Comments on: The Alberta Site in Esper 2002

By: North American Upper Treeline #3 « Climate Audit

North American Upper Treeline #3 « Climate Audit — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:52:48 +0000

[...] generated the reconstruction used in Osborn and Briffa 2006, and discussed previously at the blog here, here, here,, with a Rob Wilson criticism here and my reply here. Its predecessor chronology from [...]

By: TCO

TCO — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:59:16 +0000

mtb,

Was hoping to segue the discussion to one of business analysis. What is good/bad, how much should be done, etc.

By: ET SidViscous

ET SidViscous — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:51:30 +0000

Please everyone knows the MWP was limited to Cardiff and Strafford upon Avon, it didn’t exist anywhere else.

It was a microclimate thing.

It’s weather not climate.

There is a consensus you know.

There were no Ice ages, it was warming that.. Gulf Steam….

GLACIERS ARE MELTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WON’T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Pat Frank

Pat Frank — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:12:30 +0000

#2-”Below’s a link to info on Larix lyalli (Alpine larch) that also shows its current natural range:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/larix/lyallii.htm”

That was a very interesting read, beng, thanks.

I also noted this comment in the discussion: “[A fossil larch, probably of this species, grew between 1000 and 1250 A.D. near the Athabasca Glacier (Columbia Icefield) 90 km (56 mi) northwest of today's northernmost known isolated alpine larch tree (18).]”

Yet one more bit of evidence for a warmer MWP.

By: mtb

mtb — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:05:22 +0000

Re #5: Certainly in business there are very many people engaged on reviewing volumes of data and extracting pithy summaries of it (strategy consultants, investment research analysts etc) and yes, this activity is generally called analysis in the area of business. You can’t mean that this is not done in science?

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:34:59 +0000

I’m intrigued by use of the word analysis. Am used to this being attributed to someone doing a bit of adding together or ratioing (is that a verb) in bizness work.

By: Terry

Terry — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:23:51 +0000

Kudos Steve. This is what real science looks like.

By: jae

jae — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:56:36 +0000

Steve: You are, indeed, a super accountant. I am amazed how you hav put all these pieces together. I agree with the previous post; I also wonder whether some of these guys could redo their own studies. This could explain the reluctance of some of them to provide data–they simply cannot!

By: beng

beng — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:18:50 +0000

Below’s a link to info on Larix lyalli (Alpine larch) that also shows its current natural range:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/larix/lyallii.htm

And the parent webpage for a whole lotta NA species:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/table_of_contents.htm

By: Pat Frank

Pat Frank — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:16:41 +0000

There are also low values from about 1280 to about 1380, and nothing very fancy going on between 1900 and 1983. That core shows quite a set of cycles. Too bad one can’t drill a local ground-core and plot the tree rings against the reconstructed borehole temperatures.

It’s a curious story you’re unraveling, Steve. It appears that the book keeping is so poor that the dendroclimo people wouldn’t be able to repeat even their own work.

No one seems to remember exactly which ring series sets they used, or where they all are now, or the exact location of the trees that provided the cores. And when the series are cited, a significant number of the citations are wrong. I don’t understand it. It’s too sloppy; almost too sloppy to believe.

GPS has been widely available for about a decade. One would think that today every single ring-series-providing tree could be located to within a meter or so, for all posterity. That wasn’t possible in the past, but why isn’t it standard practice now?

That’s some serious sleuthing you’re doing, Steve. Almost brain-killing. I truly admire your dedication, and am grateful for it. Thanks.