'Hide the decline' explored by Berkeley professor

no one interested in how hide the decline was viewed by a Berkeley Prof? I expected someone to defend the phrase again....I guess we all agree it was rather indefensible?
 
Wow. That's serious. I am glad some one in academia is calling it what it is. We need more people like Richard Muller.
 
Pretty damning stuff if true.

If I understand it correctly, they used tree ring data (among other things) to determine temps from long ago. They used this info to start there graphs and then in around 1961 when we had better tools to measure temps than tree rings they started using the real temps. The real temps showed a strong upward curve of temps. meanwhile, the tree ring temps showed a decline from 1961 onward. The scientists involved "hid" the tree ring data in the current period and replaced with the actual temps.

Their argument seems to be that the tree ring data wasn't working in the current period because the temps were certainly going up based on the better testing devices a the tree ring info was going down. Seems reasonable. However, to follow the logic, it is almost certain that there were times over the p[ast 1000s of years where the actual temp was different than what the tree rings showed. So, the tree ring ana;ysis is worthless and, as a result, so is any remarkable warming we have seen recently compared to past times. The exact same thing could have been happening 1000 years ago and the tree ring data wouldn't show it.

Couple this with the hockey stick fiasco and there is legitimate concern over the data and conclusions.
 
yep bronco....amazing to me that some are really taking the exonerations of these men seriously. what they did was revolting and ought to be offensive to anyone who claims to love science regardless of which side of this issue you may fall.
 
Everytime I venture back into one of these threads, somebody always come back and explains where I misread the data or something similar. From the absolute quiet on this one, either this time there is no excuse or everyone is worn out on the topic.

Can an AGW supporter comment on this?
 
It's unfortunate that this thread hasn't gotten more attention. It's equally unfortunate that the entire presentation isn't linked. Here's the whole thing.

If I recall correctly, Dr. Muller co-authored a book in the late '70s or early '80s that predicted AGW. He's the furthest thing from a "flat earther".

Muller seems to be interested in facts rather than politics. I look forward to seeing the results of his group's studies.
 
I'm not one of the usual suspects, but I thought I'd point out that these "scientists" being exposed doesn't disprove AGW. If I understood it all right, it just calls into question the accuracy of the tree ring data and discredits the scientists who "hid the decline." Recorded temperatures have still risen substantially this century, but without a way to put it in historical context, it's difficult to prove anything.
 
Paso, no matter your side of the global warming debate, that is a horrible rebuttal that you linked. I was expecting a science laden response rather than an activist website complaining about where a scientist is getting some of his grant money without citing where it gets its own funding.
 
I saw this thread a few days ago but thought it was about the financial system or something.

Interesting point regarding the tree ring data. I will be interested to hear other scientists comment on this professor's assertion. This isn't all of the data though being used for climate change discussions. It doesn't address or invaildate any of the concentration graphs for CO2, NO, Methane, or SO2 emissions. It also doesn't negate the fact that there has been direct measurable increases in the last 50-100 years. So while he may put into question the older data he doesn't negate the current data which should be considered more accurate than an indirect measurement such as tree rings. Somebody can correct me there if I am wrong. He also does not address measurable sea level increases or increasing # of extreme weather events.

Seems to me that the scientists have combined the old "proxy" data with the new "measurable/observable" data. Like I said earlier I will be interested in hearing the scientific community response to this professor's assertion that this shouldn't be done.
 
Uninformed, that certainly is like your opinion, man. Muller and Curry have been repeatedly debunked and are linked to Koch. This seems highly relevant to whether they should be taken seriously.

And just how serious am I supposed to take a post about an astronomer opining on an area that he knows next to nothing about and titled "Hide the Decline"?

It isn't like anyone who has posted on this thread other than me knows the reasons for adjustments to tree ring data or even cares that there exist plenty of additional proxy data confirming the work in this area. It is like discussing calculus with monkeys.

Are you really interested in discussing temperature reconstructions over the past 800 to 1,000 years? We can start with some peer reviewed reconstructions. Have you seen one?
 
I don't get why anyone here feels they can comment, anymore than if we had a thread about the best heart procedure to unblock a valve. Unless you are at the level of those who have studied this their entire careers, have PhDs and talk about this everyday at work with similar professionals- we should probably defer a complex science question to the scientists- and see where the vast majority of them side.

However, if you are a layman who studied religion, finance or engineering e.g.- have no direct knowledge but do have a very strong view on this- my educated guess is that you are letting your personal politics influence your views on an issue that is anything but political. This is science. Not political. I don't care about Al Gore's movie or people's thoughts about Al Gore- this issue would still be around without him.
 
m08.jpg
 
Without the massaged data, it doesn't look like there has been any increase over the full range of the graph. Over the last 100 years there was a decline then an incline back up to the upper limit of the historical data.

I would like to see where the "raw" data Muller presents is wrong.
 
What, pray tell, Uninformed is this thread about exactly? You should be very, very precise so I can address exactly what you want or need and be finished with this waste of my time. I thought that I was significantly over-inclusive in the material which I provided hoping (apparently incorrectly) I could be done with this thread.

Muller isn't qualified and his views are contradicted by lots of science. There is far more to proxy data than tree rings and the reasons for the adjustments are well known. This just should not be an issue.
 
From my five links:

Link #1 - You should carefully read comment 4 along with the response because this directly addresses the "hide the decline" issue.

Link #2 - This is a 2,000 year temperature reconstruction with and without tree ring data.

Link #3 - These are additional proxy reconstructions which is where tree ring data is used. This also shows the other proxies used to confirm and adjust tree ring data.

Link #4 - This directly addresses the "hide the decline" people. It does sort of help to know the issue

Link #5 - This provides the actual data used in the temperature reconstructions.

Maybe this will help:
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
This is where looking at the reconstructions with and without tree ring data should make you realize those questions will have little to no impact on the science.
 
wow...i haven't been here in a day or two....you guys do know that Muller is helping lead the BEST project right? he is actually a convinced AGW enthusiast....which actually makes his opinion of "hide the decline" more significant in one sense. we aren't talking about a skeptic or some nutjob....but one of YOUR people who is criticizing Mann. the hockey stick was and is a joke and now honest AGW believers are admitting it.

this was NOT meant to say that AGW isn't true because of "hide the decline"...just pointing out that despite serious protestations on this board, "hide the decline" and the climate gate stuff was a legitimate problem and reveals some pretty serious stuff scientifically speaking.

actually, the BEST project will most likely confirm the overall rise in temperatures we have observed over the past 150 years.....and Muller will be responsible for that largely. i have no idea of his connections to the Koch brothers, but clearly he is a believer in humankind's role in Global Warming.....so why all the vitriol? just because he doesn't tow the party line about the hockey stick? you might as well let that go.....hockey stick has been largely discredited and is no longer a realistic expression of the current warming juxtaposed against past cycles of warming and cooling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top