Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[truman]

for(b)

 

I think they take lots of different samples where different effects are known to be dominant (e.g. low altitude and high altitude trees), so I suppose you can only use the trees where temperature is dominant to first order.

 

Maybe there's some way to combine the information so you can model all trees using calibrations from the control samples for all the different variables. I think I remember reading this is what they do....

 

For me the fundamental problem is the tree ring proxy does not work in modern times which calls into question how it can be of any use for earlier time periods - because the same problem now can have occurred in the past. Thus the key must be to understand if this is the case or not (no-one has yet). According to wildcat the hockey stick graph cannot be reconstructed without tree ring data - therefore it is useless currently. It has to be made without tree ring data until the tree-ring problem is understood.

 

After a brief look around I found some things which may affect tree rings..

 

sunlight - if the sun varies, the ring will vary.

cloudiness - more clouds, less sun, less ring.

pests/disease - a caterpillar or locust plague will reduce

photosynthesis

access to sunlight - competition within a forest can disadvantage or

advantage some trees.

moisture/rainfall - a key variable. Trees do not prosper in a drought

even if there's a heat wave.

snow packing in spring around the base of the trees retards growth

they only grow for 5 months of the year so no winter temperature record?

 

so temperature is but one of several conditions...out of interest how do they decide which of these is the "driver" for a particular set of data..?

 

As I said it just seems strange to me that tree rings are regarded as a good proxy....

Edited December 8, 2009 by truman

[truman]

Accodring to the organisers of the Copenhagen bash this week,we only have 14 days to save the world yet...

 

"Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

 

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

 

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers...."

 

from the Telegraph

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

 

[splodgeyAl]

I'd call them Liars.

 

So would I. If you actually read what I posted, you'd see I was talking about the denialists, but if that's your level of comprehension...

[convert]

So would I. If you actually read what I posted, you'd see I was talking about the denialists, but if that's your level of comprehension...

 

Apologies, Indeed I did misread what you'd posted.

 

In light of that I'd call the people who find it right to use actual data, where a model doesn't agree with real world results, and data from the same model where no observed data are available, deluded at best; criminal at worst, and in either scenario Liars.

[Stormy]

 

It appears emmissions are only dangerous when they come from the little man

[splodgeyAl]

Apologies, Indeed I did misread what you'd posted.

 

In light of that I'd call the people who find it right to use actual data, where a model doesn't agree with real world results, and data from the same model where no observed data are available, deluded at best; criminal at worst, and in either scenario Liars.

 

Fair enough. We'll be living in caves again soon, the way we're going, so you'll get your wish around that time.

 

In the meantime, I'll allow scientists, in all fields, to use the best data that they have available to them.

 

While I'm here, I'd imagine that that questionable code, the bit with all the comments and changes, was where they were trying to get the model for the tree ring data (the model for which showed a temperature decline), to match to the real world of rising temperatures. But I'd imagine you'd think it wrong to change the model to try and get it to match the real world?

[nightrider]

Fair enough. We'll be living in caves again soon, the way we're going, so you'll get your wish around that time.

 

In the meantime, I'll allow scientists, in all fields, to use the best data that they have available to them.

 

 

That's fine as long as they understand its limitations and don't go beyond that to reach conclusions. Unfortunately with the tree rings they did just this!

[convert]

Fair enough. We'll be living in caves again soon, the way we're going, so you'll get your wish around that time.

 

In the meantime, I'll allow scientists, in all fields, to use the best data that they have available to them.

 

While I'm here, I'd imagine that that questionable code, the bit with all the comments and changes, was where they were trying to get the model for the tree ring data (the model for which showed a temperature decline), to match to the real world of rising temperatures. But I'd imagine you'd think it wrong to change the model to try and get it to match the real world?

 

I'll agree with you re the caves, I think it's what most Governments want is in anyway; they're trying to tax us back to the stone age.

 

I also agree that ALL scientists should have the best (and I mean the actual 'uncorrected') data available to them.

 

I think that the Model(s) they use should be changed, but that they should have some sort of version control system in place, and that any changes made to the model so that it reflects the currently observed data should be run on the proxy data previously published.

[splodgeyAl]

Then the whole enterprise is pretty flawed if the only proxy you can use, has serious problems with its calibration.

 

They've used more than one proxy - tree rings, ice cores, sediments to name but three.

[nightrider]

They've used more than one proxy - tree rings, ice cores, sediments to name but three.

 

so why include the flawed tree ring proxies?

 

wildcats answer is that only the tree ring proxies have wide enough geographic coverage. If that is true it is only possible to do the analysis using flawed proxies.