Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’(scienceblogs.com)
scienceblogs.com
Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/why_climatologists_used_the_tr.php
13 comments
> Especially troubling is the way the current divergence is addressed. The argument looks to me like "we can use this data as a proxy for all periods except those where we have direct measurements to verify correlation" I find that weak at best.
+1
Yes, I know that "+1" a weak comment. But I wanted to draw attention to this particular point because I think it's really crucial, and so far I have not seen it well addressed.
+1
Yes, I know that "+1" a weak comment. But I wanted to draw attention to this particular point because I think it's really crucial, and so far I have not seen it well addressed.
I'll try to say it with some more detail.
Let's assume you have a sample from trees in one forest in say, Siberia, going back five thousand years. Do you know all of the environmental factors and how they've changed over that time period? Or do you just know how well the trees grew?
Assuming somehow you did know all of the environmental factors. Can you say with certainty how each of them affected ring width? Or are you relying on some sort of statistical correlation (which may be useful, but is NOT the same as causation)?
Let's assume that you know the micro-climate details and have established a very strong correlation between input factors and ring growth. With multiple or hundreds of factors I find that hard to swallow but let's say you did it. Now tell me, how many forests just like that do you need to sample to have some overall picture of global climate? Ten? A hundred? Does the data even exist in the numbers required? And how would you calculate the number required? It seems to me in order to be able to determine sample size you'd have to have a pretty good model of how the climate operated to begin with. And since this is the thing to be demonstrated, you can't also have this as a given -- that's circular logic.
As I understand the response to this, it relies heavily on statistical measurements and such. That's all fine and dandy, but it's a qualitatively different type of discussion than a theory-experiment-verify discussion. It's much more like a epidemiological study. And these are notorious for meaning much different things than researchers want them to. When all's said and done the only thing you may be proving is the statistical likelihood that certain trees will grow certain ways over the next few decades. Or you may have spent a lot of time proving or demonstrating nothing of any value at all, unfortunately.
Let's assume you have a sample from trees in one forest in say, Siberia, going back five thousand years. Do you know all of the environmental factors and how they've changed over that time period? Or do you just know how well the trees grew?
Assuming somehow you did know all of the environmental factors. Can you say with certainty how each of them affected ring width? Or are you relying on some sort of statistical correlation (which may be useful, but is NOT the same as causation)?
Let's assume that you know the micro-climate details and have established a very strong correlation between input factors and ring growth. With multiple or hundreds of factors I find that hard to swallow but let's say you did it. Now tell me, how many forests just like that do you need to sample to have some overall picture of global climate? Ten? A hundred? Does the data even exist in the numbers required? And how would you calculate the number required? It seems to me in order to be able to determine sample size you'd have to have a pretty good model of how the climate operated to begin with. And since this is the thing to be demonstrated, you can't also have this as a given -- that's circular logic.
As I understand the response to this, it relies heavily on statistical measurements and such. That's all fine and dandy, but it's a qualitatively different type of discussion than a theory-experiment-verify discussion. It's much more like a epidemiological study. And these are notorious for meaning much different things than researchers want them to. When all's said and done the only thing you may be proving is the statistical likelihood that certain trees will grow certain ways over the next few decades. Or you may have spent a lot of time proving or demonstrating nothing of any value at all, unfortunately.
"There's also quite a bit of ad-hominem character assassination going on, even in this piece. I find that folks who have to result to labeling and name-calling usually are insecure about their position."
Yes, the amount of derision, even targeting scientists who merely hold an opposing interpretation of the data, is troubling.
Yes, the amount of derision, even targeting scientists who merely hold an opposing interpretation of the data, is troubling.
Many biologists, palaeontologists, etc., apply "labeling and name-calling" to creationists; the person whose blog the original article here is posted on (not, as it happens, the author of the article itself) is a good example. I do not find it plausible that the reason for this is that those biologists are "insecure about their position".
So another explanation for the ad hominems remarked on here would seem to be: many climate scientists think that denying AGW is about as sensible as denying evolution. For what it's worth, this seems to me a more likely explanation than that they're "insecure about their position".
Incidentally, there's not exactly been a shortage of ad hominem attacks going the other way. My impression, of which I'm not particularly confident, is that the density of personal attacks on opponents is higher in the output of AGW disbelievers than in that of AGW believers.
So another explanation for the ad hominems remarked on here would seem to be: many climate scientists think that denying AGW is about as sensible as denying evolution. For what it's worth, this seems to me a more likely explanation than that they're "insecure about their position".
Incidentally, there's not exactly been a shortage of ad hominem attacks going the other way. My impression, of which I'm not particularly confident, is that the density of personal attacks on opponents is higher in the output of AGW disbelievers than in that of AGW believers.
I know some folks will say "no matter what the proof you're never going to believe"
If there was proof, you wouldn't need to believe. Anyone who says "you're never going to believe" isn't looking to convince anyone, they're looking for others to have blind faith in order to have their own faith validated.
If there was proof, you wouldn't need to believe. Anyone who says "you're never going to believe" isn't looking to convince anyone, they're looking for others to have blind faith in order to have their own faith validated.
This bothers me too. I don't know how tree-ring data is interpreted, but it's safe to assume that it's not a simple size of rings -> temperature mapping. How are the myriad of factors that contribute to tree growth accounted for?
How are the myriad of factors that contribute to tree growth accounted for?
The short answer is that they are not, because they are not known.
That's the point. If they were known there wouldn't be nearly so much controversy. Climate history modelling using tree-ring data as a proxy is incredibly immature. It may have value but the degree to which it has been relied upon is all out of proportion to the validity of the current state of the science (which is probably true for much of climate science at the moment as well).
The short answer is that they are not, because they are not known.
That's the point. If they were known there wouldn't be nearly so much controversy. Climate history modelling using tree-ring data as a proxy is incredibly immature. It may have value but the degree to which it has been relied upon is all out of proportion to the validity of the current state of the science (which is probably true for much of climate science at the moment as well).
>The problem is....archaelogical climage record extrapolation is nowhere as sure fire....
Then pray provide us with some science supporting your point.
If you cannot, when you just keep bleating you are "troubled" over and over, you really look like someone just pushing an agenda without any support whatsoever.
And oh, what's needed now is a "slam-dunk" on the issue. A "slam-dunk", of course, was never needed when any of the corporate interests (who are the ones really astroturfing and dissembling on this issue) set out to basically rape ecosystems for their stockholders. Do you also call for "slam-dunks" from these corporate interests, or just when it's convenient for your political ideology?
This whole discussion is reminiscent of the tobacco industries continual two-faced insistence on "slam-dunks" when it came to any encroachment on their ability to reap profit from suffering.
>I have no more emotion invested in whether the planet is cooling or warming than I do variations of the gravitational constant around the time of the big bang. Whichever way the facts lead will not change my underlying concern. So I really don't have a dog in this fight as far as the science goes, at least not to the degree that some others do.
Right. And in your disinterestedness you personally posted three anti-warming editorials to Hacker News over the last three weeks. Not three science articles - three editorials espousing a single view.
Then pray provide us with some science supporting your point.
If you cannot, when you just keep bleating you are "troubled" over and over, you really look like someone just pushing an agenda without any support whatsoever.
And oh, what's needed now is a "slam-dunk" on the issue. A "slam-dunk", of course, was never needed when any of the corporate interests (who are the ones really astroturfing and dissembling on this issue) set out to basically rape ecosystems for their stockholders. Do you also call for "slam-dunks" from these corporate interests, or just when it's convenient for your political ideology?
This whole discussion is reminiscent of the tobacco industries continual two-faced insistence on "slam-dunks" when it came to any encroachment on their ability to reap profit from suffering.
>I have no more emotion invested in whether the planet is cooling or warming than I do variations of the gravitational constant around the time of the big bang. Whichever way the facts lead will not change my underlying concern. So I really don't have a dog in this fight as far as the science goes, at least not to the degree that some others do.
Right. And in your disinterestedness you personally posted three anti-warming editorials to Hacker News over the last three weeks. Not three science articles - three editorials espousing a single view.
I stopped reading at the word "bleating". Everything you wrote after that was wasted. Think about that before you post again.
Paranoia and ad hominem don't do your argument much good.
Oh. Asking for someone to actually back up their emotional little assertions with facts, and pointing out the hypocrisy of the obvious axe-grinding which accompanies their fervent assertions that they are unbiased is...."paranoia and ad hominem".
And your response was to add nothing except labeling "paranoia", right? Was that before or after you mentioned "ad hominem". Or did you, like him, have any actual science to cite here to support his assertions?
Your projection doesn't do your argument much good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
And your response was to add nothing except labeling "paranoia", right? Was that before or after you mentioned "ad hominem". Or did you, like him, have any actual science to cite here to support his assertions?
Your projection doesn't do your argument much good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
emotional little assertions
The irony of your use of this phrase eludes you, evidently.
The irony of your use of this phrase eludes you, evidently.
Where is the ad hominem?
