2
This topic is locked
OK, first of all, research affecting both sides of this debate. I first read about it in Scientific American: MIND. Just did a search for it here and used the first one available.
http://www.startribu...01.html?refer=y
Big science, big pressure, big misconduct? Study finds increase in fraud in research journals
- Article by: SETH BORENSTEIN , Associated Press
- Updated: October 2, 2012 - 7:01 PM
http://www.redorbit....an-made-100412/
Tracking Methane – Emissions Traced All The Way Back To Roman Times
Meaning that if this report is true, that the greenhouse gas increases weren't just in the last 200 years, but went back as far as two thousand years where greenhouse gasses rose dramatically, then fell after 200 years. Wonder what fossily fuels they were burning then? It could have been coal.
OK, I will try and repond to all your points, even tho I have not had my coffee or tea yet. Tea, I think, this morning. No, coffee.
OK facts: Even if you personally have had your hands on original productions, it will still be a report to me when you tell it to me, since I personally do not have those originals in my own hand. However, if there is one person I trust to tell something closer to truth, it would be you.
Is it true that increasing temps will cause more tree growth? I have seen conflicting data on that. One saying that the warmer temps encourages more tree groth and new starts. While the other data says that warmer temps kill trees.
Is it like the case in yellowstone where they found that the fire was better long term for the overall health of the forests. I have been there twice since the fire. Since I am a photo nut, the photos regarding the two year span shows dramatic changes. Of course, the visits were different times of the year as well. This year, the snow was still on the ground. Again, feedback loops are super-important.
Jeez, I would love to know what you find regarding winter snow storms and tree growth. Would be good to know to maintain our glorious shelterbelts back on the farm, , one half a mile long and six rows deep, where it is now said is home to elk.
Wasn't there a mini-iace age somewhere around that time where people could walk across the Thames? I went to look and found what they think lead up to that mini-ice-age:
Ah come on, eureka-alert is a research embargo site. It is where the news gets it's news. I don't think you can dismiss euraka or alpha so readily. If you are waiting for publications to put them out, good luck. I have the news before you.
I am a huge fan of peer review. Checks and balances. Fuzzy math is everywhere. Too bad our banks aren't peer reviewed.
I agree. Truth is not absolute. That is why I sit on the fence regarding anthropomorphic climate change. The sun reaches solar climax next year. Then I may well lean one way or the other. What I do know is what is happening to my own tree here in the yard. I can water them during the drought. But solar flare after solar flare wilts their leaves.
And I am someone who has been successful in growing bananas in Kansas, with up to 60 plants at one time. This year, I let some of them die off because it would have been quite a struggle to keep them alive during solar max. I mean, far more of a struggle than diggin them up in the fall, storing them inside, and planting them again in the spring.
Doug1o29, on 03 October 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:
This is no surprise.
That would depend on the "facts." I have physical possession of the entire core collection that produced the Ouachita Chronology (I was the one who wrote that "report;" publication pending.). My "report" is a peer-reviewed research article. I have personally examined the original cores from the McCurtain County, Lake Winona, Hot Springs and Drury House Chronologies, the data from which is available at NASA's tree ring website. The "facts" derived from these are lists of ring-width measurements and observations of microscopic wood anatomy, such as fire scars, frost rings and weather-induced false rings. My article is merely descriptive of the chronology. It summarizes the quality of the dataset and does not attempt any analyses. Are these "facts?"
Two additional papers I am now working on will analyze that data to determine a means of identifying major winter storms from the forest's growth response. That involves some statistical analyses and interpretation. The method I developed works with 85 to 100% accuracy, but does not actually get to 100% (almost, but not quite). Are these "facts?"
One of those papers will be a tree-ring record of severe storms and some droughts going back to 1750. This was Choctaw territory at that time. France still claimed it, but the Choctaws had possession of the land. Some of the storms I have identified match up with Indian legends, such as the "Resting Summer" of 1855, the "Noahkian Flood" of 1862, the "Snow Winter" of 1881 and the great storm of 1886. The more-recent ones match up with Weather Bureau and National Weather Service data. And there are many storms I cannot match to any record, mostly because that far back, there are no records. Are these "facts?" At any rate, my records are more complete and before 1959, more accurate than the National Weather Sevice. Again, these will be peer-reviewed papers and will be submitted for review this fall.
I do not have direct experience of "the Mother of All El Ninos" which occurred in 1791 and 1792, but they show up in my tree-ring records. But I can look at the tree rings affected and see the result (The widest rings in the whole chronology.). The important thing in tree ring research is that somewhere somebody has the original cores and you can go back to those and double-check his work. Also, you can go into the woods, increment borer in hand, and collect your own sample. The work can be replicated if someone is so inclined.
Also, you can compare your results with what other people are getting. Don't put all your faith in one paper. Dave Stahle (tree ring and climate researher) reports that 1833 was the wettest year on record for the American South. That's not what my rings show: I show 1791 and 1792 tied for that honor; I show 1833 as a perfectly-ordinary year. Why the difference? Speculation: maybe it's because my datasets come from farther west, on the edge of the Great Plains. This location may be more sensitive to El Nino effects. Further research will be needed to determine the cause. Some graduate student has his work cut out for him.
