Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

H1N1 and Climate Change


Recommended Posts

I've read the McIntyre one before but in reading it again, it is the "tone" of the critique that is most refreshing. It is rational, professional and thorough. It does not have the air of "dismissiveness" that is so apparent with AGW proponents. Regardless of all the statistics and proxies, common sense dictates that it was comparatively warm back in the MWP - explorers discovered and settled in Greenland and Newfoundland, among other places. It was warm enough - and then it got cold - so they left. That's the largest "proxy" that I can think of.

ahh the Greenland was warm myth...strange how there is more farming today in Greenland than there was in the time of Viking farmers...the archelogical facts surrounding the Vikings departure are unknown...
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 418
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

strange how there is more farming today in Greenland than there was in the time of Viking farmers
The vikings did not have access to fossil fuels and industrial farming techniques.

In any case, the Greenland ice cores show that Greenland was warmer that today. The one question is whether that was a global or local phenomena.

Frankly, I find it ironic that climate scientists are more than happy to use a single proxy (ice cores from antarctica) and claim it represents *global* temperatures but when another single proxy says something they don't like they dismiss it by claiming it only measures local temperatures.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee. Why don't you provide some evidence that "sceptical scientists" disagree with me instead of simply assuming they do. You will find that many actual scientists have a nuanced view which is similar to mine when they actually write things down in scientific paper. When they use proxies with a strong MWP they are using them to refute the claim that "we know modern temperatures are unusual". They are not making the counter claim that we know the MWP is warmer than today.

I looked into this a bit and found Richard Lindzen who seems to have the most problem with the models. But he doesn't reject them outright as you do.

Here is a good summary of the issues.

And he speaks of the difficulties with proxies in his conclusion but doesn't advocate throwing them out entirely. He seems more interested in improving the models.

Here is the most popular sceptical paper.

Ok - this is important. I can't read source papers that haven't been evaluated and comment on the study itself. If you notice, I will quote published scientists and their comments but - unlike you - I don't feel qualified to step in and validate these papers myself. ( I have a degree in Mathematics, by the way. )

If you read it you will find that they do not actually compare the MWP to current period because they feel that splicing a temperature record onto the end of the proxy reconstruction is misleading because there is no way to calculate the correct scale and offset. They also state that the individual 'wiggles' are not meaningful. The only claim they make is the proxies show that the average temperature can change by 1 degC without any anthropogenic forcing and it is therefore false to claim that the recent 0.7 degC rise must be due to human influence.

But - sometimes the other factors are known and can be factored into whether temperatures are affected or not right ? Let's see whether this paper is published or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But he doesn't reject them outright as you do.
Models are useful tools. It is what people do with their outputs is the problem.
And he speaks of the difficulties with proxies in his conclusion but doesn't advocate throwing them out entirely.
That not exactly what I said. The argument I made is all proxies have flaws therefore it is not possible to make any claim about whether the MWP is warmer than today or not. My main issue is with people who claim certainty when there is no basis for it.
I can't read source papers that haven't been evaluated and comment on the study itself
SteveMc analysis is the best summary you will find on the topic. You should note that he has criticized the Loehle paper as well.
But - sometimes the other factors are known and can be factored into whether temperatures are affected or not right?
If you read the IPCC report on attribution of climate change (which I have done) you will find that their argument is basically, our models cannot replicate past temperatures without including CO2 but our models can replicate temps prior to CO2 being a factor. I consider this to be a nonsense argument because it assumes that the models include all possible factors that could affect temperatures. That is why the MWP is relevant - if the MWP was warmer than today then the models cannot replicate it which means the claim that only CO2 can explain the modern warming must be false.
Let's see whether this paper is published or not.
Peer reviewed and published in Energy&Environment. Of course, that journal is blacklisted by alarmists because it accepts sceptical papers. Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think "peer reviewed" would be a massive red flag for you, rather than an implied plus.
It means something to Michael. In any case, I have never said peer reviewed papers are necessarily wrong. I have only said that it is wrong to refuse to look at analysis simply because it has not been peer reviewed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It means something to Michael. In any case, I have never said peer reviewed papers are necessarily wrong. I have only said that it is wrong to refuse to look at analysis simply because it has not been peer reviewed.