Assume that Daniel is rational. If you want to reach him how about focusing on actions that he might agree to? How about:
o increasing funding for monitoring temperatures on a worldwide basis so that we can get a better handle on where we are.
o increasing funding for monitoring CO2 levels (along with other greenhouse gases) to see if can get more data about the here and now.
Certainly we will need better monitoring of both temperature and CO2 gases to understand where we are and to monitor the effectiveness of any interventions that are agreed to.
It's often more effective to work from areas where you may agree and to tell if you are having a values conflict or a disagreement over facts and competing hypotheses for explaining them.
Another way to look at this would be to ask "what would prove to you the reality of both global warming and C02 as it's cause?" Or to answer "what would prove to me that global warming is not taking place is ________" and "what would prove to me that reducing C02 would not have an impact is _______ "
o increasing funding for monitoring temperatures on a worldwide basis so that we can get a better handle on where we are.
o increasing funding for monitoring CO2 levels (along with other greenhouse gases) to see if can get more data about the here and now.
Certainly we will need better monitoring of both temperature and CO2 gases to understand where we are and to monitor the effectiveness of any interventions that are agreed to.
It's often more effective to work from areas where you may agree and to tell if you are having a values conflict or a disagreement over facts and competing hypotheses for explaining them.
Another way to look at this would be to ask "what would prove to you the reality of both global warming and C02 as it's cause?" Or to answer "what would prove to me that global warming is not taking place is ________" and "what would prove to me that reducing C02 would not have an impact is _______ "
One problem here is illustrated by this (in)famous Stalin quote:
"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how."
(Note that inside the party there were real votes.)
E.g. we started whole earth satellite monitoring in 1979 as I recall ... but guess what NASA calibrated the raw data against. If you say "real time weather balloons" (if not the first, a later satellite took readings at various altitudes), guess again....
"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how."
(Note that inside the party there were real votes.)
E.g. we started whole earth satellite monitoring in 1979 as I recall ... but guess what NASA calibrated the raw data against. If you say "real time weather balloons" (if not the first, a later satellite took readings at various altitudes), guess again....
This is how science is supposed to work. Sure there are a few straw men/ad hominem attacks peppered in the article but the proper response to criticism isn't calling the other side "denialists" and feigning offense but to respond with data and counter arguments.
The problem that many of these scientists have themselves compounded is the shroud of secrecy they've put over their "normalized" and "value added" data and methodologies. Painting Armageddon like scenarios and then obstructing freedom of information act requests when people ask about how they came about their conclusions is at best bizarre. Meanwhile we have a myriad of rationalizations from their defenders that we should instead trust their peer review which at the very least, the CRU/UEA emails show are suspect at least in this field.
Instead we are bombarded by these scientists/politicians who are anything but impartial who seem to present us with a binary choice that either we radically change our way of life which has serious risks in making us and the rest of the world significantly economically poorer or armageddon... and then they're surprised at the resistance? (This also ignores the myriad of policy responses like carbon trading being mired in corruption and leakages that are being advocated by these very same people)
It would seem to me that there are two parts to the problem - first understanding conclusively what has been happening and what will happen and second deciding what the appropriate policy response will be. Personally, I think AGW is likely but I also think that we are on the cusp of a massive transition towards clean burning (and more importantly, cheap) natural gas and alternative energies which makes at least the emissions as generated by much of the Western world moot.
The problem that many of these scientists have themselves compounded is the shroud of secrecy they've put over their "normalized" and "value added" data and methodologies. Painting Armageddon like scenarios and then obstructing freedom of information act requests when people ask about how they came about their conclusions is at best bizarre. Meanwhile we have a myriad of rationalizations from their defenders that we should instead trust their peer review which at the very least, the CRU/UEA emails show are suspect at least in this field.
Instead we are bombarded by these scientists/politicians who are anything but impartial who seem to present us with a binary choice that either we radically change our way of life which has serious risks in making us and the rest of the world significantly economically poorer or armageddon... and then they're surprised at the resistance? (This also ignores the myriad of policy responses like carbon trading being mired in corruption and leakages that are being advocated by these very same people)
It would seem to me that there are two parts to the problem - first understanding conclusively what has been happening and what will happen and second deciding what the appropriate policy response will be. Personally, I think AGW is likely but I also think that we are on the cusp of a massive transition towards clean burning (and more importantly, cheap) natural gas and alternative energies which makes at least the emissions as generated by much of the Western world moot.
It still doesn't give a scientific reason why it is okay to truncate the tree ring temperature graph at 1960 and paste the real thermometer temperature graphs on top of them, except for the fact that it makes one hell of a picture. That's the "hiding the decline" that most people are concerned about. This article completely dances around that.