That's why we post our sources. In research, only peer-reviewed material is acceptable (Well, I once referred to a comment in an unjuried book by a distinguished researcher.). Not even a poster presented at a professional meeting is acceptable because it is not peer-reviewed (But a peer-reviewed extended abstract based on that poster is acceptable.).
The links you have posted are to popular-literature sites. Those don't cut it in research.
You will notice that most research articles are loaded with caveats. That's because we never know Absolute Truth. However tiny the risk of error, it is always there and something we must live with. This is so well known that even when it is not expressed, it is assumed.
Research papers are the best information available. Most are written in the format: This is what I did. This is what I observed. This is what I think is the cause. They do not actually say what Ultimate Truth may be. It is very obvious what the author's opinion is, but the reader must make up his own mind. If he's wrong, he then takes personal responsibility for the mistake; you can't blame it on the author you're quoting.
And there is no such thing as "proof" in science. All you will ever get is science's best current understanding. That understanding is tentative pending the outcome of future studies. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROOF.
That's because they are more willing to accept mistakes than NOAA is. It takes time to check your material and some people aren't willing to take the time.
Junk these sites (the ones you posted, as well as UM). Read the research. Do your own research. Then make up your own mind. That's how it's supposed to be done.
Doug
That would depend on the "facts." I have physical possession of the entire core collection that produced the Ouachita Chronology (I was the one who wrote that "report;" publication pending.). My "report" is a peer-reviewed research article. I have personally examined the original cores from the McCurtain County, Lake Winona, Hot Springs and Drury House Chronologies, the data from which is available at NASA's tree ring website. The "facts" derived from these are lists of ring-width measurements and observations of microscopic wood anatomy, such as fire scars, frost rings and weather-induced false rings. My article is merely descriptive of the chronology. It summarizes the quality of the dataset and does not attempt any analyses. Are these "facts?"
Two additional papers I am now working on will analyze that data to determine a means of identifying major winter storms from the forest's growth response. That involves some statistical analyses and interpretation. The method I developed works with 85 to 100% accuracy, but does not actually get to 100% (almost, but not quite). Are these "facts?"
One of those papers will be a tree-ring record of severe storms and some droughts going back to 1750. This was Choctaw territory at that time. France still claimed it, but the Choctaws had possession of the land. Some of the storms I have identified match up with Indian legends, such as the "Resting Summer" of 1855, the "Noahkian Flood" of 1862, the "Snow Winter" of 1881 and the great storm of 1886. The more-recent ones match up with Weather Bureau and National Weather Service data. And there are many storms I cannot match to any record, mostly because that far back, there are no records. Are these "facts?" At any rate, my records are more complete and before 1959, more accurate than the National Weather Sevice. Again, these will be peer-reviewed papers and will be submitted for review this fall.
I do not have direct experience of "the Mother of All El Ninos" which occurred in 1791 and 1792, but they show up in my tree-ring records. But I can look at the tree rings affected and see the result (The widest rings in the whole chronology.). The important thing in tree ring research is that somewhere somebody has the original cores and you can go back to those and double-check his work. Also, you can go into the woods, increment borer in hand, and collect your own sample. The work can be replicated if someone is so inclined.
Also, you can compare your results with what other people are getting. Don't put all your faith in one paper. Dave Stahle (tree ring and climate researher) reports that 1833 was the wettest year on record for the American South. That's not what my rings show: I show 1791 and 1792 tied for that honor; I show 1833 as a perfectly-ordinary year. Why the difference? Speculation: maybe it's because my datasets come from farther west, on the edge of the Great Plains. This location may be more sensitive to El Nino effects. Further research will be needed to determine the cause. Some graduate student has his work cut out for him.
That's why we post our sources. In research, only peer-reviewed material is acceptable (Well, I once referred to a comment in an unjuried book by a distinguished researcher.). Not even a poster presented at a professional meeting is acceptable because it is not peer-reviewed (But a peer-reviewed extended abstract based on that poster is acceptable.).
The links you have posted are to popular-literature sites. Those don't cut it in research.
You will notice that most research articles are loaded with caveats. That's because we never know Absolute Truth. However tiny the risk of error, it is always there and something we must live with. This is so well known that even when it is not expressed, it is assumed.
Research papers are the best information available. Most are written in the format: This is what I did. This is what I observed. This is what I think is the cause. They do not actually say what Ultimate Truth may be. It is very obvious what the author's opinion is, but the reader must make up his own mind. If he's wrong, he then takes personal responsibility for the mistake; you can't blame it on the author you're quoting.
And there is no such thing as "proof" in science. All you will ever get is science's best current understanding. That understanding is tentative pending the outcome of future studies. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROOF.
That's because they are more willing to accept mistakes than NOAA is. It takes time to check your material and some people aren't willing to take the time.
Junk these sites (the ones you posted, as well as UM). Read the research. Do your own research. Then make up your own mind. That's how it's supposed to be done.
Doug
Edited by regeneratia, 04 October 2012 - 02:33 PM.
