Global Temperature Change, baseline in History

[TrueSceptic]

or this

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html

I posted that somewhere here a while ago. Archibald is beyond the pail, really.

I will, however see you and raise you Louis Hissink. Also here. Not papers, just articles in blogs so a quick read.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Sorry, David, for those diversions.

 

[Dancing David]

O18 uptake occurs when ______ (fill in the blank)

Tree ring width does not correlate highly with O18?

This speculation seems impossible. Unless you can present evidence for such a claim, it's quite reasonable to conclude that these results invalidate tree ring proxies for temperature.

Oh my, then the burden would be on you? You make the claim then you need to support it.

I have agreed that there is a potential for error, as there is in all proxies, but to go from one statement about how the measurement of O*18 is effected by the ambient temperature of the leaf collective to saying that any use of tree ring data(as a temperature proxy) is invalid would be a bit of a stretch.

The burden would be on you to show that what you find 'quite reasonable' is actualy a valid conclusion. How long have you been posting here to still use such a vague and unsupported appeal to whatever as an arguement.

Sorry, that is really weak in the critical thinking area.

As they say 'show your work', your conclusion is an unsupported assertion at this point.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry, David, for those diversions.

Not at all, it is releavnt to the discussion of the validty of the NOAA page I listed. i am rather amazed that some people slip into such un-neutral language so readily.

The discussion does involve this particular baseline, and the response is rather interesting.

 

[Dancing David]

It would seem that in less than a minute I have found some evidence that the people who practice dendrochronology are aware of accuracy and try to measure it
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc.../1523-0430(2004)036[0598:DMBRSP]2.0.CO;2&ct=1
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=45

 

[CapelDodger]

Keep in mind that Milankovitch Cycles are linked to *when and where the forcings occur* not necessarily how strong they are or obliquity and precession wouldn’t make any difference at all. Orbital eccentricity is the only cycle that has any effect on net forcing and even that isn’t constant (increased part of the year, decreased part of the year for a slight net increase/decrease).

Understood. However, solar variation would have an impact everywhere and in the same direction throughout the year, so the forcing is constrained to be less than the Milankovich forcings.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Understood. However, solar variation would have an impact everywhere and in the same direction throughout the year, so the forcing is constrained to be less than the Milankovich forcings.

There is a further issue with solar variation. To quote Svalgaard at CA,

For the zillionth time: If you want to maintain that the sun is driving the climate you have to accept and promote hypersensitivity, because changes in the Sun’s output are really very small. And that raises the question of the cause of such hypersensitivity and that is the question I ask. And it is VERY pertinent to this blog, because if we don’t know how much of climate change is due to the Sun it is hard to gauge what is due to man.

If this hypersensitivity exists, why is the 11-year solar cycle not extremely obvious in the temperature record?

 

[lomiller]

If this hypersensitivity exists, why is the 11-year solar cycle not extremely obvious in the temperature record?

And why doesn't influence other forcing like CO2...

 

[mhaze]

Originally posted by mhaze:
O18 uptake occurs when ______ (fill in the blank)
Tree ring width does not correlate highly with O18? This speculation seems impossible. Unless you can present evidence for such a claim, it's quite reasonable to conclude that these results invalidate tree ring proxies for temperature.
​

Originally posted by Dancing David:
Oh my, then the burden would be on you? You make the claim then you need to support it.

I have agreed that there is a potential for error, as there is in all proxies, but to go from one statement about how the measurement of O*18 is effected by the ambient temperature of the leaf collective to saying that any use of tree ring data(as a temperature proxy) is invalid would be a bit of a stretch. The burden would be on you to show that what you find 'quite reasonable' is actualy a valid conclusion. How long have you been posting here to still use such a vague and unsupported appeal to whatever as an arguement. Sorry, that is really weak in the critical thinking area.

As they say 'show your work', your conclusion is an unsupported assertion at this point.