I was going to comment that this borders on ad hominem:
> FoxNews.com tells us that we finally have a 'smoking gun'--proof that scientists are manufacturing a global warming crisis so that they can… they can…
You know, calling out political theater instead of acknowledging that reasonable people are concerned when they see scientific misconduct. I was going to explain that this sort of Fox News reference is not so good for the discussion - let the points stand, noting that one critic of yours is abrasive does not make the criticisms invalid.
But, then I came upon this a little lower, which is a bit less subtle about it:
> It's interesting stuff ... not interesting in the way that the rabid anti-science fuckhead (pardon me!) reality-denying luddite denialsphere types are saying, though.
Why might the science be wrong? Because it's moved from science to an identity issue. Us vs. them. This guy isn't helping.
> FoxNews.com tells us that we finally have a 'smoking gun'--proof that scientists are manufacturing a global warming crisis so that they can… they can…
You know, calling out political theater instead of acknowledging that reasonable people are concerned when they see scientific misconduct. I was going to explain that this sort of Fox News reference is not so good for the discussion - let the points stand, noting that one critic of yours is abrasive does not make the criticisms invalid.
But, then I came upon this a little lower, which is a bit less subtle about it:
> It's interesting stuff ... not interesting in the way that the rabid anti-science fuckhead (pardon me!) reality-denying luddite denialsphere types are saying, though.
Why might the science be wrong? Because it's moved from science to an identity issue. Us vs. them. This guy isn't helping.
"Why might the science be wrong? Because it's moved from science to an identity issue. Us vs. them. This guy isn't helping."
This is exactly why I choose to avoid the whole global warming climate debate thing. It is so hard to find any sort of unbiased information because everyone who talks about it has an agenda and forces it in your face. An Inconvenient Truth was actually gag worthy, an hour and fifteen minutes of Al Gore masturbating his ego over his crusade, five minutes of ridiculous cartoons, and maybe fifteen minutes of actual statistics. Obviously a station like Fox News or a talking head like Sean Hannity is going to push a right wing viewpoint to the death, so there is really no point bringing them up in any serious debate about basically anything. Even this posting, I just have a hard time taking this particular blog seriously given the "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal", as the description, whether it is intended to be humorous or not.
The whole global warming debate is not as clear cut (if you can call it that) as something like stem cell research where the issue was basically science vs morality/religion. Both sides have their own statistics, both sides try their hardest to refute the other sides' science, and even the people who actually agree with each other that there is global warming often have different opinions on what can actually be done (if anything) to fix the problem. When something like the climate-gate situation becomes public, it makes it even harder to actually take any of the science seriously, because one can only assume that the studies, experiments, and modeling is being done with the intention of proving one side right or wrong, which will undoubtedly lead to all sorts of unintended cognitive bias.
This is exactly why I choose to avoid the whole global warming climate debate thing. It is so hard to find any sort of unbiased information because everyone who talks about it has an agenda and forces it in your face. An Inconvenient Truth was actually gag worthy, an hour and fifteen minutes of Al Gore masturbating his ego over his crusade, five minutes of ridiculous cartoons, and maybe fifteen minutes of actual statistics. Obviously a station like Fox News or a talking head like Sean Hannity is going to push a right wing viewpoint to the death, so there is really no point bringing them up in any serious debate about basically anything. Even this posting, I just have a hard time taking this particular blog seriously given the "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal", as the description, whether it is intended to be humorous or not.
The whole global warming debate is not as clear cut (if you can call it that) as something like stem cell research where the issue was basically science vs morality/religion. Both sides have their own statistics, both sides try their hardest to refute the other sides' science, and even the people who actually agree with each other that there is global warming often have different opinions on what can actually be done (if anything) to fix the problem. When something like the climate-gate situation becomes public, it makes it even harder to actually take any of the science seriously, because one can only assume that the studies, experiments, and modeling is being done with the intention of proving one side right or wrong, which will undoubtedly lead to all sorts of unintended cognitive bias.
Not to disagree with you that ad hominem attacks aren't helpful, but the article laid out a lot of interesting data based arguments which you yourself completely ignored. Intentionally or not, you instead preceded to cast "the science" into doubt in an ad hominem fashion. Ad hominem attacks are besides the point, and degrade conversion, but just because people use them doesn't make everything they say wrong.
This argument was framed in an "us vs. them" context a long time ago; that indeed has been one of the primary tactics and successes of the media engine of the right wing. It was obvious in Rush Limbaugh's earliest shows, and it's obvious in Fox News today.
I don't think it's altogether wrong for some people to be getting frustrated by this.
I don't think it's altogether wrong for some people to be getting frustrated by this.
