Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climategate Email Quotes on Dendrochronology, Ice Cores, and Coral Dating
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 1 of 7 (672464)
09-08-2012 2:17 PM


The Climategate emails show serious issues with the isotopic dating methods used to support evolution like dendrochronology, ice core dating, and coral dating. They show the methods were just reconstructed through cherry-picking data to support evolution and global warming agendas, eliminating data that didn't support the conclusions they wanted, and altering data as necessary to give a picture that would support their agendas.
Climategate emails - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
"[Met Office/Hadley's Simon Tett] 1) Didn't see a justification for use of tree-rings and not using ice cores -- the obvious one is that ice cores are no good -- see Jones et al, 1998. 2) No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann et al did (I don't think we can say we didn't do Mann et al because we think it is crap!)"
Tom Nelson: ClimateGate scientists on Michael Mann and his work: "probable flaws" and "clearly deficient", and "crap" and "way too defensive", oh my!
"The underlying assumption of our own work has always been that each of the proxies have their own potential problems, and multiproxy approaches are probably the most robust. I don’t have a particular axe to grind about any particular proxy, and recognize that there are some pretty serious potential problems with all proxies, including ice core delta o18 (as you’re aware, these are not clean paleotemperature proxies at all), and Sr/Ca or o18 from corals. There is a good discussion of the strengths and weaknesses in all of the proxies in Jones and Mann (2004): Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004. Agreed completely on value of multiproxy. And yes, a lot of my earlier work was on figuring out how much of the isotopic signal in ice cores is temperature and not other things. The reassuring result was that all the big stuff is temperature, although with a rather bizarrely unexpected calibration. Of the little stuff, stack several cores and you get up toward order of half of the variance being temperature with the rest left for something else. The devil is in the details of when big meets little, as well as what calibration to use. [Mike Mann]"
http://junkscience.com/...s-true-temp-anomaly-not-known-well
It sounded like it is an embarrassment to the tree ring community that their indicator does not seem to be responding to the pronounced warming of the past 50 years. Ed Cook of the Lamont Tree-Ring Lab tells me that there is some speculation that stratospheric ozone depletion may have affected the trees, in which case the pre-1950 record is OK. But alternatively, he says it is possible that the trees have exceeded the linear part of their temperature-sensitive range, and they no longer are stimulated by temperature. In this case there is trouble for the paleo record. Kieth Briffa first documented this late 20th century loss of response.
Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test.
Sincerely, Jeff [Severinghaus]"
Tom Nelson: Why did trees allegedly stop functioning as thermometers last century? Let me count the explanations (three in this ClimateGate email alone)
"Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we’ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley’s!
... Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were
Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures — another way of correcting for the decline, though may be not defensible![Tim Osborne]"
Tom Nelson: In case you missed it, damning ClimateGate emails from Tim Osborne: They didn't commit fraud, they just "applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data"
"... I do think that if Richard is suspect, dendro has a real problem [overpeck]
As you probably know, I was originally invited to give a talk on The Topic (a scientific version of the The Troubles in Northern Ireland) that Rosanne gave before the NRC panel....I recommended that Keith give a talk to the NRC panel in my place because, in my estimation, he is the only other person in the world who can discuss in a totally objective way the hockystick and other reconstructions of past temperatures at the methodological level that is really at the heart of all the controversy, e.g. the hockeystick. [Ed Cook] ...Peck--I almost sent this to Susan tonight, copied to you, but then thought I had better run it by you first, quickly. I think that Susan has to be notified--I fear that the tree-ring reconstructions really are in bad shape, and that the IPCC and chapter 6 have a big problem coming up. I'll be in the office tomorrow if you want to call--814???--but I want to notify Susan soon.--Richard"
Tom Nelson: Uh-oh: "...dendro has a real problem"; "I fear that the tree-ring reconstructions really are in bad shape"; "I acknowledge the weakness in the data prior to about 1200"; Cook and Briffa are allegedly the only two people in the world "who can discuss in a totally objective way the hockystick..."
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 09-08-2012 3:38 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 2 of 7 (672465)
09-08-2012 2:20 PM


