102 replies to this topic

[Vigilanis]

Doug1o29, on 14 April 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

You did a good job with RCS, even though your conclusions are based on a complete misunderstanding of the process.  But you're right:  you should stick to medicine.
Doug

Well like I said I still personally feel that there are flaws with RCS and will continue that opinion, some of which is clearly illustrated but you feel I misunderstand the process, we could go around in circles with this but I think we have made our points. You sir are welcome to your research and I gracefully bow out of the thread and wish you well my friend.

I will look to your published findings with interest, at least in saying I disagree with what you are trying to prove, I am willing, and I would hope educated enough, to read the findings to the contrary and hear what you have to say, only then can someone genuinely say they disagree even though I have read many like it before.

Good luck Doug.

[Vigilanis]

Essan, on 14 April 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

And yet it appears to me that you are the one with all the stones in their hand

Any stones coming from my direction Essan, are the ones rebounding back off the shield I am holding up in an attempt to protect myself

[Doug1o29]

Vigilanis, on 14 April 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

Well like I said I still personally feel that there are flaws with RCS and will continue that opinion, some of which is clearly illustrated but you feel I misunderstand the process,

Sorry if I offended you.  There are problems and strengths with practically any process that can be thought up.  One must look over the available methods and decide which ones best fit his purpose.  RCS' strength is that it does not detrend the data; thus, does not have the problem of fitting together varying series.  If I use the negative logarythm, I will encounter some of those problems you mentioned.  I'll have to solve them when I get there.

Quote

I will look to your published findings with interest, at least in saying I disagree with what you are trying to prove,

I am not trying to prove anything.  Just building a climate/weather record for the past three centuries (Shortleaf pine can't go back much farther than that.).  I would happily publish something that shows cooling.  In fact, there's an instrumental record from nearby that shows cooling and two more that show warming.  Nobody has tried to build climate records with these chronologies before.

Also, I will examine the instrumental record at the same time (By "historical" records, we mean instrumental records which locally go back to 1891, about one-third of the short-leaf pine record; tree-ring chronologies are "pre-historic" by definition.).  With historical records, I know exactly what the local temps, drought, precip was.  I cross-check my models against that before trying to extend them back.

Quote

I am willing, and I would hope educated enough, to read the findings to the contrary and hear what you have to say, only then can someone genuinely say they disagree even though I have read many like it before.

Good luck Doug.

You mention having read papers whose findings you did not agree with.  Which papers were these?  Who are the authors?  Did you disagree with the methods, the analysis or the conclusions?
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 14 April 2012 - 06:34 PM.

[Vigilanis]

Doug1o29, on 14 April 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

You mention having read papers whose findings you did not agree with.  Which papers were these?  Who are the authors?  Did you disagree with the methods, the analysis or the conclusions?
Doug

Generally speaking Doug, I have seen (forgive my limited vocabulary here but..) flaws in a few papers, Some using RCS data some not, but keeping in tune with the subject of RCS, I did read the Yamal Chronology by Briffa, and forgive me if my memory is vague here as it was a while ago, but I believe it was 2001 could have been 2000, and I read the improved RCS findings in the 2008? revision of the Yamal Chronology, as you will know the papers are based on Russian research, I briefly looked over the 2002 revision based on the different Corridor Standardization method, again forgive my memory (too much medical information has gone into my grey matter since),I know it was by two authors but can only recall one of them whom I believe was called Shiyatov?

My problems basically stemmed from the methods employed between the three, which on the surface appeared to all represent sound implementation of the RCS method. The conclusions are what I had the problem with. I am sure a man with the grasp you have over the RCS method will know these papers, and one my problems stemmed from the testing of these methods against each other when Steve McIntyre applied his own study, although I agree that his findings are refuted and I can see how it can be viewed as a biased chronology, it did however demonstrate flaws.

I do remember a Dendroclimatology paper on the Bavarian Forest in Germany from Edinburgh University, forgive me for not recalling the authors, but this quite eloquently demonstrated in the midst of trying to demonstrate the validity of the methods just what some of the primary problems were such as the complex relationship between tree ring data and climate data, the "Segment Length Curse" etc.