The "extraordinary claims" you speculate on are simply the fact that mass growth of the tree on a yearly basis consists in part of water uptake (rain), and rain contains O18 in various amounts.

You've questioned the parallel between tree ring physical size and O18 analysis, and suggested that this was an "extraordinary claim", while I simply said that a parallel was "reasonable".

My use of the word "reasonable" in this context is reasonable, while you've made an extraordinary claim of an "Extraordinary claim".

Rather than an extraordinary claim, it is a simple look at the origion of the aggregate oxygen mass balance of the plants in question.

Substantiate your claim that there is no likely relationship - perhaps by claiming the tooth fairy brought in the vast amounts of (non O18) oxygen in the dead of night. Or do you have another alternative?

It would seem that in less than a minute I have found some evidence that the people who practice dendrochronology are aware of accuracy and try to measure it
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7GJ1-4DPD0XC-C&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b71734275ac1bf7e19eace9b57671bc3http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1657%2F1523-0430(2004)036%5B0598%3ADMBRSP%5D2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=45

Found in one minute -

Yes, it does indeed look like a minute's work.

They are very general articles about tree ring work. They do not discuss the explicit issues with O18. So they are really not related at all to the discussion.

You said "dendro people are knowledgeable about the issues". A vague and specious statement. Unless you intend to assert they are knowledgable in 2005 or 2006 about the content, implications and evidence of a published article in 2008.

You can do better than this and I invite you to.

 

[mhaze]

There is a further issue with solar variation. To quote Svalgaard at CA,

If this hypersensitivity exists, why is the 11-year solar cycle not extremely obvious in the temperature record?

Strawman.

1. Assert Svalgaard's hypothesis about hypersensitivity.
2. Presume hypersensitivity exists.
3. State that evidence of it isn't in the temperature record.
4. Conclude little or no solar influence....

 

[CapelDodger]

If this hypersensitivity exists, why is the 11-year solar cycle not extremely obvious in the temperature record?

The search for a climate signal dates back pretty much to the first discovery of the solar cycle in the mid 19thCE, without much success. The earliest weather proxies examined were grain-price series, which were available for many European markets. Until recently it's been one of those minor amateur obsessions; many claims have been put forward and knocked down by sceptics. If there's a signal it's almost completely lost in the noise.

It could argued that an eleven-year cycle is damped out but longer-term variations have an influence, aka the Maunder Minimum/Little Ice Age correlation. The problem there is in determining exactly how much climate impact the Maunder Minimum had, and perceptions of the period (in Europe) are highly-coloured. It was a time of great social turmoil, much of it expressed violently (Thirty Years War, English Civil War); at the same time there was a loud apocalyptic voice from the Lutherans and Calvinists, which trumpeted every wet summer, hard winter, or inconvenient hailstorm as evidence of the End Days. Come the volcano - and quite a few came back then, it's been very quiet of late - come the Apocalypse.

(Sound familiar?)

Long story short: the Little Ice Age projects a historical caricature onto climate, and the result is, naturally, a climate caricature. The reconstructions, from Mann onward, do show the LIA but not in as exaggerated a manner as GWSceptics insist they should because of their vague perception of a "Little Ice Age" picked up at school. Frost Fairs, yadda yadda.

 

[mhaze]

The search for a climate signal dates back pretty much to the first discovery of the solar cycle in the mid 19thCE, without much success. The earliest weather proxies examined were grain-price series, which were available for many European markets. Until recently it's been one of those minor amateur obsessions; many claims have been put forward and knocked down by sceptics. If there's a signal it's almost completely lost in the noise.

It could argued that an eleven-year cycle is damped out but longer-term variations have an influence, aka the Maunder Minimum/Little Ice Age correlation. The problem there is in determining exactly how much climate impact the Maunder Minimum had, and perceptions of the period (in Europe) are highly-coloured. It was a time of great social turmoil, much of it expressed violently (Thirty Years War, English Civil War); at the same time there was a loud apocalyptic voice from the Lutherans and Calvinists, which trumpeted every wet summer, hard winter, or inconvenient hailstorm as evidence of the End Days. Come the volcano - and quite a few came back then, it's been very quiet of late - come the Apocalypse.

