| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| The hockey stick divergence problem https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=622 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Ladas [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | The hockey stick divergence problem |
I don't expect everyone here to appreciate this, but quite a few here are scientifically oriented and might appreciate the discussion about one of the primary sources of global warming information. Yamal: The Divergence Problem Personally, I think its exceptionally interesting, and potentially very damning to a wide range of studies and publications. Not that I expect it will in any way make to mainstream sources, or even be acknowledged in policy discussions. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah - OUCH. This keeps getting better and better. |
|
| Author: | Aegnor [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
At this point it is just a blog post. The findings need to be published and peer reviewed. But it does look very interesting. |
|
| Author: | Lydiaa [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The hockey stick divergence problem |
Looking through the report, I believe that the original data needs to be made available and reviewed (an expert looking over the retention samples of these tree rings). I also believe that justification for omission or inclusion also needs to be included. I don't know enough about this topic to comment in depth however the initial data does seem fishy. |
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wasn't the data allegedly "wiped to save disk space" and is now gone? |
|
| Author: | Aegnor [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That is different data. If I remember right that was temperature station data, while this is tree core data. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Aegnor wrote: That is different data. If I remember right that was temperature station data, while this is tree core data. Correct. Now, the tree core data was subject to similar refusal to disclose for years and years, which is why this is only coming to light now. |
|
| Author: | Lydiaa [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'd have thought that it would be necessary to keep the tree stumps around (or at least a photo of it) especially in such a contrivertial document. |
|
| Author: | Beryllin [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Lydiaa wrote: I'd have thought that it would be necessary to keep the tree stumps around (or at least a photo of it) especially in such a contrivertial document. Actually, with global cooling chilling things out, they burned the stumps to keep warm. /snark off |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The hockey stick divergence problem |
I don't get the "hockey stick" part. |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The "hockey stick" nick-name is only applicable because someone (I think it was at the BBC) decided the the charted results looked like a hockey stick - long and flat (the stick) with a sudden upward flare at the end (the blade). |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Lydiaa wrote: I'd have thought that it would be necessary to keep the tree stumps around (or at least a photo of it) especially in such a contrivertial document. When they say cores, they do not necessarily mean tree stumps, though for some historical data, that is used as well. What it generally means is that take a core sample of the tree in a similiar manner to taking cores from ice. At least, in helping my dad with some of his research, that is the approach he used. However, I don't believe the data they are using all comes from living trees, but sub fossil trees. There are very few trees with a lifespan of several thousand years, and even if you had a sufficient number of those, their growth rings would be a poor sample. But according to the article, they have the data they used to generate their report. They just elected to never provide that data for review, nor did the publications to which they submitted actively pursue the data for disclosure as they state they require. That is until very recently. |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Okay... Not even pretending to know wtf they are saying; it appears that the initial study was stacked by using a much larger group of trees from one region than any other, stacking the data intentionally to suit their needs? |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
No, more a case that one of the key studies used as proof of global warming was based upon a sub sample of only 10 trees from a much larger collection sample and that information, as well as the raw data for the study, were not made available until recently. Some of the commentators have hinted that there were biased reasons to cherry pick those 10 trees, but the author made efforts to suggest that the reason those 10 trees were picked was not disclosed, and needs to be part of the discussion with the originators of the study. |
|
| Author: | Lydiaa [ Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Ladas wrote: Lydiaa wrote: I'd have thought that it would be necessary to keep the tree stumps around (or at least a photo of it) especially in such a contrivertial document. When they say cores, they do not necessarily mean tree stumps, though for some historical data, that is used as well. What it generally means is that take a core sample of the tree in a similiar manner to taking cores from ice. At least, in helping my dad with some of his research, that is the approach he used. However, I don't believe the data they are using all comes from living trees, but sub fossil trees. There are very few trees with a lifespan of several thousand years, and even if you had a sufficient number of those, their growth rings would be a poor sample. But according to the article, they have the data they used to generate their report. They just elected to never provide that data for review, nor did the publications to which they submitted actively pursue the data for disclosure as they state they require. That is until very recently. Oh hehe, I do get that. I was talking more along the lines of a cross section (in living tree), and a photo in fossil trees. Sorta like when you're staining tissues, to discard the slide without taking pictures and just claim you saw something. As discussed in your link, due to the complexity of these rings. A second opinion on even the selected samples would be ideal. Peer review is a must for any publication to hold water, and due to their unwillingness to disclose their back ground data, I do believe the initial paper could be temporarily discounted until such information becomes available. |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Lydiaa wrote: due to their unwillingness to disclose their back ground data, I do believe the initial paper could be temporarily discounted until such information becomes available. Which, if you look at the number of subsequent papers and publications that cite that initial finding as support, its quite extensive. If the fundamental findings can't be trusted... and its the basis for the climate models people are using to predict the end... |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is what lab students typically do that are obligated to take the lab rather than taking it out of interest: you do enough work until you get the results your thesis is proven correct. Either you terminate your work prematurely or go do extensive work rationalizing your thesis into being true by using unrelated material. |
|
| Author: | Lydiaa [ Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not really. well at least not really here. We have to show our work for selecting publications and write a justification as to why we omit certain publications. If this really gets wide publication and review and stand up to scrutiny, most of the work (real work not blown out of proportion propaganda work) would need to be re-looked at and redone. |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rafael wrote: This is what lab students typically do that are obligated to take the lab rather than taking it out of interest I wouldn't say anyone who does work for a published journal or academic piece fits into that category. |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Rafael wrote: Rafael wrote: This is what lab students typically do that are obligated to take the lab rather than taking it out of interest I wouldn't say anyone do work for a published journal or academic piece fits into that category. Why are you quoting yourself? 
|
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Because I believe the students Lydiaa are referring to are not the ones I'm speaking about in my original statement. I think I put provisions in there indicating specifically what kind of students I was referring to. |
|
| Author: | Lydiaa [ Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The hockey stick divergence problem |
Hehe quoting yourself is kinda cute  Actually I was talking about Uni requirements here as a general thing. That was actually one of the points which we need to write up. (At least for my course back about 8 years ago) Where the choice of supporting publication counted for 30% of the whole paper. This also meant sometimes it's easier to write "I stuffed up in my experiement" then trying to justify it. Of course this is one university (which is science and tech based) out of about 30 or so here so it's not much statistic wise =P. You'd think people who write for published journals are above it, but having worked on one prior to my graduation, I can tell ya that they don't >=P |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In America, education has been commoditized to the point where most undergraduates just do what they have to to get an 'A'. This is true even in studies of science. It has nothing really to do with academic integrity or the pursuit of science, but rather scholastic achievement. To this end, the labs are so predictable, only a real boner wouldn't be able to guess what they are asking you to do, so there is little in the way of posturing your own thesis and testing it. Even in the courses where the capstone of the course is coming up with a lab experiment (say in calibration of instruments or analog feedback systems), students are selective about their test results in a way that confirms their thesis (either omitting runs and counting them as "outliers" which is academic to the letter of the law, or running tests until uncontrolled elements finally skew the test towards the "right" results). This is comes from years or doing trite, derivative and rote lab experiments semester after semester. I.e. titrate this beaker of H2SO4 with NaOH, does it match your predicted tritration amount etc. In summary, you are rewarded for getting the "right" results, not doing the lab "correctly". |
|
| Author: | Lydiaa [ Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wow... just... wow... >.< |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The hockey stick divergence problem |
Undergrad in the US is so you get the piece of paper that means you don't automatically get culled by whatever computer scans all the resumes they get before an actual human person sees it. If you really care about what you're doing, you go to grad school. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|