Generally speaking I did not have a problem with the authors, just the conclusions and therefore the methods. I personally just do not see the trend across the various studies. The pitfalls to me, in my humble uneducated opinion, is that they do not present a consistent method of analysis of the data in order to lend validity to the methods employed.

I agree that these are Dendroclimatology models, and not designed necessarily to demonstrate cataclysmic events ahead due to climate change, but so much has been written based on research such as this designed to demonstrate just that.

As I said, I look forward to your research and perhaps your work can banish my demons, but having researched so much to the contrary I am of the opposing opinion to yours Doug.
But as I said, good luck with it my friend!

As a quick edit to this, let me just clarify that the RCS method itself is not the primary problem, it is the way in which it is touted as cast iron evidence of climate change that forces one to look towards those very flaws and pitfalls and highlight them in that face of this. Just so we don't end up going in circles after all debating the issue lol.

Peace Doug

Edited by Vigilanis, 14 April 2012 - 07:35 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Vigilanis, on 14 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

Generally speaking Doug, I have seen (forgive my limited vocabulary here but..) flaws in a few papers, Some using RCS data some not, but keeping in tune with the subject of RCS, I did read the Yamal Chronology by Briffa, and forgive me if my memory is vague here as it was a while ago, but I believe it was 2001 could have been 2000, and I read the improved RCS findings in the 2008? revision of the Yamal Chronology, as you will know the papers are based on Russian research, I briefly looked over the 2002 revision based on the different Corridor Standardization method, again forgive my memory (too much medical information has gone into my grey matter since),I know it was by two authors but can only recall one of them whom I believe was called Shiyatov?

My problems basically stemmed from the methods employed between the three, which on the surface appeared to all represent sound implementation of the RCS method. The conclusions are what I had the problem with. I am sure a man with the grasp you have over the RCS method will know these papers, and one my problems stemmed from the testing of these methods against each other when Steve McIntyre applied his own study, although I agree that his findings are refuted and I can see how it can be viewed as a biased chronology, it did however demonstrate flaws.

I do remember a Dendroclimatology paper on the Bavarian Forest in Germany from Edinburgh University, forgive me for not recalling the authors, but this quite eloquently demonstrated in the midst of trying to demonstrate the validity of the methods just what some of the primary problems were such as the complex relationship between tree ring data and climate data, the "Segment Length Curse" etc.

Generally speaking I did not have a problem with the authors, just the conclusions and therefore the methods. I personally just do not see the trend across the various studies. The pitfalls to me, in my humble uneducated opinion, is that they do not present a consistent method of analysis of the data in order to lend validity to the methods employed.

I agree that these are Dendroclimatology models, and not designed necessarily to demonstrate cataclysmic events ahead due to climate change, but so much has been written based on research such as this designed to demonstrate just that.

As I said, I look forward to your research and perhaps your work can banish my demons, but having researched so much to the contrary I am of the opposing opinion to yours Doug.
But as I said, good luck with it my friend!

As a quick edit to this, let me just clarify that the RCS method itself is not the primary problem, it is the way in which it is touted as cast iron evidence of climate change that forces one to look towards those very flaws and pitfalls and highlight them in that face of this. Just so we don't end up going in circles after all debating the issue lol.

Peace Doug

It is hard to do any study that is absolutely error free.  And methods employed by one researcher in one situation may not work in another, a detail that is often overlooked by those not thoroughly familiar witha field.  I am familiar with the papers you mention, but like you, it has been some time since I read those.  I'm in my "lab" in Ohio - actually, an old house - at the moment.  When I get home I'll post the citation to Briffa's most-recent RCS paper - it's about the theory of RCS and how to apply it.  I have critiqued McKitrick on UM before.  The guy complained about Mann et al. not publishing all their data, then tried to pass off half of a COFECHA run as the whole thing.  I run that program all the time, so the deletion was easy to spot, but somebody who didn't use it could be easily misled.  Another of his complaints was "missing data."  I actually found an empty field in the chronology he was talking about - the elevation was missing.  Unless it is necessary to correct for lapse rate, dendrochronology doesn't use elevation, but if needed, it is easy to find on Google Earth.  McKitrick and McIntire are engineers, so I wouldn't put much weight on their opinions regarding dendrochronology and climate change.  I don't tell them how to build things (because I don't know anything about that); why they think they're climate experts is beyond me.