It's interesting and important to read the comments below that article. What this shows is that seeing a smoking gun in the "nature trick" email alone is misplaced, but also that the interpretation of what's going on with those tree rings is not nearly as clear or uncontroversial as the global warming alarmists want us to believe.
I've read through the article, and what it all says to me is that there are more questions on answers, and a lot of speculation as to the divergence problem. While there are some sound suggestions as to why, it would seem to me that these are all enough to discount tree rings as a useful proxy until they are better understood. To me, the use of statistical methods to blend out the divergence from a specific date seems like a real fudge.
Watching Hacker News argue about climate change is like watching the blind argue about colors. Please stop. In general you have no idea what you are talking about.
Again and again and again and again there are comments along the lines of, "I did five minutes of Googling about this issue and I've come up with a fatal flaw in climate science!" Do you really think that the tens of thousands of scientists who do their life's work in this area are all fucking idiots? Every last one of them? You are late to the party. How greenhouse gases work has been thoroughly explored. The science of whether we'll get a substantial human-caused climate change from increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2 by 35% is done. It's over. The science now is in determining/predicting just how much it will be, and in predicting the effects.
Every thread about climate science on Hacker News is one giant facepalm. Every thread. Please stop.
Again and again and again and again there are comments along the lines of, "I did five minutes of Googling about this issue and I've come up with a fatal flaw in climate science!" Do you really think that the tens of thousands of scientists who do their life's work in this area are all fucking idiots? Every last one of them? You are late to the party. How greenhouse gases work has been thoroughly explored. The science of whether we'll get a substantial human-caused climate change from increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2 by 35% is done. It's over. The science now is in determining/predicting just how much it will be, and in predicting the effects.
Every thread about climate science on Hacker News is one giant facepalm. Every thread. Please stop.
Your comment has even less evidence or analysis than the comments you're complaining about. It's just an angry assertion.
It's ok for people to who are not experts in a subject to explore it. If you feel they're on the wrong track, help them by giving them information.
It's ok for people to who are not experts in a subject to explore it. If you feel they're on the wrong track, help them by giving them information.
There's an over-abundance of information. All that's left for HN is angry, emotional quibbling by those who lack the basic qualifications to evaluate the data and science, even if they were interested in actually doing so.
The comments I've read so far present interesting POV's backed up by data and observations. I don't see how that qualifies as "angry emotional quibbling".
I don't see the problem with discussing science either. Newton's law of gravitation has been around fot 322 years, and it has been shown to be just a very good approximation (like everything else in science). Also, it is still an open question (AFAIK) whether it holds at very small distances. Climate research is not physics. The number of variables and the complexity of the system is of such magnitude that I am pretty sure there will plenty of room for scientific discussion for years and years to come.
I don't see the problem with discussing science either. Newton's law of gravitation has been around fot 322 years, and it has been shown to be just a very good approximation (like everything else in science). Also, it is still an open question (AFAIK) whether it holds at very small distances. Climate research is not physics. The number of variables and the complexity of the system is of such magnitude that I am pretty sure there will plenty of room for scientific discussion for years and years to come.
Are there really 10s of thousands of scientists doing climate work? What is your source for that? It seems like a high number.
Answering my own question, there may in fact be 10s of thousands of "climate scientists", for a very broad definition of climate scientist.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-many-climate-scientis...
Interesting to note though, how low the number is for scientists actually working on climate change.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-many-climate-scientis...
Interesting to note though, how low the number is for scientists actually working on climate change.
See my comment on the WSJ's enumeration of over 5 billion annually spend on this area; I know it was 1 billion not too many years ago. 100,000 per scientist if there's 50,000 of them; play around with the numbers, but "10s of thousands" feeding at this trough is not unreasonable.
There's a reason why my university's president and department's head are big boosters of AGW/CC, even though the former is a biologist and the latter a chemist.
There's a reason why my university's president and department's head are big boosters of AGW/CC, even though the former is a biologist and the latter a chemist.
If anything, I would expect the relatively recent divergence of correlation between tree-ring measurements and other climate measurements to bolster claims of an unstable climate, rather than suggest cooling.
Here we have a situation where plant behavior closely follows other measurements of the climate for a very long time, and then recently ... they don't. The most likely explanation here -- still being studied, mind you -- is that there has been a significant change in the interaction between trees and environment in certain areas.
Here we have a situation where plant behavior closely follows other measurements of the climate for a very long time, and then recently ... they don't. The most likely explanation here -- still being studied, mind you -- is that there has been a significant change in the interaction between trees and environment in certain areas.
More accurately, it draws into question the accuracy of tree-ring measurements as a proxy for temperature.
