2011-02-20 07:52:25Intermediate 168: Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
Rebuttal can be seen here.
2011-02-20 09:33:48
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.100.233

In Fig.2, which is Ljundqvist and which is GISS? (Red vs. blue?)

Also: Given that L. DIDN'T break the hockey-stick, what is it that he DID do?

2011-02-20 10:40:49
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
GISS is red - it says on the figure but I'll add it to the caption. Ljungqvist created a reconstruction consistent with previous reconstructions. The trouble is that it's a 3-pronged myth. That his was more variable than previous reconstructions, that he showed the MWP hotter than today, and that his study shows that today's warming could be natural. So I might need to rename the myth, but I'm not sure what to call it.
2011-02-20 11:25:59
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.100.233

I think it would be useful to point out what his paper really added to the discussion. At least in a quick read, all I got was:

- L. didn't say this,

- L. didn't say that,

- L. didn't say that other thing.

So then I'm left wondering, What did L. do? If I don't get an answer to that, it would be just as easy to believe that you are just trying to pull the wool over my eyes, because L. must have said SOMETHING to justify a paper.

2011-02-20 18:39:33
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
I summarized what he said at the end though. It's nothing groundbreaking or even new. Just one more reconstruction. Though I can emphasize the lack of tree ring data again at the end.
2011-02-20 19:25:06
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.103.231

I guess I would prefer a statement at the beginning, that states what L. is bringing to the table that is NEW, before going into what is just confirming previous work. For me, that would appear to set a better framework for evaluating this new input.

Also, it would be helpful if there were some explanation of what gives the skeptics the idea that L. intends something different. There is the danger that you reinforce misunderstanding, but I think the proper tactic is to reveal more information, not just to leave their rationale unclear. Otherwise, it just seems like a "he said / she said."

2011-02-20 19:36:16Great post, only nitpick I can come up with is this...
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
144.131.205.143
Don't finish with "climate sensitivity is not low". When you rebut with a negative, people can come away only remembering the negative "climate sensitivity must be low". Instead, rebut with a positive- "climate sensitivity is high". Then someone has to rebut with "it's not high" and then they're the ones using a negative. Subtle but positive messaging is a good habit to get into.
2011-02-20 19:37:45Oh and thumb from me
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
144.131.205.143
One last comment, what do you think of adding "Medieval Warm Period" and "Little Ice Age" to figure 1?
2011-02-21 06:50:05sounds good
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
Okay I'll make a few revisions.  John, I like the idea of adding MWP and LIA to the figure.  Ideally I'd also like to remove NASA GISS data from that one and just have the three reconstructions.  Would you mind modifying the figure accordingly? :-)
2011-02-23 02:47:41
thingsbreak

things.break@gmail...
66.7.151.194
Although it's still common enough to use MWP, might I suggest using MCA (Medieval Climatic Anomaly) as well if not instead?
2011-02-23 13:14:08Updated the graph
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.223.91.161

Uploaded a new graph to your rebuttal, Dana:

Was curious as to how Mann's reconstruction gets up to modern times - Robert, you know about this reconstruction, right? Don't suppose you could tell us about it?


2011-02-23 14:30:23thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233

Nice, thanks John.

thingsbreak, I prefer to use MWP just because it's the more commonly-used term.  I think calling it "MCA" would just distract people from the message of the rebuttal.  Don't want to help the 'skeptics' change the subject.