You seem better-educated on this than the average denier.  That's unusual.  What sets me off are the people who spend ten minutes reading a couple articles on a pseudo-science website and think they know more than people who've spent decades working in the field.  That's why I ask what specifically is the problem they think they've found.  I haven't had one yet who could name the problem, let alone explain what and why.  You came pretty close, though.

One problem that may be bothering you is the very nature of scientific enquiry.  Journals want readers and that means they want something new.  By the time a method has been used two or three time, it's old and journals don't want to publish it.  So a researcher has to come up with a new method.  We're making great strides in developing methods, but the daily-grind type of thing needed to make a coherrent picture, especially worldwide, can't get funded.

The Ouachita Chronology was submitted for peer review on January 9th and I heard from the reviewer for the first time last week - he says he'll get it done in May.  I submitted the ice storm paper two weeks ago - same reviewer.  Lord knows when he'll get to that one.  At any rate, it may be awhile before these get into print.
Doug

[socrates.junior]

Doug1o29, on 14 April 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Oops.  Can't count.  Good memeory, but short.
Doug

Well it's not the counting that's the problem. It's more of the misunderstanding of extinction events mechanisms that's the problem.

[Doug1o29]

socrates.junior, on 15 April 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Well it's not the counting that's the problem. It's more of the misunderstanding of extinction events mechanisms that's the problem.

Don't keep us in suspense.  Lets hear your explanation.
Doug

[socrates.junior]

Doug1o29, on 15 April 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

Don't keep us in suspense.  Lets hear your explanation.
Doug

Sigh. I can't do that until you actually specify which extinction events you're talking about. Of any of the major ones, your clathrate hypothesis is only posited to be a primary cause in one of them.

[Doug1o29]

socrates.junior, on 15 April 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Sigh. I can't do that until you actually specify which extinction events you're talking about. Of any of the major ones, your clathrate hypothesis is only posited to be a primary cause in one of them.

I believe you are referring to the Permian-Triassic extinction and/or the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.  Methane release was involved in both; although, in the case of the Permian-Triassic, the eruption of the Siberian Traps, releasing massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, and the disruption of highly anoxic deep water probably played a major part.  Other extinctions, excluding the K-T, are blamed on volcansim in one form or another, but that has the effect of disrupting ocean currents, warming the seabed, etc., so methane gets into the picture, even if it wasn't a major player.

The PETM most-closely resembles our current situation and methane is blamed 100% for that.

And I just discovered a paper from several years ago that presents a good news - bad news interpretation of "the methane gun."  First, it would probably take a thousand years or so for our current warming to penetrate most methane deposits and start a massive release - so we have some time.  On the other hand, the amount of methane that could be released suddenly from the Arctic would raise methane concentrations about twelve times, having the same effect as instantly doubling CO2 levels - good for about 1.5 degrees of instant temperature rise.  So, if we get shot by the methane gun, we get a smaller-scale disaster immediately, but the big problem gets put off for several hundred years.
Doug

Archer, D.  2007.  Methane hydrate stability and anthrogenic climate change.  Biogeosciences 4(4) 521-544.

Edited by Doug1o29, 15 April 2012 - 08:37 PM.

[socrates.junior]

Alrighty, glad we got that one narrowed down. Yep, those are the ones.

Eh, not 100 percent. I don't know how you're taking all geologic hypotheses as gospel...probably because you're not a geologist. It's called multiple working hypotheses for a reason.

