Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (26131)	12/2/2009 11:04:33 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 36917

Data tricked? You mean like using log scale tricks? If "trick" (as in "I used Bob's trick to splint post-op hearts") bothers you, try "technique". Try "method"; that's the section of the '98 Nature paper which describes it. Not a trick except to the ignorant and illiterate... "In referring to our 1998 Nature article, he was pointing out simply the following: our proxy record ended in 1980 (when the proxy data set we were using terminates) so, it didn't include the warming of the past two decades. In our Nature article we therefore also showed the post-1980 instrumental data that was then available through 1995, so that the reconstruction could be viewed in the context of recent instrumental temperatures. The separate curves for the reconstructed temperature series and for the instrumental data were clearly labeled." Some trick...using actual temperatures. Decline hidden in plain sight are hardly hidden. You need to get out more. You probably missed the original paper. The “decline” refers to a well-known decline in the response of only a certain type of tree-ring data (high-latitude tree-ring density measurements collected by Briffa and colleagues) to temperatures after about 1960. In their original article in Nature in 1998, Briffa and colleagues are very clear that the post-1960 data in their tree-ring dataset should not be used in reconstructing temperatures due to a problem known as the "divergence problem" where their tree-ring data decline in their response to warming temperatures after about 1960. “Hide” was therefore a poor word choice, since the existence of this decline, and the reason not to use the post 1960 data because of it, was not only known, but was indeed the point emphasized in the original Briffa et al Nature article. There is a summary of that article available on this NOAA site. climaterealists.com And, predictably enuf, no data has been lost. Other than that, you are 100% correct. Which means you got nothing right, which is pretty much par for the course. Some raw data (on paper and magnetic tape) was discarded in the early or mid-eighties when they moved to a different building. At the time, it just didn't seem important. Nobody foresaw then what a big deal climate change would turn into 20 years later. The data exists at the weather stations which collected them. Nice try, tho. Lots of data...enjoy realclimate.org\