdfWe observed previously identified historical climate periods in the Lake Korttaja¨rvi varve record. The Medieval Climate Anomaly (often termed the Medieval Warm Period) of AD 980–1250, which is characterized by highly organic sediment and a minor minerogenic flux during mild winters, started and terminated abruptly, but also included a short (30-year) colder period lasting between AD 1115 and AD 1145. The Little Ice Age, however, was not clear in our record, although there were two minor cooling periods in AD 1580–1630 and AD 1650–1710. Natural variability in the sediment record was disrupted by increased human impact in the catchment area at AD 1720. There is a distinct positive anomaly in mineral matter accumulation between 907 and 875 BC, which indicates more severe climate conditions. This period exists contemporary with a cold event, recorded worldwide, c. 2800 years ago. The complete context for your endlessly repeated quote: The above-mentioned factors, the amounts of inorganic and organic matter, form the basis of the climate interpretations. Periods rich in organic matter indicate favourable climate conditions, when less snow accumulates in winter by diminished precipitation and/or increased thawing, causing weaker spring flow and formation of a thin mineral layer. In addition, a long growing season thickens the organic matter. More severe climate conditions occur with higher winter precipitation, a longer cold period and rapid melting at spring, shown as thicker mineral matter within a varve. However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated. The complete context does not refute my point in any way. Edited March 23, 2012 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 at the end of the day TimG's parroting blather, the following remains firmly entrenched in the WDC/ICSU WDS world archive of Paleoclimatology Climate Reconstructions => Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millenniain over 3.5 years nothing other than the likes of TimG's parroting shriek has come forward to formally challenge... what are "they" waiting for... is there a problem? No formal challenge in 3.5+ years <=> TimG nothingness Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 A claim that has made it into the peer reviewed literature obviously should be taken more seriously than one that has not... Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 1) The decision to include non-peer reviewed sources is purely a judgment call... and creates an opportunity for bias Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Peer review? I think you mean "pal review". It a cargo cult. Wake up and look at what is happening instead of blindly assuming the process is working. It is not. "Pal Review"... Gate-Keeping... Cargo Cult!!! Scientists keepin the denying Blogging Non-Scientist man down! Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 The system is rigged in favour of alarmist scientistsIt is a scam run by an old boys network and people like you are the useful idiots that allow it to continue because you refuse to consider the possibility that all is not ok in the world of climate science. rigged! Scam! Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) The system is rigged. You know it is but since it is rigged the way you like you don't care. I do believe I'm beginning to read a pattern here! Edited March 23, 2012 by waldo Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 But even then - the system is rigged. what are you saying TimG? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Waldo, you're overstating and not helping the discussion here. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Waldo, you're overstating and not helping the discussion here. pardon? Discussion? I'm simply providing perspective on the glaring absence of any formal peer review challenge in over 3.5+ years... I believe there's more perspective available - much more! In narrow fields "peer review" is often "pal review" where the reviewers are collaborators with the authors on other papers. I no longer believe that given the abuses I have seen in climate science. I am no longer willing to give peer review the "benefit of the doubt". Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 post-modernist science - blog science rules!!! I know how it works and the flaws that are inherent in the system. People who claim that "peer review" is the gold standard for science don't have a clue how the system works. Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Peer review really does become "pal review" in fields where there are only a few qualified experts in the world. why doesn't McIntyre have any Pals... uhhh... other than those within the Heartland Institute and it's like purveyors of "fake skeptic truth"? Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Scientists are simply part of the social machine which is under siege. They can't presume that their words will be treated as gospel. They must provide arguments and address critics even if they don't come from inside their 'club'.In fact, the peer review process is designed to protect any 'consensus' that emerges because people with a vested interest in the 'consensus' are given the power to keep alternative POVs out. yes, clearly... in your narrow skewed fake-skeptics world, scientists must enter into the mad-howling dervish whirlwind of fake-scientists... where 'blog science rules' the denialsphere... where consensus is arrived at by measuring just how high someone can throw shyte! Quote
TimG Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Waldo, you're overstating and not helping the discussion here.I did provide a substantive reply to your last post which is now a couple pages back due to waldo's spam. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 I will have to look at this later... Thanks for your replies. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 waldo's spam. as compared to... your spam! Enjoy... I haven't even hit your/Riverwind conspiracy themes! Results fall into three categories: 1) Results which are provably bad. 2) Results which are provably good; 3) Results which cannot be proven to be good or bad. The vast majority of climate science falls into 'Results which cannot be proven to be good or bad'. (These) Results are accepted as good if and only if they re-enforce the existing "consensus" on climate change. Results that dispute the "consensus" are only accepted if they (are results which are provably good). That is why peer review is nothing but a mechanism to protect the consensus. Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 oh ya it's all part of that huge conspiracy among millions of researchers and evil socialists... when you can't dispute the science resort to conspiracy theories... I simply stated the fact that peer review is extremely fallible and cannot and should not be considered to be the final word on all scientific questions.As for the science: it is being disputed. The only trouble are the brain dead morons who think that something cannot be true unless it is published in "approved" journals. brain dead morans! Keeping the denier man down!!! Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Why is it so hard? Look at the paper. You can see that the author unequivocally states... yes, the (proxy) author does unequivocally state... the following inconvenient truth for you, hey? ...the proxy author, Tiljander, from your declared authoritative source paper , summarily states: However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated. yes... from your declared authoritative source: difficult... but could be estimated; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible. The complete context does not refute my point in any way. it most certainly does. Your whole premise continues to fall back on the graduate student's paper... your eyeballing a 2-dimensional graphic, your calling the paper the definitive authoritative source. Unfortunately for you, as I will continue to remind you, that relatively inexperienced graduate student, in her own words extracted from the very paper you declare the definitive authoritative source... in her own words, suggests a possible route for calibrating her proxies. Again, she states: "However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated". Standard proxy calibration technique involves normalizing a series to an annual resolved variance level... I expect Mann might have extended upon your declared authority to estimate calibrations, "averaged over a few years". read the above quote again, hey? Read it closely, slowly... sure you can! Quote
Keepitsimple Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 I will have to look at this later... Thanks for your replies. Michael, There's a book by Donna Laframboise called the Delinquent Teenager. It's an objective journalistic critique of the IPCC. She's a respected journalist. I'm halfway through it. It will give you a different perspective......you can start by reading some of the summaries you'll find at Amazon or in general, all over the internet. It's not a book that is designed to argue the science - it's a common-sense critique of the internal processes and politics of the bureaucracy. It's only $25. Quote Back to Basics
Michael Hardner Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Michael, There's a book by Donna Laframboise called the Delinquent Teenager. It's an objective journalistic critique of the IPCC. She's a respected journalist. I'm halfway through it. It will give you a different perspective......you can start by reading some of the summaries you'll find at Amazon or in general, all over the internet. It's not a book that is designed to argue the science - it's a common-sense critique of the internal processes and politics of the bureaucracy. It's only $25. Even the IPCC has a different agenda than scientists. It's an IntraGOVERNMENTAL Panel... so governments have their hand in it for sure. I don't think the book would shock me. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 There's a book by Donna Laframboise called the Delinquent Teenager. It's an objective journalistic critique of the IPCC. She's a respected journalist. I'm halfway through it. It will give you a different perspective......you can start by reading some of the summaries you'll find at Amazon or in general, all over the internet. It's not a book that is designed to argue the science - it's a common-sense critique of the internal processes and politics of the bureaucracy. It's only $25. it's a book thoroughly debunked... most certainly "Donna Laframboise", the self-employed photographer... is no respected journalist! In any case, you tried to flog her failed citizen auditor's shamway effort previously - here... back in April2010. Yes, for sure, we had some real fun beating up on that failed/debunked "grassroots citizen audit" undertaking, hey? one has to seriously question the mindset of anyone who would pay actual money to read the kind of crap that Laframboise writes. Hey Simple, do you still have me on ignore? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.