Comments on: Tornetrask Digital Version – Hooray!

By: jae

jae — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:43:20 +0000

Re: Leif Svalgaard (#17), Leif: Don't tell me you are now reading the tree rings!

By: Raven

Raven — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:21:01 +0000

(#17) Leif
According to wikipedia the Spoerer Minimum was between 1420 to 1570 or 1450 to 1550. This appears to corresponds with a rather rapid drop in temperature and a stabilization at a new level.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 06:47:47 +0000

The Tornetrask series seems to show a significant temperature maximum 1400-1500. This is the time of the deep Spoerer Minimum in solar activity. Stuiver and Quay (1980) point out that the cosmic ray flux during the Spoerer minimum was even higher than during the Maunder minimum. This puts to rest the argument that the low-temperature LIA was caused by low solar activity and high cosmic ray flux, if we adopt accept Tornetrask as being representative of global conditions…

By: TH

TH — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:56:54 +0000

Re: (#3) Akseli: July 25th, 2008 at 9:51 pm I've yet to see this tree-ring-data from J.Meriläinen and M.Timonen on CA: SAIMA. They've archived data from 42 sites, but I'm not sure if data used in Briffa et al. is included.

By: Jeff Norman

Jeff Norman — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:17:08 +0000

per,

it is a pretty shocking thought to imagine that a scientist would manipulate data to get rid of a result that they didn't like.

Actually a scientist wouldn't manipulate data to get rid of a result that they didn't like. This unfortunately leads to only one conclusion.

By: Robinedwards

Robinedwards — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:26:57 +0000

Glad to know that you have succeeded in obtaining the Tornetrask data in a digital form, and I have enjoyed looking at your analyses.

Is there a chance of you providing a link to it? I realise that it may have been sent /privately/ to you. If so, please disregard my question!

Robin

By: per

per — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:04:16 +0000

Yes, the theory is great, and indeed beautiful. However, the NAS/NRC panel agreed that the error associated with these reconstructions was unquantifiable; which is pretty severe. Our host has written more eloquently than I could on some of the tree-ring studies.

As to Briffa’s motivations, it is a pretty shocking thought to imagine that a scientist would manipulate data to get rid of a result that they didn’t like.

bring in GLP for environmental science…
per

By: tty

tty — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:50:43 +0000

per:

Probably because the revised and un-fudged version shows both the MWP and the warm period in the 1730′s-1740′s significantly warmer than the present.

By: per

per — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:14:38 +0000

tty writes
“In short, if there are any tree-ring records that are reasonable temperature proxies, this is one of them.”
hmm, that may be so from a theoretical dendro perspective. But science is empirical.

So why did Briffa have to resort to a post-hoc data manipulation to “show” that these trees are a temperature proxy ?

per

By: bender

bender — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:17:41 +0000

But this can’t be right. MWP > CWP. CWP is not uuuuuuuunprecedented.