3 ms·

What specific models are you talking about? Can you give me links with the lists of the sources of data, the adjustment factors applied, and also the predictiv

by nirvana 14y ago

What specific models are you talking about? Can you give me links with the lists of the sources of data, the adjustment factors applied, and also the predictive results of the model (forward in time, not backward)?[1] Regarding the chart you link to, it is at least 11 years old, and we don't know what factors were applied to it. It seems to confirm the claims of this article, showing a clear, slow, decline in temperatures up to the point where a different source of data is introduced. At the more resent end, what it could be showing is simply incorrect correction of the differences in results from the new sources of data. [1] Totally sincere question. I am always hearing about these "models" but have never gotten a link to a specific model with an explanation of these relevant issues.

saalweachter 14y ago
For the sake of argument, let's just say the Mann, et al, 2008 models. [1] They include an updated version of the hockey stick graph. [2] But I'm not actually arguing that this specific model is correct or even that the IPCC's review of the state of the science is correct; I'm arguing that the article on the Register smells like a hit job. Let's just look at the differences between the Register's graph and the original article's graph. [3] First, they've bizarrely omitted the scale from the left-hand side of the graph. Maybe they were trying to save space, since the ticks are each one, but when your story is your graph you shouldn't skimp. The "Reconstruction" has been relabeled "Summer temperature". The "Trend" has been helpfully relabeled the "Cooling trend". The hundred year filtered reconstruction has been left completely unlabeled, despite its prominence in the graph, and as mentioned previously, the error bars have been left off entirely. This looks like an interesting line of evidence, and it may even point towards what the authors of the original article claim (some orbital forcing of climate). But this is only a single line of evidence, so far: Scandinavian tree rings collected and studied by a group of Scandinavian researchers. I would like to see followup studies, by other researchers looking at tree rings in other parts of the world -- and non-tree ring based temperature records! -- before people start jumping up and down declaring the IPCC to be lying liars who lie. A single line of evidence can be wrong; a single line of evidence can mean something different from what you think it means. Only many corroborative lines of evidence can build a scientific consensus. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/?tool=pmcentrez http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/?tool=pm... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/figure/F3/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/figure/F... [3] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nclimate1589_F2.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab...

by nirvana 14y ago

saalweachter 14y ago

For the sake of argument, let's just say the Mann, et al, 2008 models. [1] They include an updated version of the hockey stick graph. [2] But I'm not actually arguing that this specific model is correct or even that the IPCC's review of the state of the science is correct; I'm arguing that the article on the Register smells like a hit job. Let's just look at the differences between the Register's graph and the original article's graph. [3] First, they've bizarrely omitted the scale from the left-hand side of the graph. Maybe they were trying to save space, since the ticks are each one, but when your story is your graph you shouldn't skimp. The "Reconstruction" has been relabeled "Summer temperature". The "Trend" has been helpfully relabeled the "Cooling trend". The hundred year filtered reconstruction has been left completely unlabeled, despite its prominence in the graph, and as mentioned previously, the error bars have been left off entirely. This looks like an interesting line of evidence, and it may even point towards what the authors of the original article claim (some orbital forcing of climate). But this is only a single line of evidence, so far: Scandinavian tree rings collected and studied by a group of Scandinavian researchers. I would like to see followup studies, by other researchers looking at tree rings in other parts of the world -- and non-tree ring based temperature records! -- before people start jumping up and down declaring the IPCC to be lying liars who lie. A single line of evidence can be wrong; a single line of evidence can mean something different from what you think it means. Only many corroborative lines of evidence can build a scientific consensus. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/?tool=pmcentrez http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/?tool=pm... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/figure/F3/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/figure/F... [3] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nclimate1589_F2.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab...