If I quote you, I’ll use quote tags. And I’m not responsible for what you assume.
Is English your first language? If I state something is not the case, I’m not necessarily implying that you or anyone else said it is! You said if I’d paid attention to previous discussions, I’d know the difference between a skeptic and denier, or words to that effect. I clarified my own understanding, and that’s all I did.
I did check the list in the link, the impression I get is that it was not only McIntyre but many others from his site and others “helping”, it is not a lie that researchers can get bogged down by many requests and the requester ignoring beforehand the restrictions that researchers have many times with the data does not endear me to their “plight”.
I did before, the hackers attempted to pick the emails that in their view showed the researchers in the worst light possible, clearly the positions of the researchers were misrepresented in the ones that deniers and skeptics pointed as the worst examples. The 3 or 4 emails you are referring to need to take into context the underhanded behavior of McIntyre, they could then point to just valid concerns that even the investigators would be aware of. Bottom line, I do not consider them useful evidence.
When before that you say that “it is not sound enough” you are still implying that the research of Jones should be assailed, the proposition then is not refuting what **elucidator **and others are saying or referring to Jones.
Trenberg said that global warming is happening and that we should adapt to climate change if nothing is done, what does that had to to with what **elucidator **was saying regarding the research of Jones? As it was posted many times already by even guys involved in peer review, what Jones did was not rare. And his conclusions were confirmed by other research.
Yes. You can go to Climate Audit and see exactly what he does and how he does it. You may disagree with his data, findings, or methods, but it’s all out in the open.
Of course. But I do think the flurry of requests could have been avoided in the first place if the data had simply been available.
Well I disagree with your interpretation of those specific emails, but I doubt either of us will persuade the other. Nevermind.
No I’m not. I said "The intellectual edifice of AGW is as sound as it ever was. Which is fairly sound, but not sound enough to declare that “the science is settled”. Nothing to do with assailing Jones’ research. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Jones’ research, only with his sharing practises and advocacy.
elucidator didn’t say anything that needed refuting, at least not by me. His question was at least part-rhetorical, and made the point that whatever Jones has done, it wouldn’t affect the existing body of climate science. I agree with that.
I’m having trouble following your points here. elucidator’s question referrred to the “entire intellectual edifice of AGW” and I posted Trenberth’s paper as a nice technical introduction to the “intellectual edifice”, both for him and for anybody who was interested. The rest of your post I simply don’t understand.
The issue that will remain IMHO is that Jones will suffer for being so obtuse regarding the emails.
I do not think that having the data released means anything to guys like McIntyre, in last February’s petition to parliament he said that “To my knowledge, there are no 1000-year reconstructions which are truly “independent” of CRU influence.” That includes the Mann one from 2008, even with the data released. And still accuses researches of manipulating the data.
Well, others need to be aware that saying that “the science is settled” is not something that we or the researchers are saying. I’m just saying.
And I’m just remarking on what Tremberg did say on that introduction, maybe you are not aware of it, but one of the infamous CRU emails that has been misrepresented to death involves Tremberg. Tremberg did link to that paper in the email, but somehow the contents were not mentioned by many of the deniers.
What splicing are you referring to? Here is Fig. 2.21 from the Third Assessment Report and I see them as having clearly identified which is proxy data and which is instrumental data. If you are talking about the summary for policymakers (which realistically is probably the only part that most policymakers read), then here is the corresponding figure, again with a distinction made between the proxy data and the instrumental record.
And, although it was not named as such, it seems there was reference to the divergence issue here (bolding added):
The Briffa et al. reference is to Briffa, K.R., F.H. Schweingruber, P.D. Jones, T.J. Osborn, S.G. Shiyatov and E.A. Vaganov, 1998a: Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature, 391, 678-682.
True. I was incorrect about splicing in TAR3 - splicing was only carried out for the WHO report cover graph. I think they simply truncated Briffa’s divergent post 1960 data in TAR3, see my post 72. I’d be interested to know if that truncation was also performed in the referenced paper.
Thanks. If you have access to that reference, could you possibly clarify something for me? On what grounds it is believed that that this reduced sensitivity is purely a recent phenomenon, and not intermittent throughout the whole tree ring density record?
That’s pretty oblique! Not at all the same as saying that the recent high latitude tree-ring density variations have diverged from the instrument record and failed to capture the recent temperature rise, and then explaining why this divergence is considered to be recent and hasn’t occurred in the past.
If tree-ring density paleoclimate reconstructions are robust, I think the divergence problem should have been mentioned and accounted for in TAR 3, rather than simply eliminating it from the graph and making a very oblique reference to it in the text. if the reconstructions are dubious, then you have to bite the bullet and accept that trees are not reliable thermometers. Stick to ice cores and boreholes and use isotope ratios from tree rings rather than width/density.
It’s a pretty short paper and I wouldn’t say it addresses that question directly in a lot of detail. Here is a section that addresses it to some degree, at least in regards to a specific mechanism:
Also, the relation between this breakdown and the implications for reconstructions are complex. I agree that if such a breakdown did occur in the past, then there is the potential to underestimate past warmth. On the other hand, they point out that if it didn’t and if any part of the breakdown period is included in the calibration period, then there would be a tendency to actually magnify the proxies too much and hence overestimate past temperature variations.
Well, I don’t think it is that oblique. Perhaps it could have been clearer. However, I think the implications are made pretty clear from the first and concluding sentences of that paragraph:
At any rate, I am glad that we are now arguing the details of exactly how the IPCC might have best presented these issues rather than debating claims that they published completely deceptive graphs or didn’t address the issue at all.
By the way, here is a recent paper on the divergence problem that I found. It talks some (e.g., starting on p. 10) about the evidence that we have that the divergence is unique to the current period…although admittedly the strength of that evidence decreases as one goes back far enough to get all the way through the MWP and there are other possible issues as well, as there almost always are in the tree ring proxy temperature reconstructions.
This is not directed at you, but what you are saying here reminded me of why I got sucked into these discussions.
This was the item that shows me why is that many deniers hate the ones doing reconstructions.
Thanks to early reconstructions we got the concept of a medieval warming period, in those early reconstructions (IPCC 1990) it looked like that medieval warming was as warm or warmer than today, and there was much rejoicing among skeptics, pseudo-skeptics and deniers. Because it could mean that today’s warming was natural (There are other more important reasons why the current warming is not natural and it does not depend on proxy reconstructions, but never-mind)
However, it was suspected that the early reconstructions looked at samples that were too narrow in scope (mostly samples from England and northern Europe). Later and more detailed reconstructions were made (that included more samples and regions) and did not depend just on tree rings (1998), they showed that the medieval warming was not as big as before. Skeptics acknowledged the evidence, pseudo-skeptics have not learned about the progress and deniers continue to cry foul to this day. (Their current solution is to play to the refs)
The harder contrarians continue to complain about the evidence from tree rings, the more doubts they logically should be getting about the medieval warming period. If the tree evidence is shot down, it leads also to shot down or to minimize one important bit of evidence for the medieval warm period, what drives me nuts is that contrarians never seem to get this.