(Sound familiar?)

Long story short: the Little Ice Age projects a historical caricature onto climate, and the result is, naturally, a climate caricature. The reconstructions, from Mann onward, do show the LIA but not in as exaggerated a manner as GWSceptics insist they should because of their vague perception of a "Little Ice Age" picked up at school. Frost Fairs, yadda yadda.

Your argument is from the point of view of the bias of written history. That argument leads to no evidence, or the disregarding of evidence which is not convenient. Historians routinely do the work of sifting through and establishing what actually happened, don't they?

I agree that the phrase "Little Ice Age" may emotionally convey a far more intense cold period than what actually occurred, of course.

 

[CapelDodger]

And why doesn't influence other forcing like CO2...

An instinctive question for those who value consistency. I do; I find comfort in it.

For those who argue that CO2-load can have no appreciable effect because it's not much in itself, but tiny solar variations have this, like, really massive influence that nobody ever noticed before ... Well, they're faced with a challenge. They need some solar-specific feedback. What can that be?

Solar wind, cosmic rays, and clouds! Boo-yah! It's true!

 

[CapelDodger]

Your argument is from the point of view of the bias of written history.

My point of view is very much my own. I read written history, with an eye to bias, no bias in myself, and the knowledge that there's no piece of written history that isn't contradicted (even in passing) by other historians. I read, I assimilate, I observe, and I think. By this means I come to an understanding.

Which is why very little surprises me now.

That argument leads to no evidence, or the disregarding of evidence which is not convenient.

Gibberish.

Historians routinely do the work of sifting through and establishing what actually happened, don't they?

I depend on historians to present their data and their insights, which I will think about. There's no "what actually happened" in history, any more than there's a "what was the weather last Tuesday" in science.

I agree that the phrase "Little Ice Age" may emotionally convey a far more intense cold period than what actually occurred, of course.

Something I noticed very early on. I'm old enough to have watched the whole process. The initial assault on Mann et al was led by "It doesn't show the LIA that we know was really severe even though we're historical ignoramuses - Frost Fairs, yadda yadda". You guys started with your emotions and your serious lack of grounding, you turned your perception of the LIA on the scientific (and historical) representation as an assault weapon, and where did it get you? On your knees in front of Steve McIntyre, apparently.

 

[Dancing David]

The "extraordinary claims" you speculate on are simply the fact that mass growth of the tree on a yearly basis consists in part of water uptake (rain), and rain contains O18 in various amounts.

Ah, your needs to be spinning comes to the fore front.

No where did i say extraordinary claims. Now did I, is this your best?

really, it demonstrates a true lack of critical thopught. I said you made an unsupported assertion.

Evidently you have a problem with what that means.

You've questioned the parallel between tree ring physical size and O18 analysis, and suggested that this was an "extraordinary claim", while I simply said that a parallel was "reasonable".

Where did I say extraordinary claim, you really are a newbie to the JREF aren't you? Have you ever posted outside of global warming topics?

My use of the word "reasonable" in this context is reasonable, while you've made an extraordinary claim of an "Extraordinary claim".

Should I just say that this is a straw argument.
I begin to suspect that you are a fanatic, did you take this play from the Karl Rove handbook?

Where did i say extraordinary?

Rather than an extraordinary claim, it is a simple look at the origion of the aggregate oxygen mass balance of the plants in question.

Really is that what it says in the abstract, please explain your chain here, I don't get it. You said it but you did not show it, and now you get all put off by a simple phrase that is commonlu used on the JREF: burden of proof.

Substantiate your claim that there is no likely relationship - perhaps by claiming the tooth fairy brought in the vast amounts of (non O18) oxygen in the dead of night. Or do you have another alternative?

Prove a negative, when I asked you to demonstrate your claim.

