2011-04-04 13:21:21Jones 99 decline hiding
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

I know this is old and meaningless, but I was combing through the CA attack on Kerry Emanuel, thinking about a short rebuttal post, and I noticed a repeated reference to Jones 99 "SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE AND ITS CHANGES OVER THE PAST 150 YEARS" as being the beginning of hiding the decline.  I found this post from a few weeks ago and it appears that even McIntyre had missed it until recently.  But if the proper way to handle "the decline" or "divergence" is to mention it somewhere in the text, as the Muir Russel report states, then this peer-reviewed paper fails that test.  If so, believe it or not, this nitpickiness from over a decade ago gives McIntyre et al the ammo they need to say that it isn't only the WMO report that fails to mention the removed data.  It's not quite the same as there is no "splicing", and in fact the paper says "superimposed" and references papers that discuss the divergence, but you know where this goes.  FRAUD!!!!

 

So this is just a warning because if we go after people for talking about declines, they now have a peer-reviewed paper that doesn't fit the Russel standards.  Maybe someone can find something in the text that I didn't see.  There is a lot of discussion of uncertainty and even says:

Uncertainties are considerably greater because information is available only from limited areas where these written or natural archives survive and, more importantly, because the proxy indicators are only imperfect records of past temperature change (see, e.g., Bradley [1985], Bradley and Jones [1993], and the papers in volumes such as those of Bradley and Jones [1995] and Jones et al. [1996]).

--Just nothing about divergence.  This paper isn't even a paleo paper.  It's about the instrumental data, but Jones did include it to compare against the last millennium -- without mentioing how the dendro diverges from instrumental .

2011-04-04 13:29:27
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

And I think it's a waste of time to defend the Jones paper, and probably wrong too.  If I were asked about it, I'd say that I agree with the Russel report standards, so therefore this paper should have mentioned it in the text.  Of course, this does not mean that it was intentional deception, and as Emanuel says:

If this was a conspiracy to deceive, though, it was exceedingly poorly conceived as anyone with the slightest interest in the subject could (and did) immediately find the whole proxy record in the peer-reviewed literature.

2011-04-04 16:13:07
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

It's quite strange that when it's about Tiljander series, then you should cut the diverging parts of the record (or not use the series at all), but if it's the diverging tree-ring records, then the cutting of them makes it a fraud.

2011-04-05 01:44:31
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Isn't this also a case with Yamal, where limited sample depth means, according to CA Monday Morning Blogscience Quarterbacking, you should drop the record, but if it's a sample depth problem pre-1550 in another paper, you must show it or you are purposely misleading people?

2011-04-05 04:13:17
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.107.62

Or you can add some random data series you found in the Internet somewhere. ;)