You need to read my links closer or maybe again. I will say this for the third (or maybe more) time. Tree ring data is not the only temperature proxy and it is not unreliable provided you recognize its limitations. There are multiple methods of determining historical temperatures including, but not limited to, tree ring data. Do I really need to go through all the various proxies?
No, but you need to read what I wrote. This thread is about tree ring data. My original comment was about the first crappy link that you provided trying to discredit Muller personally rather than through scientific thought on his tree ring data paper. You followed that up with abstracts on proxy data. I responded with a post to get us back on track about tree ring data specifically. In later posts I questioned the science regarding tree ring data and you provided me with an abstract that confirms that tree ring data may not be as accurate as previously thought. And to reaffirm that, I would like proof of the robustness of tree ring data. We already know that there has been non-conforming data since 1960 and we have hypotheses about the possible causes of that non-conformity. Now I would like proof that tree ring data has been accurate prior to the time that scientists began collecting global temperature data. Saying that the data can be supplemented is insufficient if the data itself cannot be proven to be accurate over the millennia.
Dog chases tail. You are either intentionally obtuse (my pick) or just not smart enough to get this. Tree ring data is not corrupt or inaccurate provided you recognize its limitations and, better yet, use additional proxies to confirm the trends it reflects (which is exactly what they do). Every link and bit of information that I have provided on this thread either directly or indirectly supports this. My initial link was also far more than a personal attack on Mullen, but we really are reaching a point of diminishing returns. Tree ring data has limitations. The peer reviewed literature has recognized this since 1995 and the temperature reconstructions have both recognized this and compensated for it. The IPCC has recognized this since 2001. This is only an "issue" if you don't know very much about climate science and temperature reconstructions. I certainly would put Mullen in this category. Have a nice weekend.
How about you actually read a peer-reviewed paper? I'll give you a banana and we can then work on comprehension. The Link
First, the paper is written by the same folks that manipulated the data originally and only gave up their raw data when it was leaked by an insider. Further, the raw data leakage and subsequent questions by this Muller fellow have all occurred AFTER this paper was released and reviewed. Do you even understand what that paper said? I don't think it says what you think it does. It is basically saying that yes some of the data we originally used to support our conclusions on global warming( the same data we used in the IPCC report and in our myriad of testimonies before governments around the world) was innacurate but we have now changed our techniques and used new modeling and smoothing techniques and we have altered our findings and it has made our case weaker but not nearly weak enough to discount the original conclusions. Nice of them to do that. At the time of this paper, the raw data was NOT known in the scientific comunity. They knew about it themselves and went through a process to get in front of the inevitable accusations that would come, but that doesnt exactly give anyone with a brain a warm fuzzy feeling. Why won't you comment on the graph that you yourself linked to? Are you afraid of it? Do you not understand it? Do you disagree with it? I'll link it again for you. www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/NHcps_no7_v_orig_Nov2009.pdf
The graph you posted is meaningless without the context provided by the paper which you haven't read. You are chasing your tail and wasting my time which is pretty much par for the course for deniers. You guys just don't read and don't comprehend. You do not have the first clue about how a temperature reconstruction is compiled or why certain types of data have caveats. How about we try a little test? What are the known issues with older (ie carve out the post-1960 issues) tree ring data sets and how do scientists adjust or address these issues? I anxiously await your detailed and no doubt informative response.
Classic. Lets assume the caveats were in there (I do not think they actually were in there. The paper mentioned caveats and certain other procedures but doesn't actually spell out what they are. And it damn sure did not include the raw data that Muller is speaking about. Nor did it disclose that raw data was substituted in current years) why feel the need to produce a new graph based on these issues? If there is nothing there, why did they add the new graph? When folks like Muller started asking questions, why didn't the scientists involve just act like Paso and tell the questioning scientists that the data is already covered in the original paper? Why is there any need to do the revision? Maybe I missed the new graph in the original paper. I'm sure you can show me where it was located. Why did they feel it was perfectly fine to show graphs in the original dating back to 500 AD but then in the revision graph state that data older than 1100 years is unreliable. Shouldn't that little nugget of information been included in the originsal paper? You are floundering. I'll ask you again to respond to the graph you say needs context. I gave the same context that your scientists did.
Let’s see if we can rescue this thread before it goes completely off track. You do realize that you are confusing a number of different issues, right? The original issue on this thread concerned Mullen’s claim about “Mike’s trick to hide the decline”, right? While the quote is inaccurate and confuses two different matters, can we agree that this concerns or concerned the elimination of tree-ring data after 1960? Can we also agree that this issue was disclosed and discussed repeatedly from 1995 until the present? Another issue concerns temperature reconstructions from the past 2,000 years specifically certain data sets that were eliminated or smoothed, right? You want to know why they were eliminated or why tree ring data is used to supplement the reconstructions. While this is explained in the links that I have provided, you want me to do this again?
Paso- This thread got derailed when you started getty pissy and started giving answers that did not address the questions raised. Personally, I am still very open about this issue. When presented with situations like this, I like to find out if there are reasonable anwers to the skeptics questions. You are certainly passionate about the issue and have some knowledge so a dialogue with you on the issue has the potential to be helpful.
Nice reply. It is going to take me some time to respond. I am not sure that I have enough time tonight so it may be a few days. I am not sure we disagree on all that much although I need to clarify some things and I do think we disagree on what was and was not disclosed and when. Mullen is wrong to claim they "hid(e) the decline" because they disclosed the reason for excluding data from certain trees well before the hacked e-mails. This issue was very well known in the temperature reconstruction community no later than 1995 and even appears in the IPCC reports as far back as 2001. There just is no sinister motive concerning the exclusion of recent tree ring data. I think it is similar with the longer reconstructions, but I want to look over what you wrote and compare it with the scientific literature. I do think you may be off on your dates because the long temperature reconstruction (2,000 years) is relatively recent (2007 or 2008).
Interesting. So, there might be a connection between increases in a heat-trapping gas (CO2) and increases in global temps? What a revolutionary concept. However, I'm sure some politicians will say that we need more studies. 24 years worth are not enough.
True, if the Berkeley professors agree on something, there is not much point in analyzing the issue any further. Right?
indeed it didn't! ; ) Having said that, you guys do realize that the BEST papers were peer reviewed and rejected right? They were not published. Care to know why? Ross McKitrick, who was one of the Peer Reviewers rejected it on several grounds that called the paper into question. He has reluctantly released his own reviews due to his shock about how Muller has handled all of this. www.rossmckitrick.com Unfortunately, his webpage doesn't separate this out as unique story. So over time, this link will become less and less meaningful or appropriate. In addition to this, Judith Curry, who was a part of the BEST team (I believe she left recently) had this to say:
It is interesting that you are all of a sudden a big supporter of peer review. This entire thread could have been avoided.
