Comments on: Almagre Panoramas

By: Mike B

Mike B — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:33:16 +0000

Bump. If I could convince Bender to take a break from John V.

By: Mike B

Mike B — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:10:40 +0000

#15

...but even looking at multiple factors, the graphs have hockey stick form

From the text of the linked paper:

On the southern Colorado Plateau, lower elevation pines(Pinus ponderosa and Pinus edulis) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) provide information on past precipitation, while high elevation Bristlecone Pine (Pinus aristata) renders details about prior temperatures.

So the past temperature data is based entirely on BCP. And for Bender, this study proposes an interactive ecological model, where elevation, temperature, and precipitation all influence ring width, yet the study confounds (statistically) species and elevation, and as mentioned abouve, uses only one species (Bristlecone Pines) for temperature measurements. Do you see these in any way as flaws or limitations?

By: Sam Urbinto

Sam Urbinto — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:18:24 +0000

Why is stating the fact that the panel/report found that:
1. Bristlecones are problematic as temperature proxies and shouldn’t be used.
2. The HS graph hasn’t been proven or disproven, but it can’t be used itself to prove anything about the past because its methods are not good.

Why does stating that either make somebody anti-AGW or mean they have an agenda/ideology? Heck, you don’t even need to agree or disagree with the conclusions to say, yeah, that’s what was said.

By: MrPete

MrPete — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:27:53 +0000

Sod #22
The problem is, with intra-tree variation exceeding the size of any growth surge (whether recent (hockey stick) or older (high/low anomaly)…
To me it seems quite a stretch to imagine such data is relevant for anything other than whatever-it-is that leads to such variability in a single tree. Certainly not climate.
I don’t care if data forms hockey sticks or not. I do care when scientists ignore demonstrated variability in data. I do care when data shows variability that requires additional explanation. I do care when obvious physical attributes are simply ignored by those who do data processing.
So, I’m not suggesting proxies with hockey-stick form are irrelevant in general, but that BCP proxies appear to be irrelevant to climate questions — at least until proven otherwise.

By: sod

sod — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:43:58 +0000

sod, you seem quite enamored with hockey sticks.

funny, isn t it? and i thought the last hockey stick had been cut out of the wood of thse beautiful trees in this pictures.

and that was supposed to be BEFORE Steve made short work of the Bristlecone.

but alas, it looks like other trees provide the right wood for the stick as well….

The interesting thing is, in this case, were finding hockey sticks that are completely unrelated to climate. Hockey sticks presence/absence is immaterial.

yes, i m still quite unsure whether a real, physical hockey stick would manage to proof its form during an audit on this page.

why would proxys with a hockey stick form be irrelevant? because other things have hockey stick form as well? bizarre logic?

By: Christopher

Christopher — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:35:20 +0000

Not strictly on topic for this thread but I thought it might be intriguing to some. SM talks about a coherent explanation for the temperature increase based on doubleing CO2. Here’s a recent piece I found: http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Steve: I’m familiar with this (and it’s interesting), but this does not give 2.5 deg C, has been heavily criticized by IPCC scientists and does not represent a mainstream exposition. It’s hot off the press as well – you’d think that somebody would have presented this sort of calculation clearly prior to AR4.

By: MrPete

MrPete — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:22:07 +0000

sod, you seem quite enamored with hockey sticks. The interesting thing is, in this case, we’re finding hockey sticks that are completely unrelated to climate. Hockey sticks presence/absence is immaterial.

By: Smokey

Smokey — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:15:44 +0000

"Quite a contrast to how real climate scientists do things. /snark" RealClimate "scientists." *snicker*

By: Roger Dueck

Roger Dueck — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:55:25 +0000

#15 sod says:

it is a complicated relationship, but

Sounding a bit like Al?
I’m wondering if you noticed that your hockey stick has a blade at BOTH ends?
An inconvenient truth.
I’m not here to make friends.

By: henry

henry — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:33:44 +0000

Another Mann Production, this time with hurricanes.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/ps-aop112107.php

Please move to appropriate thread as needed.