• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More AGW Believer Cherry Picking

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Steve McIntyre has again turned his spotlight on ex post site selection for regional tree ring chronologies. The results are not pretty.

[h=2]Picking Cherries in the Gulf of Alaska[/h] Feb 2, 2016 – 4:34 PM
The bias arising from ex post selection of sites for regional tree ring chronologies has been a long standing issue at Climate Audit, especially in connection with Briffa’s chronologies for Yamal and Polar Urals (see tag.) I discussed it most recently in connection with the Central Northwest Territories (CNWT) regional chronology of D’Arrigo et al 2006, in which I showed a remarkable example of ex post selection.
In today’s post, I’ll show a third vivid example of the impact of ex post site selection on the divergence problem in Gulf of Alaska regional chronologies. I did not pick this chronology as a particularly lurid example after examining multiple sites. This chronology is the first column in the Wilson et al 2016 N-TREND spreadsheet and was the first site in that collection that I examined closely. It is also a site for which most (but not all) of the relevant data has been archived and which can therefore be examined. Unfortunately, data for many of the Wilson et al 2016 sites has not been been archived and, if past experience is any guide, it might take another decade to become available (by which time we will have all “moved on”). Continue reading →
 
Yes we should use bad data instead.
 
Deuce said:
Yes we should use bad data instead.
Click to expand...

If the raw data is bad you aren't making it better. Garbage in, garbage out.
 
flogger said:
And there was me thinking it was really . Gospel in , gospel out :wink:
Click to expand...

Yeah, the funny thing about these dendrochronology sets, as has been shown over and over, they cherry pick so badly that in some regional reconstructions they only use one tree, and in other cases they actively look for correlation to the expected trend, and when they find good correlation they include it, and when they find good negative correlation they flip the graph to make it a positive correlation.

It's a scam, plain and simple.
 
jmotivator said:
Yeah, the funny thing about these dendrochronology sets, as has been shown over and over, they cherry pick so badly that in some regional reconstructions they only use one tree, and in other cases they actively look for correlation to the expected trend, and when they find good correlation they include it, and when they find good negative correlation they flip the graph to make it a positive correlation.

It's a scam, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
The reality is, the number of variables which could affect the tree rings are just too many to isolate.
A cold wet year might look almost the same as a hot dry year.
 
jmotivator said:
Yeah, the funny thing about these dendrochronology sets, as has been shown over and over, they cherry pick so badly that in some regional reconstructions they only use one tree, and in other cases they actively look for correlation to the expected trend, and when they find good correlation they include it, and when they find good negative correlation they flip the graph to make it a positive correlation.

It's a scam, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

This, is the mother of all statistical findings as a note.
It is why I find statistics typically laughable. That and the apropos term "control groups".
 
Deuce said:
Yes we should use bad data instead.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Deuce. :2wave:


DATA: "Facts and statistics collected for reference or analysis." www.Oxford dictionary.

I don't understand your term "bad data." Data is data - it depends upon how it is used, or ignored if it doesn't agree with a hoped-for conclusion, doesn't it?
 
jmotivator said:
Yeah, the funny thing about these dendrochronology sets, as has been shown over and over, they cherry pick so badly that in some regional reconstructions they only use one tree, and in other cases they actively look for correlation to the expected trend, and when they find good correlation they include it, and when they find good negative correlation they flip the graph to make it a positive correlation.

It's a scam, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

It's all a giant Illuminati conspiracy!!
 
Threegoofs said:
It's all a giant Illuminati conspiracy!!
Click to expand...

Dendrochronology is not a very large discipline but it is comprised entirely of people desperate to prove that trees make great thermometers.
 
jmotivator said:
Dendrochronology is not a very large discipline but it is comprised entirely of people desperate to prove that trees make great thermometers.
Click to expand...
they also try to tease out other useful data.
The problem with the science is that different variables could cause the same result.
 
jmotivator said:
Dendrochronology is not a very large discipline but it is comprised entirely of people desperate to prove that trees make great thermometers.
Click to expand...

Yet multiple other proxies exist, and they all point to the same thing, with or without tree rings.

You don't know much about this topic, do you?

Yet you know more than the experts! Dunning Kruger at its finest!
 
Threegoofs said:
Yet multiple other proxies exist, and they all point to the same thing, with or without tree rings.

You don't know much about this topic, do you?

