Josh writes:
Over at Climate Audit, Steve has been looking at the resurfacing of some Hockey Stick science papers, and the fun continues here and here.
Josh writes:
Over at Climate Audit, Steve has been looking at the resurfacing of some Hockey Stick science papers, and the fun continues here and here.
BA:
Thankyou for your clarification provided for me at April 22, 2013 at 5:48 am.
Firstly, I think it important to explain my confusion.
At April 21, 2013 at 8:40 pm you made a request to Manfred.
I provided my answers to your question in my posts to April 22, 2013 at 3:11 am and at April 22, 2013 at 3:38 am.
Your question was
Clearly, my answers addressed the important issue of sample bias which Manfred had cited by reference to Lucia’s explanations and you said you did not understand.
And my first answer provided this as an addendum at its end
Obviously, I was saying that was a relatively trivial point which would be an ‘angels on a pin’ discussion; i.e. it “misses the point”.
Hence, I think you can understand my bemusement at your question to me at April 22, 2013 at 5:12 am. I had answered your question, and I had said your other issue is an irrelevance, but you had seemingly pressed that other issue and – in raising it – you seemed to quote me having said something I did not .
But at April 22, 2013 at 5:48 am your clarification says the answer you want is to the additional and irrelevant question which does claim I said something I did not; viz.
The answer is that I did NOT say anything about “weighting by correlation” conducted by Ahmad et al. or anybody else.
I addressed your having said
I answered the screening point fully in two posts to you and with example of similar error in a post to Maarten.
The error in use of “principle components” was invented by Mann, Bradley & Hughes and has been copied in subsequent studies. It pertains to centering and not to weighting.
In conclusion, you changing subject and putting words in my mouth does not give me confidence that your questions are sincere.
Richard
@BA
Here is a possible way to tackle the treemometry. Select some proxies. Find those which agree with the actual temperatures for the 1st half of the whole period. Mark them acceptable. You have to use all of them. That is the ‘training exercise’.
Now examine each of them for agreement with the second half of the real temperature series. Some will diverge, yes? Average all the results. You are not allowed to remove any proxy that passed the first selection because it has already been shown that they ‘have ability to report temperatures’. Divergence is inevitable because trees are not very good thermometers. The second average will not tell us much.
Now, take some of the proxies that happen to agree pretty much with the actual temperatures in the second half of the record. Weight them between 10 and 400 times as much as those that do not. Average the total result. Is that result a valid examination of the ability of any proxies to tell us anything?
No. It is not. It is a turd rolled in glitter. It is also pretty much how MBH98 was done.
@ur momisugly richard
you are getting quite nasty by calling me a troll;
is that because I do not want to discuss with you, while are comparing dendrochronologymethods with ESP?
taking out a representative sample from a group of trees is something quite different than selecting the rare people (if they do exist) with the ESP capability;
so in the moment you come with ESP or start refuting – lets say – darwinism or evolution because some people think the world is created in seven days 5000 years ago by some God, I am not going to discuss with you or them any science at all;
I just did see tens of responses here to somenasty cartoon – that was puzzling me because they could’nt have read the article the cartoon is referring to;
so to counterbalance, I provided a link to the article; thats all;
Crispin in Waterloo says:
April 22, 2013 at 6:43 am
Good points.
I would counter however, with a second requirement – for ANY tree-based so-called proxy for temperature.
How does Mann correct for the 17 to 27% FASTER growth of trees and all plants for that matter during the second half of the 20th century?
If his”life’s work” is n tree dendroclimatology -> meaning he IS equating increases tree ring growth rates with changes (increases) in temperature, then the question must be addressed somewhere in his “many” papers as he establishes his arguments.
If tree-ring added-growth-with-added-CO2 is not addressed completely and thoroughly in his papers and his books, then is Mann merely incompetent or simply ignorant, or are his self-picked reviewers and editors BOTH incompetent AND ignorant?
Some buzz in the MSM today … “greeaaaaaatest increase in 1400 yeaarrrrrrrrrrrs!”
Trying to hide the MWP, apparently.
@RAC PEng
That is a good point. In fact I have never seen a really clear worked example of how to approach that keeping in mind that certain work has been done to track what the CO2 level was in centuries past. I think for a start one would need a dose-response-per-temperature curve for a target species, yes? The meme is out there that the CO2 level was constant for centuries, just like the temperature was stable for centuries. We both know that just ain’t so. But what was it? Old CO2 has been difficult to get from recent diggings I believe. If CO2 follows temperature by 800 years, then looking at temperature proxies we should be able to run 800 years ahead and sorta predict the CO2 level. Then work out the fertilization from that.
I think the O18 is a much more reliable proxy that growth of rings. I think there is a good Canadian study on that.
Can’t resist even more silliness.
The title of the post reminds me of the last lyrics of a Stones tune – “you’d make a dead man c…”
@ur momisugly richard courtney
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/a-quick-comment-about-the-pages-continental-temperature-reconstructions/#more-84717
Those theree phases say it all Zombie Science, Climate Audit and Hockey Stick.
I don’t know if Josh could do anything this but I thought of those mask you always see at Penn State football games. PSU has the nickname of “Linebacker U.” The mask are of beatup linebackers. (Missing teeth, blackeyes, etc.) Maybe Josh could do something with them hitting each other with a hockey stick?
===============================================================
With the names of the various “Hockey Stick” manufacturers on their jerseys. The real “Hockey Stick Wars”?