On the plus side, your paper does note that a methane doomsday scenario is highly unlikely, which is a good thing.

[questionmark]

socrates.junior, on 16 April 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Alrighty, glad we got that one narrowed down. Yep, those are the ones.

Eh, not 100 percent. I don't know how you're taking all geologic hypotheses as gospel...probably because you're not a geologist. It's called multiple working hypotheses for a reason.

On the plus side, your paper does note that a methane doomsday scenario is highly unlikely, which is a good thing.

Does not have to be methane, enough carbon dioxide (where the Oxygen level falls under 15%) is also lethal.

[socrates.junior]

I agree with that. That's been the cause of several extinctions, if I recall correctly. I don't know if they're predicting that for this warming, however.

[BFB]

Doug.

I have some questions regarding dendroclimatology.

1. Biological

Which type of analysis do you use when you want to singal out environmental signals in tree ring series which are in an unobersrved, uncontrolled and steadily changing enviroment?

2. Statistical

Would you agree the use of EPS, SSS and RBAR statistics in dendroclimatology tell us nothing about the TRUE strength of environmental signals?

3. Emergence

When it comes to the principles of emergence in biological systems, has any exquisite mathematical models been devolped? If not, wouldn't you say its a fundamental flaw in our biological theory?

[JayMark]

socrates.junior, on 16 April 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

I agree with that. That's been the cause of several extinctions, if I recall correctly. I don't know if they're predicting that for this warming, however.

As far as I understand, they are more worried about methane hydrates that oxygen depletion. But I guess an intense warming and GHG release could also lower the oxygen concentration by also affecting oxygen sources.

I have seen a documentry from 1995 in which Russian scientists gave off a warning to the scientific community about it (clathrates). We are of course talking about Siberia.

Since Siberia is one of the most affected place in regards to warming, they are thinking it could eventually get bad. When looking at videos from Siberia in summer, you can see all those puddles of water bubbling quite intensely by places.

Seems like it is intensifiying as years go by.

There is an estimated amount of it (worldwide) that could easily add a couple °C to global temperature but we can't say exactly how it's going to evolve. The only sure thing is that it will only get worst over time.

Peace.

[Doug1o29]

I have just returned from Ohio.  It rained the last two days we planned to do field work, but on the morning we were supposed to come back, the sun came out and we had a beutiful day, so we decided to spend it doing field work and drive straight through that night.  I have now been awake for 29 hours straight, so if my words don't make sense, you'll know why.

I promised to post some references to RCS:
Briffa, R. Keith and Thomas M. Melvin.  2008.  A closer look at Regional Curve Standardization of tree-ring records:  justification of the need, a warning of some pitfalls and suggested improvements in its application, In Hughes, M. K., H. F. Diaz and T. W. Swetnam, eds.:  Dendroclimatology:  progress and prospects.  Springer Verlag.

Cook, Edward R.; Keith R. Briffa, David M. Meko, Donald A. Graybill and Gary Funkhouser.  1995.  The 'segment-length curse' in long tree-ring chronology development for paleoclimatic studies.  The Holocene 5,2(1995) pp. 229-237.

Vigilanis, on 14 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

Generally speaking I did not have a problem with the authors, just the conclusions and therefore the methods. I personally just do not see the trend across the various studies.

Maybe it's just bad wording, but this makes it seem that you are choosing your desired outcome, then choosing the methods that produce that result.  That, of course, is not a test of anything; it's pseudo-science.

Quote

As a quick edit to this, let me just clarify that the RCS method itself is not the primary problem, it is the way in which it is touted as cast iron evidence of climate change that forces one to look towards those very flaws and pitfalls and highlight them in that face of this. Just so we don't end up going in circles after all debating the issue lol.

I am not aware of anyone claiming that RCS is the end-all of climate research.  It is merely another tool in the box.  And the fact that there are known problems and that these are being published as a warning to other researchers, simply serves to make future studies better (and also allows corrections to past ones); problems do not invalidate a method, unless they are insoluble.
Doug