Yet you know more than the experts! Dunning Kruger at its finest!
Click to expand...
As was pointed out in another thread,
Ground-truthing Marcott « Climate Audit
Alkenone and diatom, are another proxy, and do not point to the same thing.
So your statement,
Yet multiple other proxies exist, and they
all
Click to expand...
point to the same thing, with or without tree rings.
Click to expand...
is false.
 
longview said:
As was pointed out in another thread,
Ground-truthing Marcott « Climate Audit
Alkenone and diatom, are another proxy, and do not point to the same thing.
So your statement,

is false.
Click to expand...

I guess you can find a denier blog post that will say anything.

But the literature is pretty clear, PAGES 2K confirms it.


But I'm sure some amateur blog post somewhere will disagree.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess you can find a denier blog post that will say anything.

But the literature is pretty clear, PAGES 2K confirms it.


But I'm sure some amateur blog post somewhere will disagree.
Click to expand...
Not necessary, Your statement,
Yet multiple other proxies exist, and they all point to the same thing, with or without tree rings.
Click to expand...
was too broad, and false on it's own.
 
longview said:
Not necessary, Your statement,

was too broad, and false on it's own.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Mea Magna culpa.

But it's not nearly as egregiously wrong as the denier argument that it was countering. On the aggregate, proxies point to a consistent trend, and the whole concept is that the more good data one has, the stronger the conclusion.
 
Threegoofs said:
Agreed. Mea Magna culpa.

But it's not nearly as egregiously wrong as the denier argument that it was countering. On the aggregate, proxies point to a consistent trend, and the whole concept is that the more good data one has, the stronger the conclusion.
Click to expand...
Egregious errors abound in the climate Sciences.
Marcott for example, with a claimed average resolution of 120 years, still implies the warming in the 20 years between 1978 and 1998 was extraordinary.
The fact that you seem incapable, of admitting there is even room for skepticism, speaks to your adherence to the dogma.
 
longview said:
Egregious errors abound in the climate Sciences.
Marcott for example, with a claimed average resolution of 120 years, still implies the warming in the 20 years between 1978 and 1998 was extraordinary.
The fact that you seem incapable, of admitting there is even room for skepticism, speaks to your adherence to the dogma.
Click to expand...

That's because the warming IS extraordinary!

Unless you have a source that tells us temps spike up and spike down dramatically on a multi decadal basis without reason?
 
Threegoofs said:
That's because the warming IS extraordinary!

Unless you have a source that tells us temps spike up and spike down dramatically on a multi decadal basis without reason?
Click to expand...

A warming trend can be observed from 1659, the start date of Central England Temperature (CET)- the oldest instrumental record in the world- to today. It would be a notable coincidence if the warming started at the exact point that this record began. The purpose of this paper is to reconstruct CET from its current start point, through the use of diverse historical records, to 1538, in order to see if the commencement of this centuries long warming trend can be identified from within this time frame.


The long, slow thaw? | Climate Etc.


  1. https://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/








Dec 1, 2011 - by Tony Brown A warming trend can be observed from 1659, the start date of Central England Temperature (CET)- the oldest instrumental ...
 
Jack Hays said:
A warming trend can be observed from 1659, the start date of Central England Temperature (CET)- the oldest instrumental record in the world- to today. It would be a notable coincidence if the warming started at the exact point that this record began. The purpose of this paper is to reconstruct CET from its current start point, through the use of diverse historical records, to 1538, in order to see if the commencement of this centuries long warming trend can be identified from within this time frame.


The long, slow thaw? | Climate Etc.


  1. https://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/








Dec 1, 2011 - by Tony Brown A warming trend can be observed from 1659, the start date of Central England Temperature (CET)- the oldest instrumental ...
Click to expand...

Oh. A local temperature record! And an amateur blog post about it!


I guess that cut and paste is easier than addressing the issue.
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh. A local temperature record! And an amateur blog post about it!


I guess that cut and paste is easier than addressing the issue.
Click to expand...

This was your question.

"Unless you have a source that tells us temps spike up and spike down dramatically on a multi decadal basis without reason?"

That has been answered.
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh. A local temperature record! And an amateur blog post about it!


I guess that cut and paste is easier than addressing the issue.
Click to expand...

If your dodge is the best you can come up with, you're proving a disservice to more capable promoters of the theory.

An amateur blog? Did you bother to read the paper in the link, or is your objective to provide further evidence of AGW'sts rejection of the Scientific Method?
 
Jack Hays said:
This was your question.

"Unless you have a source that tells us temps spike up and spike down dramatically on a multi decadal basis without reason?"

That has been answered.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Didn't realize you thought local temps were a good comparator to global temps, which is the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom