Comments on: Post-1980 Proxies #4: Wilmking et al. [2004] http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/18/post-1980-proxies-4-wilmking-et-al-2004/ by Steve McIntyre Tue, 21 May 2013 12:21:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Survivorship Bias « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/18/post-1980-proxies-4-wilmking-et-al-2004/#comment-372499 Sat, 12 Nov 2011 15:13:03 +0000 /?p=76#comment-372499 [...] Down Quadratic Twisted Tree Heartrot Hill Wilmking in Alaska Positive and Negative Responders bender on [...]

]]> By: More on Positive and Negative Responders « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/18/post-1980-proxies-4-wilmking-et-al-2004/#comment-372491 Sat, 12 Nov 2011 15:11:54 +0000 /?p=76#comment-372491 [...] problem – ring widths going down while temperatures go up. Previous discussions included:Wilmking in Alaska and Positive and Negative Responders. Other related posts include Upside Down Quadratic, Twisted [...]

]]> By: Wilson et al 2007 « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/18/post-1980-proxies-4-wilmking-et-al-2004/#comment-256756 Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:53:36 +0000 /?p=76#comment-256756 [...] positive and negative responders. (Also see previous discussion of Wilmking et al 2004 here .) Since Rob did not cite Driscoll et al 2005, he was presumably unaware of this [...]

]]> By: E Lottery http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/18/post-1980-proxies-4-wilmking-et-al-2004/#comment-31941 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:13:14 +0000 /?p=76#comment-31941 Looks like a complicated analysis of tree growth.

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/18/post-1980-proxies-4-wilmking-et-al-2004/#comment-31940 Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:20:11 +0000 /?p=76#comment-31940 Have you corresponded with them? What is the dialogue between these type of guys and the linear guys? how can we tell if this is an isolated observation? If there are ways to ensure that linearity works?

]]> By: John A. http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/18/post-1980-proxies-4-wilmking-et-al-2004/#comment-31939 Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:02:20 +0000 /?p=76#comment-31939 If it helps, Florens, I would agree with you. Replication of scientific results by other teams is imperative for a result to be considered as “robust”. But, I’d think you’d agree, the research of Wilmking et al., is suggestive. That is all.

]]> By: Florens de Wit http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/18/post-1980-proxies-4-wilmking-et-al-2004/#comment-31938 Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:57:42 +0000 /?p=76#comment-31938 Has this individual study been confirmed by other results or is this a singular result up to the present? It would become an interesting study once it is clear it isn’t a singular result without independent confirmation from other studies.

If anything the criticism I have of scientific climate skeptics would be the tendency to take a single study and present it as a radical revolutionary contribution. I am a skeptic myself though and I would like to see policy better supported by good scientific data as well, so this is an interesting result, but not enough to start breaking down all tree ring studies just yet.

]]>