Comments on: Juckes and the Divergence Problem http://climateaudit.org/2006/11/08/juckes-and-the-divergence-factor/ by Steve McIntyre Tue, 21 May 2013 15:32:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Willis on “Getting authors to respond to questions” « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2006/11/08/juckes-and-the-divergence-factor/#comment-247548 Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:13:10 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=899#comment-247548 [...] (Juckes and the Divergence Problem) [...]

]]> By: per http://climateaudit.org/2006/11/08/juckes-and-the-divergence-factor/#comment-69642 Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:44:35 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=899#comment-69642 the first time you posted on this, it was such an obvious aberration that it took a while to sink in.

Even now, it is worth bringing sunlight to bear on this scrofulous sore on the body scientific; it is a thoroughly chastening set of diagrams.

per

]]> By: Mark T http://climateaudit.org/2006/11/08/juckes-and-the-divergence-factor/#comment-69641 Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:17:29 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=899#comment-69641 Deep down, bender, you still hope and pray (if you’re into that sort of thing) that all scientists will somehow see the light of the scientific method, and act accordingly. But alas… sigh.

Mark

]]> By: bender http://climateaudit.org/2006/11/08/juckes-and-the-divergence-factor/#comment-69640 Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:18:28 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=899#comment-69640 Re #5
Thank you. I had not seen that.

Others here might not be surprised by this low behavior; but I still am surprised by such malpractice.

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2006/11/08/juckes-and-the-divergence-factor/#comment-69639 Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:08:56 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=899#comment-69639 I’ve added some diagrams showing the “anomalously low growth” at Yamal and Briffa’s “adjustment” at Tornetrask with a link to an earlier post explaining the adjustment. While you’re at it, don’t forget to review how Briffa dealt with the Divergence Problem for the IPCC 3AR spaghetti graph discussed here http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=194 Follow the link at the bottom for details.

]]> By: Neil Fisher http://climateaudit.org/2006/11/08/juckes-and-the-divergence-factor/#comment-69638 Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:15:30 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=899#comment-69638 What are these people thinking? “Anomolously low growth”??? Why won’t they admit that their assumptions WRT to ring growth might be wrong? Must be, because I’m pretty sure these trees will be obeying the laws of physics, chemistry and biology! This is at least as bad as the suggestion that when the model doesn’t match real-world data, it’s the real-world data that is wrong. Sheesh!

]]> By: bender http://climateaudit.org/2006/11/08/juckes-and-the-divergence-factor/#comment-69637 Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:12:52 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=899#comment-69637

But within the population of 387 sites, you can find some that go up. And surprise, surprise, the Team chooses them over and over.

If that is provable, it would constitute a publishable result (at least in correspondence form), would it not?

]]> By: bender http://climateaudit.org/2006/11/08/juckes-and-the-divergence-factor/#comment-69636 Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:55:05 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=899#comment-69636 Does he not recognize the “divergence problem” for what it is – a problem?

]]> By: John A http://climateaudit.org/2006/11/08/juckes-and-the-divergence-factor/#comment-69635 Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:34:47 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=899#comment-69635 Somebody call the Fire Service because McIntyre is on fire!

]]>