Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Karlis

Human activities generate more greenhose gas

82 posts in this topic

The issue is not whether the data has been processed or not.

Any kind of processing removes some of the information from the data set. The idea is to remove the noise without losing the underlying signal.

The issue is that the data was deleted from 1950-1999.

The issue is not whether it was removed, but WHY it was removed. The researcher simply tells what he did and why, then the rest of the world can accept it, or not.

did you watch Professor Muller explain this to you?

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Richard A. Muller:

Muller obtained an A.B. degree at Columbia University (New York) and a Ph.D. degree in physics from University of California, Berkeley. Muller began his career as a graduate student under Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez doing particle physics experiments and working with bubble chambers. During his early years he also helped to cocreate accelerator mass spectroscopy and made some of the first measurements of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background.

Subsequently, Muller branched out into other areas of science, and in particular the Earth sciences. His work has included attempting to understand the ice ages, dynamics at the core-mantle boundary, patterns of extinction and biodiversity through time, and the processes associated with impact cratering. One of his most well known proposals is the Nemesis hypothesis suggesting that the Sun could have an as yet undetected companion dwarf star, whose perturbations of the Oort cloud and subsequent effects on the flux of comets entering the inner Solar System could explain an apparent 26 million year periodicity in extinction events.

HE'S A PHYSICIST!

He has a wide array of interests. But I'll gamble that he has never studied how trees grow. It seems that he is missing the point that most, if not all, chronologies are based on a large number of ring measurements at the young end and very few at the older end. As a result, confidence dimishes as one goes farther back in time.

"Professor" Muller did not mention Mann's justification for his actions or attempt to refute them. That's like a trial in which the defense cannot present its case. So much for his objectivity.

did you hear him say that the data has been released?

Then it's available for analysis. What did YOUR analysis say? Do you have anything to back up your contentions?

did you hear him say that he would never read or believe anything else written by those authors?

He doesn't know enough about dendrochronology to make an informed decision.

There is a long-standing animosity between physicists and practically everybody else, particularly the natural sciences. Physicists commonly work with correlation coefficients near 98%. As a result, they look down their collective noses at sciences that have to work with values around 20 to 30%. A physicist can put his experiment in an oven, exactly control the temperature and come back in twenty minutes to get a result. He wouldn't fare so well if he had to leave it out in the woods for 50 years (There's a set of research plots in Upper Michigan that were installed 90 years ago.).

I think this guys disdain for biology is getting the better of him. He is not qualified in dendrochronology. As a result, his opinion is a Little Fishy.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue is not whether it was removed, but WHY it was removed.
why it was removed was to hide the decline.
The researcher simply tells what he did
he didn't tell us what he did.

to find out the data was deleted, a vigilant statistician on his own time and money had to persist with FOIA requests and deal with illegal refusals, childish abuse and accusations. Only after a considerable time did he get the data and reconstruct Briffas work but this time including the data from the file named "DELETED_DATA". It was only then that the world found out what Briffa had done.

and why, then the rest of the world can accept it, or not.
he didn't tell us why he did it.

The reasons why Briffa deleted data were found in the emails, and we find that it was to hide the decline from 1961-1999.

its explained in post#75

or you could read the emails and find out yourself, as I did 2 years ago.

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if tree ring data does not represent actual temperature readings since 1950, then we cannot know they represent past temperature readings. so these treemometers graphs cannot be reliable as reconstructions. this is the whole point about the MWP being erased by the use of tree ring data and giving the false impression that current temperatures are higher than the MWP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

why it was removed was to hide the decline.

I have already given several valid reasons for deleting that chronology. Suppose you present some evidence to support your contention. You might try looking at Mann's paper as a starting point.

BTW: My weather records for Arkansas/Oklahoma show the same rising pattern as the black curve: a low in 1907, a slight wobble in the early 30s, a subordinate peak in 1950, a local minimum in the late 60s, a sharp rise beginning in 1976 and a flattening out beginning in 1998. Those are drawn from instrumental records, not tree rings. That chronology is used to calibrate tree ring studies so we can project the chronologies back in time. Unfortunately, shortleaf pine is a perishable wood and the oldest chronologies only reach back to the late 1600s.

he didn't tell us what he did.