We do not have a situation "where plant behavior closely follows other measurements of the climate for a very long time". Instead we have a situation where one of the principle components of a small subset of tree-ring data generally follows other measurements of the climate for a very short time. And where even with all of that we still have "divergence" problems. These problems draw into question the validity of such measurements as a proxy for historical climate. If they do not track global temperature even a little accurately today how can we have any confidence that they do so in times long past when we don't have temperature records to check their accuracy?
The answer is that we don't. And every indication seems to be that many of these proxy reconstructions from the CRU are wholly inaccurate representations of historical climate.
We do not have a situation "where plant behavior closely follows other measurements of the climate for a very long time". Instead we have a situation where one of the principle components of a small subset of tree-ring data generally follows other measurements of the climate for a very short time. And where even with all of that we still have "divergence" problems. These problems draw into question the validity of such measurements as a proxy for historical climate. If they do not track global temperature even a little accurately today how can we have any confidence that they do so in times long past when we don't have temperature records to check their accuracy?
The answer is that we don't. And every indication seems to be that many of these proxy reconstructions from the CRU are wholly inaccurate representations of historical climate.
By your logic, any noise in measurement is evidence of instability in the system being measured.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. A simple thought experiment: use a blind man to visually measure the location of a rock. Does the fact that his answers are noisy provide evidence the rock is moving around in an unstable manner?
Sorry, but that's nonsense. A simple thought experiment: use a blind man to visually measure the location of a rock. Does the fact that his answers are noisy provide evidence the rock is moving around in an unstable manner?
Which "other measurements of the climate" are you referring to exactly? CO2 level is not a measurement of climate, of course. It seems to be correlated, but it's unknown if its phase is leading or lagging. So, what measurements are you referring to?
> CO2 level is not a measurement of climate, of course.
LOL.
Well, that's it. I'm done. Have a nice weekend, folks.
LOL.
Well, that's it. I'm done. Have a nice weekend, folks.
If you honestly think that CO2 is the one and only cause of climate, ignoring solar cycles, and other effects, and furthermore, if you believe with certainty, that the CO2 cycle is phase shifted ahead in time, compared to temperature, when it's just as likely that it's lagging, than you're right, we really have no point in talking.
Also based on your response, I think we now know what "other climate measurements" you were referring to.
Also based on your response, I think we now know what "other climate measurements" you were referring to.
[deleted]
Because otherwise people would have realized much earlier that their tree-ring data is not a useful proxy for temperature?
You seem to be another carrier of the recent disease infecting HN, where users are commenting on articles that they didn't bother reading.
Pray tell, how do you know I didn't read it? (In all fairness, I read some, skimmed the rest.)
Thanks (sincerely) for being honest about that, at least.
There were two clues: one, your comment timestamp was not far removed from the time that the article was posted. I read pretty quickly, but it still took me some time to fully read and digest the entire article.
Second, there was your statement: "their tree-ring data is not a useful proxy for temperature". The article specifically mentioned that tree-ring data correlated with other proxies for temperature measurements, as well as going into other details (like the difference between measuring ring thickness and ring density, and the fact that there has only somewhat recently been a divergence between the measurements). Basically, the article answered your statement, I think.
There were two clues: one, your comment timestamp was not far removed from the time that the article was posted. I read pretty quickly, but it still took me some time to fully read and digest the entire article.
Second, there was your statement: "their tree-ring data is not a useful proxy for temperature". The article specifically mentioned that tree-ring data correlated with other proxies for temperature measurements, as well as going into other details (like the difference between measuring ring thickness and ring density, and the fact that there has only somewhat recently been a divergence between the measurements). Basically, the article answered your statement, I think.
No, it doesn't answer why they felt they had to "hide the decline" instead of discussing and justifying how the recent divergence is congruent with their claims of its usefulness as a proxy when there were no (accurate) temperature readings. These are not the actions of honest men.
Well, they discussed it. In public. In peer reviewed journals. You know, this mail is not the only place where climate scientists talked about tree rings.
In peer reviewed journals that they kept free of not just "deniers" but anyone who wasn't as fervent as they. One journal was excommunicated (my phrase) until half the editors resigned. For another that was "too important to lose" (direct quote (or rather paraphrase, see below) from memory) they applied enough pressure that the offending editor resigned.
Really, now. What you're saying might have flown prior to the release of the CRUtape Letters, but not after.
Really, now. What you're saying might have flown prior to the release of the CRUtape Letters, but not after.
This is a joke, right? And the upvote, too.
As a scientist (who was forced into a sordid life of programming :-) I wish it was.