Are you perhaps a poseur? I hope not.
Wow, most uncivil. I suppose that is to be expected. When asked to support your claim, you get offensive. thanks.

Found in one minute -

Yes, it does indeed look like a minute's work.

They are very general articles about tree ring work. They do not discuss the explicit issues with O18. So they are really not related at all to the discussion.

And neither is your unsupported claim, are you so insecure that you don't understand the burden of proof, I hope you are not a troll, but it sure would be a better newbie mistake than typical trolling.

You said "dendro people are knowledgeable about the issues". A vague and specious statement. Unless you intend to assert they are knowledgable in 2005 or 2006 about the content, implications and evidence of a published article in 2008.

So you assume that verybody is stupider than you, see, I figure everybody is smarter than me and has access to the same information as I do. But please show us how smart you are.

All i asked you was to show your work, and you continue with this rude behavior. It is simple. show that the O*18 issue is one that relates to the whole use of treerings as a measure of temperature. i am not convinced of anything. But this is a sceptics bulletin board, you made the claim, and I called you on it. Now you have said that my claim that dendrochronologists are aware of the issues of using treerings as proxies for temperature is unsupported. So i suppose I should get all rude and point out your exagerated issues and then use rude words?

Do you always act this way to a simple request?

Burden of proof on the JREF rests on the person who made the claim, you made yours , I made mine.
It is up to me to shop that dendrochronologists take it into account.

You can do better than this and I invite you to.

I begin to doubt your sincerity and begin to wonder why you are so rude.

 

[mhaze]

Burden of proof on the JREF rests on the person who made the claim, you made yours , I made mine.
It is up to me to shop that dendrochronologists take it into account.

I begin to doubt your sincerity and begin to wonder why you are so rude.

Right, you pulled two refs that did not address the subject.

shop that dendrochronologists take it into account.

Is that your claim? I only pointed out the time sequence was backwards for that.

Sincerity/ Rude/etc

If you fling condescending gratuitous stuff you get it right back.

Where does O18 come from? What's there to explain?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Strawman.

1. Assert Svalgaard's hypothesis about hypersensitivity.

I was quoting him. Go argue with him.

2. Presume hypersensitivity exists.

Ditto. Are you not able to read a post linked to?

3. State that evidence of it isn't in the temperature record.

Ditto, but anyway:-

Demonstrate clear evidence of the 11-year cycle in the surface temps.

4. Conclude little or no solar influence....

Straw man. I again refer you to Svalgaard's posts at CA.

PS you might want to consider the wisdom of falsely calling "straw man" then committing that same fallacy in the same post. It's really bad form, you know?

 

[TrueSceptic]

and where did it get you? On your knees in front of Steve McIntyre, apparently.

You b*****d! I'm off to bed now with an image in my head that I don't want to be there!

 

[TrueSceptic]

Ah, your needs to be spinning comes to the fore front.

No where did i say extraordinary claims. Now did I, is this your best?

really, it demonstrates a true lack of critical thopught. I said you made an unsupported assertion.

Evidently you have a problem with what that means.

Where did I say extraordinary claim, you really are a newbie to the JREF aren't you? Have you ever posted outside of global warming topics?

4,200+ posts, but then we all know that.

 

[mhaze]

I depend on historians to present their data and their insights, which I will think about. There's no "what actually happened" in history, any more than there's a "what was the weather last Tuesday" in science.

Revisionist history specialist, eh ? Since 1984?

Something I noticed very early on. I'm old enough to have watched the whole process. The initial assault on Mann et al was led by "It doesn't show the LIA that we know was really severe even though we're historical ignoramuses - Frost Fairs, yadda yadda". You guys started with your emotions and your serious lack of grounding, you turned your perception of the LIA on the scientific (and historical) representation as an assault weapon, and where did it get you? On your knees in front of Steve McIntyre, apparently.

Psychological projection (from your own waist high vantage point).

Skeptics herd about as well as cats, now Warmologists herd nicely.