Conclusion
From the Climategate emails, it appears evident the multiproxy dating approach actually involves methods which all have serious methodology issues. Dendrochronology, coral, and ice core dating are all admitted by those at the heart of the Climategate scandal to be weak, unreliable methods. They were deliberately reconstructed through bias to try and achieve results supportive of liberal evolution and global warming agendas as clearly seen in the emails. It is very obvious from reading the emails how shoddy the research behind such methods, as performed by the same clique responsible for Climategate, really has been.
I realize certain people on this forum believe very strongly in these methods, so I thought I'd see what thoughts are about the obvious flaws as witnessed from the Climategate emails.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 3 of 7 (672470)
09-08-2012 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jzyehoshua
09-08-2012 2:17 PM


I have to confess that I understood almost none of this, but maybe all will become clear with a little background. Let's take it one little step at a time.
What are "evolutionary multiproxy dating methods"? Google comes up dry.
--Percy

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jzyehoshua, posted 09-08-2012 2:17 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Jzyehoshua, posted 09-09-2012 11:00 AM Admin has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 4 of 7 (672543)
09-09-2012 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Admin
09-08-2012 3:38 PM


As seen from the 2nd email quoted, it refers to using different dating methods in conjunction for a specific study. This is also seen from the following paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0009281911000250
Basically, isotopes decay into different isotopes, so the title of that article refers to different dating methods when it says "2H/H" or "18O/16O" - it's referring to the base element and what it decays into as used for a dating method. The thinking is that if you get different methods at work, they can cross-check one another. Of course, the methodology needs to be sound and unbiased for all methods, and as seen from the Climategate emails that's not the case with dendrochronology, ice cores, and coral dating, all of which have been claimed in recent years as evidence for evolution now that carbon dating has become increasingly vulnerable.
There's been a trend towards using this "multiproxy" approach to support evolution through lesser known isotopic dating methods in recent years. What most people don't know is the same scientists pushing this multiproxy approach are the "Climategate" guys, and that their leaked emails show how poor such an evidence for evolution is.
Multiproxy basically just means multiple approaches as seen from its use in this global warming article:
Doug Nychka | staff.ucar.edu
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 09-08-2012 3:38 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 11:15 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 7 (672545)
09-09-2012 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jzyehoshua
09-09-2012 11:00 AM


So the topic you'd like to discuss is problems with dating methods as revealed by the Climategate emails, and how these dating methods no longer provide support for evolutionary timescales? If so, could you fix your opening post to make that more clear. And if not, then sorry, but could you explain your topic again?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jzyehoshua, posted 09-09-2012 11:00 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Jzyehoshua, posted 09-09-2012 11:44 AM Admin has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 6 of 7 (672553)
09-09-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Admin
09-09-2012 11:15 AM


Is this clearer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 11:15 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 1:20 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 7 (672562)
09-09-2012 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jzyehoshua
09-09-2012 11:44 AM


Yes, much clearer, very nice.
Now please help me understand what point you're making with this:
"[Met Office/Hadley's Simon Tett] 1) Didn't see a justification for use of tree-rings and not using ice cores -- the obvious one is that ice cores are no good -- see Jones et al, 1998. 2) No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann et al did (I don't think we can say we didn't do Mann et al because we think it is crap!)"
Tom Nelson: ClimateGate scientists on Michael Mann and his work: "probable flaws" and "clearly deficient", and "crap" and "way too defensive", oh my!
Is it the "ice cores are no good" that is the key portion? Or the part about Mann? Both? In any case, is it your interpretation that the author is saying ice core dating is no good? And anyone without intimate knowledge of climategate isn't going to know what part Mann played, so you need to fill in the details. Sorry to string this out on you, but there's just not enough context yet. I just spent 15 minutes reading about Mann so I could figure out what point you were trying to make, and I'm still not sure.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jzyehoshua, posted 09-09-2012 11:44 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024