From the horse's mouth: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filen... refers to the first incident while talking about the second (search for "It's one thing to lose").
And for another telling quote, see http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filen... where Phil Jones says "I can't see either of these papers being in the next [UN] IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
Pielke, BTW, is not a denier, he just doesn't agree with the CRU crowd on various details.
From the horse's mouth: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filen... refers to the first incident while talking about the second (search for "It's one thing to lose").
And for another telling quote, see http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filen... where Phil Jones says "I can't see either of these papers being in the next [UN] IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
Pielke, BTW, is not a denier, he just doesn't agree with the CRU crowd on various details.
I know those mails and don’t see the scandal. That’s why I believe you were and must be joking.
So policy makers get the dishonest graph unless they have the wherewithal to dig through the references at the back? I don't trust my representatives that much.
They get the graph that scientists agreed (after lengthy public discussion in the last few decades) is closest to reality.
Just because you wish something were dishonest doesn’t make it so.
Just because you wish something were dishonest doesn’t make it so.
Do you have a good peer-reviewed article that shows that tree-ring data as a proxy for temperature is a poor fit. I'd be interested in reading it.
I don't have one. That's sort of the problem, though, isn't it?
With the climatologists interfering so strongly in the way this is supposed to work, by selecting which peers do their reviews, and by applying political pressure to the journals, the whole "look it up in the established body of work" approach has been sabotaged.
EDIT: I forgot an important one. The collusion aspect that the emails revealed. We're not going to put this result in our paper, even though we believe it, because it messes up Scientist B's premise.
With the climatologists interfering so strongly in the way this is supposed to work, by selecting which peers do their reviews, and by applying political pressure to the journals, the whole "look it up in the established body of work" approach has been sabotaged.
EDIT: I forgot an important one. The collusion aspect that the emails revealed. We're not going to put this result in our paper, even though we believe it, because it messes up Scientist B's premise.
You're kidding, right?
Evidence of absence is not proof. Imagine if this argument were used in other contexts: "there are no papers published in peer-reviewed journals about intelligent design. This proves that there's a conspiracy in the biological community!"
In fact: there are a few published papers which challenge popular climatological measurements and papers, and they are cited as often as possible by ... I don't want to call them denialists, but I'm not sure what else to call them.
So, wrong on both counts.
Evidence of absence is not proof. Imagine if this argument were used in other contexts: "there are no papers published in peer-reviewed journals about intelligent design. This proves that there's a conspiracy in the biological community!"
In fact: there are a few published papers which challenge popular climatological measurements and papers, and they are cited as often as possible by ... I don't want to call them denialists, but I'm not sure what else to call them.
So, wrong on both counts.
Reread my post. I didn't say that the absence of papers proved anything. I said that the scientific process has been sabotaged in this instance, making things more unclear than they should be.
You are slick though!
EDIT: Perhaps you're honestly confused. I'm a bit doubtful on that, but in case you are. We know that the process has been sabotaged. Not because there are no papers, but because many of the details of the sabotage were revealed in the ClimateGate emails.
You are slick though!
EDIT: Perhaps you're honestly confused. I'm a bit doubtful on that, but in case you are. We know that the process has been sabotaged. Not because there are no papers, but because many of the details of the sabotage were revealed in the ClimateGate emails.
a) One of the worst aspects of ClimateGate is how that group was keeping people less fervent than them out of the peer-reviewed literature.
b) All you have to do is look at how their tree-ring data (MXD to be precise) diverges from recorded temperatures starting in 1960, it declines, to be precise, to know why they felt they had to "hide the decline". Heck, look at the chart where they cut off the green line that represents this data just as it's starting to fall and conveniently where it's in a thicket of other lines so that you won't easily notice the cutoff.
b) All you have to do is look at how their tree-ring data (MXD to be precise) diverges from recorded temperatures starting in 1960, it declines, to be precise, to know why they felt they had to "hide the decline". Heck, look at the chart where they cut off the green line that represents this data just as it's starting to fall and conveniently where it's in a thicket of other lines so that you won't easily notice the cutoff.
Is anyone a little disturbed about that website? From the title "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal".
On the sidebar: "The Rise of Atheism, Global Atheist Convention".
This guy is some type of Atheist cult member.
On the sidebar: "The Rise of Atheism, Global Atheist Convention".
This guy is some type of Atheist cult member.
If AGW is a vast scientific left-wing conspiracy, I think it's diabolically brilliant. Surely everyone thinks reducing pollution and fossil fuel dependency is important, right?
How important? Look at the arguments of Bjørn Lomborg, "The Skeptical Environmentalist". He says e.g. there are far better ways to spend the world's money to improve lives than e.g. what's being proposed WRT to AGW/CC.
