[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The tree ring graphs above concerned drought not temperature. Mann's tree rings claimed to be an accurate proxy record for temperature not drought. There were problems with that. As information leaked out it was later discovered there were even more problems. Much of the information came from a single tree and one graph was upside down. It was a complete clown show.

In any case, the drought graph above is paleo. The graph that really matters is the contemporary one above it. I think you even know that.

Translation: In this case, the tree ring data suits my preconceived beliefs, so they must be accurate.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

. . . something I did not say . . .

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I read quite a bit on the subject, and I've never seen an article like that.

Being the foremost expert, if you didn't read it, it couldn't have taken place, right? See: Arrogance.

Never said I was an expert. Never claimed to be an authority on the subject. Simply stated my experience on it. You inferred the rest. See:Ridiculous.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Good for you! I have not read those. The ones I read had a proper historical footnotes and backstory in them.

Maybe you haven't read as much as you'd like us to believe.

Froth on.

Or perhaps I've read much less than you assume. I gave no numbers to how many articles I've read on that subject. I prefer quality over quantity. And I never 'froth'.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The tree ring graphs above concerned drought not temperature. Mann's tree rings claimed to be an accurate proxy record for temperature not drought. There were problems with that. As information leaked out it was later discovered there were even more problems. Much of the information came from a single tree and one graph was upside down. It was a complete clown show.

In any case, the drought graph above is paleo. The graph that really matters is the contemporary one above it. I think you even know that.

Translation: In this case, the tree ring data suits my preconceived beliefs, so they must be accurate.

Weren't they both (temperature and drought information) taken from the same NOAA dataset?

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Never said I was an expert. Never claimed to be an authority on the subject. Simply stated my experience on it. You inferred the rest. See:Ridiculous.

But you are the authority on the subject. So much so, you've made a claim that my statement was wrong because you've never read it.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Or perhaps I've read much less than you assume. I gave no numbers to how many articles I've read on that subject. I prefer quality over quantity. And I never 'froth'.

Or much less than you tried to sell me on...."quite a bit" has turned to "quality over quantity".

All of this because you think I'm a climate change denier despite me telling you that I'm not. Frothing.

I've also explained on here (in the past) the lengths I have gone in my personal life to conserve energy and water in the name of protecting the environment. But that's all bullshit because I don't go with the flow and be a "yes man" when it comes to anything and everything climate change.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The tree ring graphs above concerned drought not temperature. Mann's tree rings claimed to be an accurate proxy record for temperature not drought. There were problems with that. As information leaked out it was later discovered there were even more problems. Much of the information came from a single tree and one graph was upside down. It was a complete clown show.

In any case, the drought graph above is paleo. The graph that really matters is the contemporary one above it. I think you even know that.

Translation: In this case, the tree ring data suits my preconceived beliefs, so they must be accurate.

No. I'm saying there are known problems using tree rings as proxies for temperature (as opposed to drought). I don't believe you if you're telling me you haven't heard about these inaccuracies, so I'm not even going to post you an information link.

I'll only give you this one and ask you if Mann actually believed the temperatures taken from the tree proxies were accurate, why did he find it necessary to "Hide the Decline"?

[BartSimpson]

Gee, no one bothered to look at the San Jose M-N article. I thought they did a pretty good job.

[OnTheIce]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Gee, no one bothered to look at the San Jose M-N article. I thought they did a pretty good job.

Their Q and A article was quite good.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

No. I'm saying there are known problems using tree rings as proxies for temperature (as opposed to drought).

No, that wasn't the problem. Nice try though.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

No. I'm saying there are known problems using tree rings as proxies for temperature (as opposed to drought).

No, that wasn't the problem. Nice try though.

Wait a minute. Are you serious? Do you seriously not know there are problems with using tree rings as temperature proxies, or do you simply believe if you apply enough snark to your reply the problem will go away?

Stop being so damned Proggy and produce some evidence. Snark, is not wit.

http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide ... line-plus/

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Weren't they both (temperature and drought information) taken from the same NOAA dataset?