You couldn't tell from a truncated graph?

to find out the data was deleted, a vigilant statistician on his own time and money had to persist with FOIA requests and deal with illegal refusals, childish abuse and accusations. Only after a considerable time did he get the data and reconstruct Briffas work but this time including the data from the file named "DELETED_DATA". It was only then that the world found out what Briffa had done.

Briffa et al. should probably have been more forthcoming with their data. In the US, we usually try to publish the chronologies along with the paper. NCDC keeps a file of chronologies and it is something to record on your CV when they accept one. Chronologies are, technically, the intellectual property of the person who prepared them, but as they validate the paper, it is standard practice to give them to whoever wants them. In Europe, they tend to be much more secretive about it - probably a resentment of people who want to sponge off others' work. The "fee" for using another persons' data set is to be listed as an author of any resulting papers. I suspect your statistician was unable to offer that - or didn't know about the practice.

My department has a competition going with the University of Arkansas to see who can find the oldest tree. Right now, they're winning. The record is a 605-year-old eastern red-cedar from Henryetta, OK. To prove you have the oldest tree, you have to share the data. So far, all the competition has done is given them some bragging rights and lost us a few beer bets, but it has developed a habit of data-sharing between the two schools. I have several of their unpublished data sets as a result.

The reasons why Briffa deleted data were found in the emails, and we find that it was to hide the decline from 1961-1999.

its explained in post#75

There is another reason to delete a data set, particularly one based on only 12 series. Twelve series is a sub-standard data set. We normally wouldn't use it at all, for the reasons I've listed above. But one that shows a steep decline in the more recent rings is likely from a diseased stand. If that's the reason it was deleted, that reason should have been stated. BUT: dendrochronologists are not tree pathologists. Most wouldn't recognize a diseased tree if they saw one. And STATISTICIANS and PHYSICISTS have trouble recognizing a tree, let alone a tree disease.

or you could read the emails and find out yourself, as I did 2 years ago.

I'm wondering why, with all your supposed expertise on the subject, you do not re-analyze the data yourself. If this one defective chronology invalidates the thousands of others that have been prepared, then the world needs to know why. This is your chance to go down in history - or not.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have already given several valid reasons for deleting that chronology.

what was the reason for deleting the data from 1961-1999?

it is not about speculating the reason, it is about the reason.

why do you disagree with post 75?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if tree ring data does not represent actual temperature readings since 1950, then we cannot know they represent past temperature readings. so these treemometers graphs cannot be reliable as reconstructions. this is the whole point about the MWP being erased by the use of tree ring data and giving the false impression that current temperatures are higher than the MWP.

Now that you have proven that tree rings don't work, you can start on sediment cores. Next you can go to work on speleothems. Then ice cores. Even if you win this minor skirmish, you still lose the war.

There are valid reasons to take tree-ring chronologies with a grain of salt, but so far, you haven't listed one of them. Seeing as your infinite expertise in the subject does not include any of these reasons, let me list a couple for you:

1. Trees are not very good at recording temperature. They're much better at rainfall and selected types of storms. But temperature has some problems. Shortleaf pines, for example, do not record the high temperatures; they are able to tolerate temperatures well above what they are actually experiencing, so fluctuations in high temps do not appear in their rings. Low temperatures, on the other hand: every few years temperatures dip low enough to leave a mark in the wood. And when the wood is not marked, the low temperatures can influence ring width. So a temperature record derived from short-leaf pine shows the annual lows pretty well, but not the highs. It also shows the passage of blue storms and because these are correlated with La Nina, the trees also show low readings in the La Nina Index.

2. Tree-ring-derived temperature indices often have low correlation coefficients. There are a lot of things other than temperature that can affect ring width; these depress correlation. The solution to the problem, in part, is to stratify your samples by site index, then create separate chronologies for each one. Lastly, integrate them into one chronology.

I have not checked out the other proxies, but my guess is that they share many of the problems of dendrochronology.

What you are upset about is ONE poor-quality chronology; Briffa should not have used it in the first place. I have five chronologies right here in my office. There are thousands of others in various offices and collections around the world. Gradually, these are being examined and the results integrated into a world-wide description of weather patterns. The image that is emerging is one of a changing climate.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.