FTA: The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Call me when you're sure. Extraordinary calls to action require extraordinary proof.
Call me when you're sure. Extraordinary calls to action require extraordinary proof.
Another thing worth remembering in this context is that once people get used to lying with a straight face it is a hell of a job to stop.
Indeed. But at least that's more discouraged in scientific circles than in think tanks and PR/astroturfing campaigns financed by those who want to discredit science for financial gain.
And you don't think that the billions of dollars at stake in carbon trading don't result in proponents attempting to discredit critics?
The current views in climatology were developed long before there were "billions at stake".
Meanwhile, if there are "billions at stake" in the "green" industry, there are trillions at stake in those industries that would like to not have to install complicated and expensive filters for their manufacturing exhaust, and for the automotive industry which would surely love not to have to meet quite so stringent air quality standards.
Can we at least agree that arguing about monetary motivation is problematic at best, and probably stupid, and stick to the actual science here?
Meanwhile, if there are "billions at stake" in the "green" industry, there are trillions at stake in those industries that would like to not have to install complicated and expensive filters for their manufacturing exhaust, and for the automotive industry which would surely love not to have to meet quite so stringent air quality standards.
Can we at least agree that arguing about monetary motivation is problematic at best, and probably stupid, and stick to the actual science here?
> Meanwhile, if there are "billions at stake" in the "green" industry, there are trillions at stake in those industries
Don't count on it. Enron, 1998: "If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States, the potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous."
The biggest contributor to the debate is governments, and their self-interest in climate change is eclipsing that of any business.
> Can we at least agree that arguing about monetary motivation is problematic at best, and probably stupid, and stick to the actual science here?
Apparently not. Obviously, your plea is sound, had it not followed an assertion of one side of the argument that it is claiming problematic and stupid.
Don't count on it. Enron, 1998: "If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States, the potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous."
The biggest contributor to the debate is governments, and their self-interest in climate change is eclipsing that of any business.
> Can we at least agree that arguing about monetary motivation is problematic at best, and probably stupid, and stick to the actual science here?
Apparently not. Obviously, your plea is sound, had it not followed an assertion of one side of the argument that it is claiming problematic and stupid.
Sure (though the millions at stake in academic research particularly given the political climate as the leaked emails illustrate are also of significance) - but let's first separate the conversation to understanding that (1) what's the problem and (2) what we should do about it are two separate issues.
Let's also understand that much of the western world like the US are about to show significant declines in carbon emissions irrespective of what Fox news or any other polemics - pro or con say. (ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/15/us-decline...)
Let's also understand that much of the western world like the US are about to show significant declines in carbon emissions irrespective of what Fox news or any other polemics - pro or con say. (ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/15/us-decline...)
By my count of an enumeration in The Wall Street Journal (in an OPED) there's currently well over 5 billion in academic "research" at stake annually. Paul Jones, the top dog in the CRUtape Letters, himself pulled in 22 million in the period in question.
The problem that I keep getting back to is best phrased like this: archaeological climate record extrapolation is nowhere near as sure-fire as supporters make it out to be. I have many more problems, but this one addresses the current article.
I understand these are honest, hard-working scientists, and they know a heckuva lot more than I do about their particular area, but as an intelligent person I can make fairly informed guesses based on the standards of proof required and the types of phrases being used. There a lot of "it appears" and "it seems" in there, phrases that mean that while consensus has been achieved (we'll take that as a given for this comment) it's nowhere near a slam-dunk. There's also quite a bit of ad-hominem character assassination going on, even in this piece. I find that folks who have to result to labeling and name-calling usually are insecure about their position.
Especially troubling is the way the current divergence is addressed. The argument looks to me like "we can use this data as a proxy for all periods except those where we have direct measurements to verify correlation" I find that weak at best.
To me, the layman, tree-ring data is going to show you how well a certain tree grew in a certain place over time. That might or might not have implications for the larger area or the entire planet. Like so many other pieces of this argument, it depends on having a control group and repeatable experiments -- none of which are doable. So it boils down to speculation. Speculation by great, intelligent people, perhaps, but speculation nonetheless.
I know some folks will say "no matter what the proof you're never going to believe" I don't know how to respond to that, except to point out that I've always been more interested in the character of the debate around GW and the political implications of letting scientific consensus drive public policy more than I have the actual facts on the ground. I have no more emotion invested in whether the planet is cooling or warming than I do variations of the gravitational constant around the time of the big bang. Whichever way the facts lead will not change my underlying concern. So I really don't have a dog in this fight as far as the science goes, at least not to the degree that some others do.