That doesn't sound unreasonable as you've put it.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the IPCC report on attribution of climate change (which I have done) you will find that their argument is basically, our models cannot replicate past temperatures without including CO2 but our models can replicate temps prior to CO2 being a factor. I consider this to be a nonsense argument because it assumes that the models include all possible factors that could affect temperatures. That is why the MWP is relevant - if the MWP was warmer than today then the models cannot replicate it which means the claim that only CO2 can explain the modern warming must be false.

They can't include all possible factors that could affect temperatures. They can include the major factors and from what I have read - they have.

The models do seem to show a Medieval Warming Period - pretty much all of them that I have seen. But just because there was an MWP doesn't mean that CO2 levels aren't instrumental in the current warming period.

Peer reviewed and published in Energy&Environment. Of course, that journal is blacklisted by alarmists because it accepts sceptical papers.

Is it accepted by climate science though ?

Edit: Listed as being a 'trade journal'.

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to post
Share on other sites
They can't include all possible factors that could affect temperatures. They can include the major factors and from what I have read - they have.
Of course they say that but that does not mean it is true. After all - how can they show they did not leave out things that the don't know about or can't quantify? My issue is there are a number of plausible mechanisms (e.g. sun induced cloud cover changes or black carbon aerosols) that could have an effect as large as CO2 which cannot be ruled out.
The models do seem to show a Medieval Warming Period - pretty much all of them that I have seen. But just because there was an MWP doesn't mean that CO2 levels aren't instrumental in the current warming period.
Sure. Just because there was an MWP that does not mean the modern warming was not caused by purple pixies from antares. i.e. the claim is a meaningless truism. The problem is the entire 'nothing else explain it' argument in incredibly weak as far as scientific arguments go and I need a lot stronger evidence before I agree to policies that will cause economic hardship to billions.
Is it accepted by climate science though ?
I don't really care. The arguments are valid no matter what the alarmists think of it. Aside: I don't bother with wikipedia for information on climate change - the articles hopelessly slanted towards the alarmist viewpoint. E&E is a science jounrnal that happens to be sympathetic to sceptic arguments which is why the alarmsists dismiss it.

I am surprised you have not figured out the peer review scam yet given the evidence in the CRU emails. Basically alarmists rely on symapthetic editors at jounrnals to keep sceptical papers out or delay their publication until the alarmists can prepare a rebuttal. If an editor or a journal is unwilling to play their game they blackball the journal (e.g. label it a 'trade' journal).

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they say that but that does not mean it is true. After all - how can they show they did not leave out things that the don't know about or can't quantify? My issue is there are a number of plausible mechanisms (e.g. sun induced cloud cover changes or black carbon aerosols) that could have an effect as large as CO2 which cannot be ruled out.

I think it can. From my understanding, the science has advanced enough to know what the major contributors are. They have researched this for two centuries or so.

Here's a paper that uses CO2 with solar luminosity and comes up with a good correlation.

Sure. Just because there was an MWP that does not mean the modern warming was not caused by purple pixies from antares. i.e. the claim is a meaningless truism. The problem is the entire 'nothing else explain it' argument in incredibly weak as far as scientific arguments go and I need a lot stronger evidence before I agree to policies that will cause economic hardship to billions.

See the paper above. If other factors are considered and there's a higher CO2 then it makes sense that CO2 is the cause.

As for the economic hardship, what is the percentage of GDP we're talking here ? Isn't it single digits ?

I don't really care. The arguments are valid no matter what the alarmists think of it. Aside: I don't bother with wikipedia for information on climate change - the articles hopelessly slanted towards the alarmist viewpoint. E&E is a science jounrnal that happens to be sympathetic to sceptic arguments which is why the alarmsists dismiss it.

It's not about sympathy it's about facts. Why is ok for E&E to have a bias if it's not okay for the rest of climate science to have a bias ? The answer is: it isn't. If it turns out that climate scientists have not been acting in the best interest of the science they should be barred, period. We should not be opening up science as a new branch of the arts.

I am surprised you have not figured out the peer review scam yet given the evidence in the CRU emails. Basically alarmists rely on symapthetic editors at jounrnals to keep sceptical papers out or delay their publication until the alarmists can prepare a rebuttal. If an editor or a journal is unwilling to play their game they blackball the journal (e.g. label it a 'trade' journal).

If they're using influence to stop the publication of legitimate papers then they should be disciplined, period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it can. From my understanding, the science has advanced enough to know what the major contributors are. They have researched this for two centuries or so.
I do not agree. The science for the last 30 years has only really looked at factors which they can quantify like CO2 and ignored factors that cannot be easily quantified like cloud cover or land use changes.
If other factors are considered and there's a higher CO2 then it makes sense that CO2 is the cause.
Again, they are NOT considering all possible factors. They are simply ignoring the ones which cannot be easily quantified and hoping they are right. On top of that the models cannot really explain the change in temperature from 1900-1940. The IPCC models assume the sun did it but the latest solar science says the sun cannot possibly be the explanation for that rise.
As for the economic hardship, what is the percentage of GDP we're talking here ? Isn't it single digits ?
And you believe them? The problem with CO2 is we do not have the technology to eliminate or even significantly reduce CO2 emissions at a global scale. The most that can be done is move emissions around (e.g. let China and India do all of the emitting while the rest of us buys their products). The fact that the technology does not exist tells me that all anti-CO2 policies will either fail to reduce emissions or reduce emissions by destroying the economy.
Why is ok for E&E to have a bias if it's not okay for the rest of climate science to have a bias?
E&E may be the only unbiased jounrnal out there because it accepts sceptical papers.
If it turns out that climate scientists have not been acting in the best interest of the science they should be barred, period. We should not be opening up science as a new branch of the arts.
Wake up. It has been going on for years and there is plently evidence in the CRU emails. Oopps, I forgot. That evidence is not good enough for you. In fact, it is not clear what you would require in terms of evidence but for some reason I suspect you require a level of evidence that would be impossible to obtain.
If they're using influence to stop the publication of legitimate papers then they should be disciplined, period.
Look in the CRU emails. It is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course I noticed the word 'legitimate' which allows you ignore any evidence of wrong doing by claiming the paper was not 'legitimate' by whatever standards you make up. Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not agree. The science for the last 30 years has only really looked at factors which they can quantify like CO2 and ignored factors that cannot be easily quantified like cloud cover or land use changes.

There have been papers on other factors such as cosmic rays, cloud seeding and such.

Again, they are NOT considering all possible factors. They are simply ignoring the ones which cannot be easily quantified and hoping they are right. On top of that the models cannot really explain the change in temperature from 1900-1940. The IPCC models assume the sun did it but the latest solar science says the sun cannot possibly be the explanation for that rise.

And you believe them? The problem with CO2 is we do not have the technology to eliminate or even significantly reduce CO2 emissions at a global scale. The most that can be done is move emissions around (e.g. let China and India do all of the emitting while the rest of us buys their products). The fact that the technology does not exist tells me that all anti-CO2 policies will either fail to reduce emissions or reduce emissions by destroying the economy.

That paper that I cited seems to have found a convincing correlation.

E&E may be the only unbiased jounrnal out there because it accepts sceptical papers.

Skeptical papers are printed in the climate science journals.

Wake up. It has been going on for years and there is plently evidence in the CRU emails. Oopps, I forgot. That evidence is not good enough for you. In fact, it is not clear what you would require in terms of evidence but for some reason I suspect you require a level of evidence that would be impossible to obtain.

The evidence is scant. If there really was a conspiracy to shut other scientists out, then I think you would find emails that are a lot more damning than the ones that were leaked. But, again, I'll leave it to the investigation.

Look in the CRU emails. It is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course I noticed the word 'legitimate' which allows you ignore any evidence of wrong doing by claiming the paper was not 'legitimate' by whatever standards you make up.

It's not the tip of the iceberg. Somebody hacked all the emails, then leaked the ones that sounded the worst. There are journals, and the fact that some papers aren't published isn't proof that there's a conspiracy. Skeptical papers are published, and debated - just not all of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The evidence is scant. If there really was a conspiracy to shut other scientists out, then I think you would find emails that are a lot more damning than the ones that were leaked.
Lovely rationalizations. The emails show climate scientists actively conspiring to block sceptical papers and you say they are not damning enough. Like I said, your words are hollow and you seem to be perfectly happy with a corrupt system and have little interest in seeing wrong doers punished.
It's not the tip of the iceberg. Somebody hacked all the emails, then leaked the ones that sounded the worst.
Complaints about this going on have been circulating in the climate science community for years. It is a well known "secret" within the climate science field.

