Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJoey
My question is whether or not their is an observation that requires the interpolation during those specific years. Based on the code the adjustment is time dependant, does that time period match up with a known physical phenomenon in the tree ring data and correct for it? And did they admit to using the adjustment in anything that was published with this data? If they do admit to doing this in publication, and you can't prove that reviewers didn't know about it, then there isn't much of controversy there. Of course releasing the original data to the community would be the best situation. That said it is very easy to write code to extract data from any given plot (ie the reverse engineering of the data isn't too complicated)
|
Since the analysis has already been done in more detail, this may answer your questions.
There are two runs on this, the first run of analysis is overzealous, missing some key issues. It doesn't invalidate the analysis, merely points out a couple of problems such as you are questioning.
Climategate: The Smoking Code « Watts Up With That?
The Smoking Code, part 2 « Watts Up With That?
In the second link he points out the concerns, some of which you brought up yourself:
Quote:
- The source code that actually printed the graph was commented out and, therefore, is not valid proof.
- No proof exists that shows this code was used in publishing results.
- Interpolation is a normal part of dealing with large data sets, this is no different.
- You need the raw climate data to prove that foul play occurred.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJoey
What is the MXD drop off?
|
Ok, this part I confused with McIntyres analysis which is not directly related to the code example, but I did link it in that same post as another example to the one we were discussing. The MXD drop off refers to the fact that the tree ring data begins to diverge from previous data (I think around 1960), it actually shows a decline. This is more specifically dealing with the email comment concerning "hide the decline" and McIntyre explains the issue with the omission as well as the concerns brought up during the IPCC's review process.
New!! Data from the Decline « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]
IPCC and the “Trick” « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJoey
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with trying to create a proportionality between two independent measures of the same variable. From what little I've read it actually seems more like the scientists in question lack the mathematical sophistication to develop the methods to do so.
|
True, but the manner to which it is applied (as you pointed out) and the reason for its application brings up some serious questions. These are issues McIntyre has been questioning on for quite a while and if you read the e-mails, you see that he was a bit of a trouble to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJoey
Can you tell me what CA is?
|
Climate Audit. It is a site that was created by Steven McIntyre to document his process with his analysis on some of the Climate Research work. It initially was mainly focused on Mann's work, but began to spread as various issues and relations to his work came about. He was a reviewer in the AR4 and his specific expertise is statistical analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJoey
I would love to read the debates on the science rather then the debates on the politics. Both sides of the politics are jackasses on this issue.
|
The one site I would suggest is Climate audit. It seems to be the most focused on the "science" while keeping the political antics to a minimum.
McIntyre used to be very strict in his moderation of comments concerning the topics and would snip most things that attempted to speculate politically, or take the discussions in directions that left the topic.
He focuses pretty heavily on the science, more specifically the statistical analysis of the research in question. He also spends some time on topics dealing with due diligence, and proper policy and review.
McIntyre has pretty much a neutral stance on AGW. He is more concerned with the process, so spends little time speculating on for or against the hypothesis.
CA's rival is Real Climate. It is the site mentioned in the e-mails by Mann created to deflect opposing science and views concerning AGW and is ran by Gavin Schmidt (NASA). I recommend still reading the site though and following on CA concerning like issues as they have had some sparing with each other and it allows you to see the differing sides of the issue.
Another site, while a bit more "politcal" at times, yet still focused on the science is "Watts up with that" ran by Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who has published issues concerning the surface station data and problems with the various sites being in proper calibration. He has an additional site based on his research called surfacestation.org.
Here are the links to the above sites I mentioned.
Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]
Watts Up With That?
www.surfacestations.org
RealClimate
I can't promise that political banter will not exist on any of the sites, but I can say that the comments on CA tend to be a bit more focused on the science (though lately there tends to be more political outrage, but then I think you can understand why). Also, you will see lots of "rolls eyes" style of comments at times in some of the postings from people on CA. Usually it is because the issue has been detailed and pointed out to exhaustion and some of the issues (responses from those they are requesting FOI's, or random e-mail responses from organizations and authors tend to be rather silly). Still, the best bet is CA for mostly scientific analysis as a lot of the posters there are scientists from the field as well as others that are experts in "similar" sciences, yet merely interested in the analysis.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