Probably. I gather that the precipitation and temperature are inferred from the same data (tree ring width, along with an index derived from average tree ring widths for n years prior to the ring in question). They separate temp and precip, I believe, by using different species of trees, some of which are more senstivie to air temp, others to precipitation. Then you just run a two-factorial correlation.

The casue of the "divergence" of temp and tree ring width after 1960 is still a matter of speculation. Northern trees--at least some of them--show a decline in temperatures based on tree ring width. (This was what the whole "hide the decline" business was about.)

One theory is that the trees are responding to to another signal more strongly than to the temp signal (but only since 1960). Of course, if that's the case, then they may have also diverged in the past, leading one to question how reliable the tree ring data are.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

No. I'm saying there are known problems using tree rings as proxies for temperature (as opposed to drought).

No, that wasn't the problem. Nice try though.

Wait a minute. Are you serious? Do you seriously not know there are problems with using tree rings as temperature proxies, or do you simply believe if you apply enough snark to your reply the problem will go away?

Stop being so damned Proggy and produce some evidence. Snark, is not wit.

http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide ... line-plus/

I'm aware. However, since the precip and temperature proxy estimates are both based on the same data, I don't see why you would infer that precipitation is inherently more reliable. If the temperature proxies are suspect, why wouldn't the precip be similarly suspect?

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm aware. However, since the precip and temperature proxy estimates are both based on the same data,

Are they?

Concerning the tree ring proxies Mann used, you mean? The controversy concerned the Yamal dataset from Siberia. Is that the one you're talking about? Show me how that has anything to do with the drought proxies for California.

As to the divergence, convergence thing, if you read that link I gave you'll see later evidence showed the Briffa divergence began in 1940 not 60.

McIntyre therefore came to the conclusion:

$1:

Had Mann and his 13 co-authors shown the Briffa reconstruction, without hiding the decline, one feels that von Storch (and others) might have given more consideration to Soon et al’s criticism of the serious problem arising from the large-population failure of tree ring widths and density to track temperature.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Concerning the tree ring proxies Mann used, you mean? The controversy concerned the Yamal dataset from Siberia. Is that the one you're talking about? Show me how that has anything to do with the drought proxies for California.

Why? I'm pretty sure there has been more severe and/or longer lasting droughts in California, as the dendro data indicate. The data are probably reasonably reliable--allowing for the risk that since they don't understand the divergence then that may be an isssue in other datasets.

It's just funny that the crowd who have spent literally years and terabytes of internet bandwidth arguing that tree rings are no good are so quick to pick the cause when it suits them.

It reminds me when there was indications from some Martian temperature data that it was warming on Mars too, and the deniers ran with that one. Millions of temperature readings on Earth weren't evidence enough, but a handful from Mars and they're fully convinced.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It's just funny that the crowd who have spent literally years and terabytes of internet bandwidth arguing that tree rings are no good are so quick to pick the cause when it suits them.

Yes I get it. You would dearly like to convince us that two completely different things are the same thing.

You're wrong though.

It isn't just that drought and temperature are different. The siberian bristlecones Michael Mann used produce different results depending on things like whether the trees are grown on the North or South side of the mountain.

Therefore trees on one side of the mountain might produce data that would help Mann show the results he wanted. Trees grown on the other side would show the opposite.

Once all the data was finally produced guess which trees Michael used and which ones he pretended did not exist.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/1 ... -used.html

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Yes I get it. You would dearly like to convince us that two completely different things are the same thing.

You're wrong though.

It isn't just that drought and temperature are different. The siberian bristlecones Michael Mann used produce different results depending on things like whether the trees are grown on the North or South side of the mountain.

Therefore trees on one side of the mountain might produce data that would help Mann show the results he wanted. Trees grown on the other side would show the opposite.

Once all the data was finally produced guess which trees Michael used and which ones he pretended did not exist.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/1 ... -used.html

Exactly--and you're doing exactly what Mann is doing. Just using whatever data happens to fit your preconceived notions. That's what science is to you guys--just another tool in the rhetorical toolbox.