Australian Politics Forum - Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA
Reply #30 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:47pm

lee wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:27pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:21pm:

I find it incomprehensible that anyone with any intellectual honesty would adjust accurate temperature readings in line with the least accurate measuring tool available - tree rings.

I would still opt for the ships' engine intakes.

Why would you adjust them at all? Are our historical temperature records not good enough and if so, how could we possibly know that without reference to a MORE ACCURATE source - which doesn't exist.

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA
Reply #31 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:49pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:21pm:

lee wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:16pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:27am:

I'll ask again. Do you think that paleoclimate reconstructions have any bearing on instrumental datasets ?

Where the adjustments to the instrumental dataset are based on Jones et al 1999, then yes.

I find it incomprehensible that anyone with any intellectual honesty would adjust accurate temperature readings in line with the least accurate measuring tool available - tree rings.

The datasets that count (previously mentioned) have not been adjusted by any tree ring data. The hotter year on record is not affected by tree ring data.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:27am:

I'll ask again. Do you think that paleoclimate reconstructions have any bearing on instrumental datasets ?

Are they used in NASA GISTEMP?

(no)

Are they used in NOAA MLOST?

(no)

Are they used in Hadley Hadcrut datasets?

(no)

As far as paleotemperature reconstructions are concerned, they are academic, and unrelated to the global surface/ ocean temperature datasets that we are talking about.

Anyone who claims that paleotemperature studies are relevant in that respect is either nuts or dishonest.

Lee: You're still talking about a 1999 paper? Unbelievable.

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA
Reply #32 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:58pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:47pm:

lee wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:27pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:21pm:

I find it incomprehensible that anyone with any intellectual honesty would adjust accurate temperature readings in line with the least accurate measuring tool available - tree rings.

I would still opt for the ships' engine intakes.

Why would you adjust them at all? Are our historical temperature records not good enough and if so, how could we possibly know that without reference to a MORE ACCURATE source - which doesn't exist.

What is this? Dumb and dumber? Tree ring data is terrestrial. Ship engine intakes is not.

Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA
Reply #33 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 5:42pm

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:58pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:47pm:

lee wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:27pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:21pm:

I find it incomprehensible that anyone with any intellectual honesty would adjust accurate temperature readings in line with the least accurate measuring tool available - tree rings.

I would still opt for the ships' engine intakes.

Why would you adjust them at all? Are our historical temperature records not good enough and if so, how could we possibly know that without reference to a MORE ACCURATE source - which doesn't exist.

What is this? Dumb and dumber? Tree ring data is terrestrial. Ship engine intakes is not.

Roll Eyes

Talking at cross purposes here, especially since the thread title refers to terrestrial temperatures. I was referring to the NOAA, BoM and other's attempts to homogenise the existing instrumental temperature record to come up with answers that support global warming by artificially reducing historical data.

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA
Reply #34 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:37pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 5:42pm:

Talking at cross purposes here, especially since the thread title refers to terrestrial temperatures. I was referring to the NOAA, BoM and other's attempts to homogenise the existing instrumental temperature record to come up with answers that support global warming by artificially reducing historical data.

Yeah? They don't. They would be pulled up pretty quickly if they did. There is no conspiracy.

There needs to be some processing to get consistency within datasets, but it's all highly transparent.

Taking Lee's example of marine temperatures, I think he's referring to this paper:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1

and this paper:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full

- which are complementary.

I'll give him a chance to actually read them rather than take the second hand bastardised critique based on supplementary materials.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21599
Gender: male

Re: Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA
Reply #35 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:28pm

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:37pm:

I'll give him a chance to actually read them rather than take the second hand bastardised critique based on supplementary materials.

Yes, I've noticed that you don't like supplementary materials. You don't like the fact they show methodology. You would rather just read their conclusions.

Why does Jones et al 1999 get referenced by NOAA 1997, when they adjust the temperatures? Jones was still getting a run at least as late as 2008.

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA
Reply #36 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:18pm

lee wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:28pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:37pm:

I'll give him a chance to actually read them rather than take the second hand bastardised critique based on supplementary materials.

Yes, I've noticed that you don't like supplementary materials. You don't like the fact they show methodology. You would rather just read their conclusions.

Why does Jones et al 1999 get referenced by NOAA 1997, when they adjust the temperatures? Jones was still getting a run at least as late as 2008.