Here is the opinion of another climate scientist:

So, what did I witness before? Here are a few exemplars.

I witnessed how an editor rejected a paper I wrote without forwarding the reviewers my detailed response to their comments (he was perhaps afraid that the reviewers would actually be convinced with my detailed response which included detailed referrals to published results proving my points).

I saw another rejection (perhaps by the same editor...), this time of a paper written by a colleague that included the punch line: "any paper which doesn’t support the anthropogenic GHG theory is politically motivated, and therefore has to be rejected"

I saw how proposal reviewers bluntly reject funding requests, based on similar beliefs in the global warming apocalypse. I even know of someone who didn't get tenure because he advocated non party line ideas.

You can add that to similar statements by Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Knappenbeger (all published climate scientists).

Of course, none of this is enough evidence for you. You need *more* (whatever that means). I find it ironic that you are perfectly happy to imply that sceptical scientists are liers by refusing to accept their complaints as legimate but you blindly accept the excuses of alarmists when they are caught red handed manipulating the system.

If you really want to demonstrate a desire to fix the problems with the system then you should acknowledge that secret inquiries controlled by the institutions that are potentially implicated will never uncover the truth. You need to call for a public inquiry with witnesses testifying under oath and facing cross examination. Anything less means you are just making excuses for doing nothing.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
That paper that I cited seems to have found a convincing correlation.
The paper you linked explicitly states that it cannot do a statistical correlation between CO2 and temperature because the proxies are regional and do not represent global temperatures (I suspect that would not have stopped them if the correlation told the story that the authors wanted).

All it has done is look at periods of time where there is strong geographic evidence of wide spread ice as evidence of 'cold' times but when I look at the results I see no consistent relationship between 'cool' periods and CO2. i.e. at times CO2 goes down yet ice disappears. That should not happen if the data is reliable and CO2 is the major driver of temperatures.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely rationalizations. The emails show climate scientists actively conspiring to block sceptical papers and you say they are not damning enough. Like I said, your words are hollow and you seem to be perfectly happy with a corrupt system and have little interest in seeing wrong doers punished.

The question is not whether they were blocking skeptical papers, but whether they were manipulating the process and what their reasons were. As I said, skeptical papers are published so why would this paper get special attention from the climate scientists ?

It may be because their findings threaten the climate scientists as you suspect, or it may be that the papers were poorly researched and didn't deserve to be published.

Complaints about this going on have been circulating in the climate science community for years. It is a well known "secret" within the climate science field.

Here is the opinion of another climate scientist:

You can add that to similar statements by Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Knappenbeger (all published climate scientists).

Those statements do need to be taken seriously and investigated, but the basis of the investigation needs to be whether these scientists conspired to shelve the paper because they disagreed with it.

You will not find any examples of the scientists trying to spike papers by Shaviv - your author above - even though he has submitted and published papers that challenge AGW.

Of course, none of this is enough evidence for you. You need *more* (whatever that means). I find it ironic that you are perfectly happy to imply that sceptical scientists are liers by refusing to accept their complaints as legimate but you blindly accept the excuses of alarmists when they are caught red handed manipulating the system.

The evidence is hundreds of emails, and I don't have time to go through them nor do I have access to those who would be defending themselves. I'll leave it to the investigation, as I do with other such matters.

If you really want to demonstrate a desire to fix the problems with the system then you should acknowledge that secret inquiries controlled by the institutions that are potentially implicated will never uncover the truth. You need to call for a public inquiry with witnesses testifying under oath and facing cross examination. Anything less means you are just making excuses for doing nothing.

I already called for a public inquiry on this board. The UEA inquiry has to come first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The paper you linked explicitly states that it cannot do a statistical correlation between CO2 and temperature because the proxies are regional and do not represent global temperatures (I suspect that would not have stopped them if the correlation told the story that the authors wanted).

All it has done is look at periods of time where there is strong geographic evidence of wide spread ice as evidence of 'cold' times but when I look at the results I see no consistent relationship between 'cool' periods and CO2. i.e. at times CO2 goes down yet ice disappears. That should not happen if the data is reliable and CO2 is the major driver of temperatures.

There are cool periods with CO2. The model in that paper uses CO2, solar factors and one other factor.

And I look at the conclusions, and rely on the scientists to do their jobs on the peer review. Of course, there may be corruption but there's already an initiative to investigate that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the most popular sceptical paper.
Peer reviewed and published in Energy&Environment. Of course, that journal is blacklisted by alarmists because it accepts sceptical papers.
E&E is a science jounrnal that happens to be sympathetic to sceptic arguments which is why the alarmsists dismiss it.
It's not about sympathy it's about facts. Why is ok for E&E to have a bias if it's not okay for the rest of climate science to have a bias ? The answer is: it isn't.
E&E may be the only unbiased jounrnal out there because it accepts sceptical papers.

Say what! Energy & Environment (E&E)... the only "unbiased" journal out there - jeejaz, have you no shame!

The E&E journal - the last resort for skeptics when their hopelessly flawed papers get punted from real scientific journals. One only needs to look at the E&E journal's editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen - her background... her comments, to realize the level of Riverwind "unbiased" journalism.

If the manuscripts of climate-change skeptics are rejected by peer-reviewed science journals, they can always send their studies to Energy & Environment. “It’s only we climate skeptics who have to look for little journals and little publishers like mine to even get published,” explains Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the journal’s editor.

According to a search of WorldCat, a database of libraries, the journal is found in only 25 libraries worldwide. And the journal is not included in Journal Citation Reports, which lists the impact factors for the top 6000 peer-reviewed journals. The journal remains unknown to most scientists. “I really don’t know what it is,” says Jay Famiglietti, editor-in-chief of Geophysical Research Letters.

“I’m definitely a political scientist,” says Energy & Environment editor Boehmer-Christiansen. A reader in geography at the University of Hull (U.K.), Boehmer-Christiansen describes her doctoral work as covering international relations, but says she consults others before publishing any studies in her journal. “My science is Alevel chemistry, physics, one year of geography at university, and a bit of math.” She adds that her husband has a Ph.D. in physics.

She says that the more mainstream climatologists agree, the more suspicious she becomes about claims that human activity is causing global warming. Citing her upbringing in what was then East Germany, she states, “I was born in the Nazi era with one set of consensus, then brought up by the communists where there was also strong consensus. So just by nature, I’m very suspicious.

but it just gets better...

- Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is an advising member of the “Scientific Alliance”

- a sourcewatch listing for the "Scientific Alliance"

- another advising member of the "Scientific Alliance" - Jack Barrett

yes... clearly... Riverwind nails it! The Energy & Environment journal... the go-to journal for hopelessly flawed skeptic papers... is, as Riverwind states, "the only unbiased journal out there". :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peer reviewed and published in Energy&Environment. Of course, that journal is blacklisted by alarmists because it accepts sceptical papers.
I would think "peer reviewed" would be a massive red flag for you, rather than an implied plus.
It means something to Michael. In any case, I have never said peer reviewed papers are necessarily wrong. I have only said that it is wrong to refuse to look at analysis simply because it has not been peer reviewed.

more Riverwind bullshit - in your ever present self-contradicting style, you take pains to negatively paint peer-review each and every chance you get... you know... that conspiracy thingee of yours! And yet - you will invariably, highlight any skeptic paper you link to... that's "supposedly" peer-reviewed... as being peer-reviewed.

as a side note: when you refer to that hopeless skeptic's journal, Energy & Environment, just who are the peers? :lol:

in any case, just to repeat the refrain - just to keep reminding and reinforcing for you: as you know... but won't acknowledge... there are hundreds of skeptic papers published regularly in legitimate scientific journals - in spite of your world-wide conspiracy. Unfortunately, for you, few of these actually stand the test of actual peer response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear - there is nothing wrong with offering an explanation for adverse data. The problem is removing any evidence of that adverse data from the graph in order make the data look better than it is. That is deceptive.

Yes it is simple. A group of scienctists sought to mislead people by removing adverse data from a graphic with the full knowledge that removing the data would make people think that the reconstruction was more reliable that it actually is. Scientists are human.

Here is a very good explanation for how they spliced the data series together to create a deceptive graphic.

Here are graphics that show what was left out.

WTF! You tried this same "hiding the decline" bullshit... in this very thread... just weeks back. Relevant, previous MLW posts (within this very thread!):

here
and

hello! "Hiding in Plain Sight" :lol:

Note: you are hereby awarded a lifetime meritorious recycling good-conduct medal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF! You tried this same "hiding the decline" bullshit... in this very thread... just weeks back. Relevant, previous MLW posts (within this very thread!):

here
and

hello! "Hiding in Plain Sight" :lol:

Note: you are hereby awarded a lifetime meritorious recycling good-conduct medal!

If you don't think the graph is deceptive......then there's nothing that can be done for you. Your efforts to pull in all sorts of counter arguments to excuse the deception are valiant but the fact is - the graph is deceptive....period. It tries to deceive....period. Science should be better.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't think the graph is deceptive......then there's nothing that can be done for you. Your efforts to pull in all sorts of counter arguments to excuse the deception are valiant but the fact is - the graph is deceptive....period. It tries to deceive....period. Science should be better.

oh ya - so deceptive - to morons who wish to purposely push doubt and uncertainty. You just won't read the exact printed report words - will you?

a footnote? Oh… you want an explanatory footnote! Well skippy, there was much more than your called for “footnote”. The actual IPCC report graphic itself presents 12 reconstructions and the available instrumental temperature record, all colour-code labelled and all superimposed overtop of each other – the Briffa2001 reconstruction being one of the 12. The graphic, Figure 6.10 as referenced in the following quote, clearly shows the post-1960 period point where the Briffa reconstruction ended… while also showing all 11 of the other various scientist’s reconstructions continuing uninterrupted – continuing to show increased warming. The actual accompanying IPCC AR4 report text itself reads:
Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well-established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo, 2006). This ‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, high-latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there. In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a). Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues (for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed in this chapter were acquired.

so… again… most emphatically, “hiding in plain sight”. I trust this will (finally) end another one of the baseless Riverwind parroted Hackergate denier talking points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't think the graph is deceptive......then there's nothing that can be done for you. Your efforts to pull in all sorts of counter arguments to excuse the deception are valiant but the fact is - the graph is deceptive....period. It tries to deceive....period. Science should be better.

It could only be deceptive to a lay person who wasn't familiar with the science, though. A scientist would have read the paper, including the explanation of what was done with the recent tree ring data.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tree rings are a very inadequate proxy for measuring past temperatures of any kind, whether it be local, global, etc. This is because there are many reasons that determine how much a tree will grow during any given year. Warm temperatures will make a tree grow more, but if the temp is too hot it will actually stunt the growth of some types of trees. One large determination of tree growth and the size of tree rings is the amount of precipitation in a given year, as obviously if its too dry a tree won't grow well, and lots of precipitation will make a tree grow more, but if there's too much precipitation it may stunt its growth.

Also, a tree will grow more if the tree next to it (that previously provided shade) falls down or is chopped down and the remaining tree is therefore exposed to more sunlight.

All of this is fairly logical. If you have a fat tree ring compared to other rings in the tree, the only thing you can conclude is that tree-growing conditions for that year in that local area were very good. Its impossible to know if it was warm temperature or lots of precipitation etc. that caused the good conditions, unless you use other proxies as well to confirm it, but even then its not certain.

we've been down this path... several times now, in various MLW threads. Within dendroclimatology, the "divergence problem", principally related to the slowing/decline of tree growth in high northern latitudes, post 1960.

D'Arrigo etal 2008 - On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes

* unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic.

* cause likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming.

* tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies

an interesting twist shows in these recent posts. Previously, the usual suspect MLW denier gang, cast all paleo-reconstructions, particularly those that include tree-proxies, given divergence since 1960, as "crap"... and then... waddya know, Riverwind posts that skeptic paper from Loehle (junk paper published in the junk journal, Energy & Environment), and all of a sudden, proxy reconstructions have relevance!!! Interesting :lol:

but, but, but... the denier gang says, the reconstructions were soooooo good in being able to detect the post-1960 divergence effect... but, they're sooooo bad, they could never be trusted in not finding past historical examples of divergence. Cause, you know, the deniers are a bit selective, particularly when they will only accept something they favour!

Edited by waldo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...