I've read the whole paper and evaluated it for myself.

If you have actually read it now, what is the net effect of the corrections? (the biggest effect being pre 1940). Did they 1. Increase the reported overall warming trend or 2. Decrease the reported overall warming trend?

Quote:

Why does Jones et al 1999 get referenced by NOAA 1997, when they adjust the temperatures? Jones was still getting a run at least as late as 2008.

Here you're talking about paleoclimate reconstructions again, right? Explain to me the relevance again.

You seem to have a liking for very old papers.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:24pm by John_Taverner »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21599
Gender: male

Re: Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA
Reply #37 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:39pm

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:18pm:

I've read the whole paper and evaluated it for myself.

If you have actually read it now, what is the net effect of the corrections? (the biggest effect being pre 1940). Did they 1. Increase the reported overall warming trend or 2. Decrease the reported overall warming trend?

And still haven't got back to us on a significance of 0.10, as reported by Karl..

Yes they adjusted the buoy data up to match the noisy ship's data. The ship's data is apparently 0.12 warmer than the buoys. Hirahari et al 2014 at p61, give the error bars for the ships data as +/-1.7º. This cools the past and creates a warmer trend.

I've posted the Hirahari piece before, have you checked it yet? It's at -
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00837.1?journalCode=clim

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:18pm:

Here you're talking about paleoclimate reconstructions again, right? Explain to me the relevance again.

Sorry, your empty vessel is ringing.

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA
Reply #38 - Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 1:38pm

lee wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:39pm:

Yes they adjusted the buoy data up to match the noisy ship's data. The ship's data is apparently 0.12 warmer than the buoys. Hirahari et al 2014 at p61, give the error bars for the ships data as +/-1.7º. This cools the past and creates a warmer trend.

Incorrect.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21599
Gender: male

Re: Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA
Reply #39 - Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 1:57pm

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 1:38pm:

lee wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:39pm:

Yes they adjusted the buoy data up to match the noisy ship's data. The ship's data is apparently 0.12 warmer than the buoys. Hirahari et al 2014 at p61, give the error bars for the ships data as +/-1.7º. This cools the past and creates a warmer trend.

Incorrect.

So we have the noisy ships data that has been added to the buoy data, that increases the modern temperature. It doesn't make any difference to the earlier data. That effectively cools the past in relation to the warmer modern temperature. Or would you prefer I merely say that it warms the present.

I notice you haven't responded to the Hirahari et al and significance levels. What do you think the significance levels should be for data that is 0.12ºC with an uncertainty of +/-1.7ºC?

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA
Reply #40 - Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 8:37pm

lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 1:57pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 1:38pm:

lee wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:39pm:

Yes they adjusted the buoy data up to match the noisy ship's data. The ship's data is apparently 0.12 warmer than the buoys. Hirahari et al 2014 at p61, give the error bars for the ships data as +/-1.7º. This cools the past and creates a warmer trend.

Incorrect.

So we have the noisy ships data that has been added to the buoy data, that increases the modern temperature. It doesn't make any difference to the earlier data. That effectively cools the past in relation to the warmer modern temperature. Or would you prefer I merely say that it warms the present.

I notice you haven't responded to the Hirahari et al and significance levels. What do you think the significance levels should be for data that is 0.12ºC with an uncertainty of +/-1.7ºC?

You still haven't done any reading of the papers that contributed to ERSST v4. We can talk about accuracy and precision after you get the basics right.

I'm trying to see if you can draw your own conclusions from the papers, or even understand them outside the very narrow context of Wattsup's article.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21599
Gender: male

Re: Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA
Reply #41 - Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 11:44am

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 8:37pm:

You still haven't done any reading of the papers that contributed to ERSST v4. We can talk about accuracy and precision after you get the basics right.

John, the absence of error bars of the ships' temperatures are the basic failing of both Karl and Huang. The significance is a basic part of Karl.

If they don;t get those basics right, how can you trust the paper? It is mere flummery.

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax Gold Member Offline CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth Posts: 11070 Australia Gender:	Re: Whither Dendrochronology, Jones et al and NOAA Reply #42 - Feb 4^th, 2016 at 6:49am Why adjust the temperature data records and along the way NOT inform the public that this has happened. Anthropogenic Global Warming equals a pseudo science with no legs to stand on.
Back to top	1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax 2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos IP Logged