Comments on: One of these things is not like the others

By: tamino

tamino — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:37:12 +0000

The decidedly off-topic discussion should move to the open thread.

By: Ray Ladbury

Ray Ladbury — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:10:55 +0000

Actually, MrPete, until it is published, we cannot shoot it full of holes. But then, until it is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it means bupkis.

By: MrPete

MrPete — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:48:52 +0000

(Let's move this to Open Thread. This is barely related to the original topic. See you there!) [Response: Good idea.]

By: dhogaza

dhogaza — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:16:05 +0000

I’m not saying anything new.

Which doesn’t make it correct, of course …

By: Gavin's Pussycat

Gavin's Pussycat — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:22:38 +0000

Still waiting for those missing functions

Study climate field reconstruction MrPete. To the point where you understand it. Lazar did, so could you. Nobody needs those functions.

By: MrPete

MrPete — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:44:34 +0000

dhogaza: I’m not saying anything new. I’m putting it in layman’s terms, that’s all. The technical discussion is complete, AFAIK. See the multiyear argument between W&A and M&M, which has perhaps reached a final conclusion. (I’m not holding my breath, of course.)
My desire for climate science is nothing more nor less than taking it up a few notches to match what other sciences expect. OK, and if it’s to be influential for policy, to the level of sciences that influence costly life/death/$$$ decisions. Yes, that’s a lot to chew off. Having been through this (slow/widespread change) process before, I have to afford to be patient. Zero control.

By: MrPete

MrPete — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:33:10 +0000

This is an interesting process… the responses I receive here are similar to responses I got during y2k. Commitment to existing knowledge vs exploring new avenues. I realize you think I’m committed to a particular perspective; in reality I’m trying to reopen the “new things to learn” can by pointing to elements that don’t fit the “consensus.”

TCO, not sure what you are pushing for:
a) Publication: previous discussion on publishability of “data only” paper resulted in strong opinion that it is not. You disagree? Great. I’d love solid refs for this.
b) Why a need to resample? We obtained a large collection of good data. Automated crossdating failure on some samples is 100% normal.
c) ‘Twas as easy as expected. Never imagined we would get this far. Finding exact-match Graybill trees was considered “nice”; amazing it happened. Going back for 900+ photos and further provenance details was only because of the intense interest.

Brief notes on goals and objectives:
1) Primary Almagre goal: how hard is it to collect data. Starbucks Hypothesis was proven. Goal accomplished.
2) Found exact matches for important Graybill trees (not just same stands, same trees), in field and data sleuthing. An unlikely goal, more than accomplished; provided valuable info to dendros.
3) Surprised that our data is usable, and our process sound. Open source citizen science became a second objective. Goal accomplished when we began publishing all data as it emerged from the process. Nothing has been nor will be hidden.
4) Discovered our provenance data had value. Made it available to scientists to their delight. Unanticipated goal accomplished.
5) Learned standard ins and outs of crossdating. Data not fully crossdated yet. In process.

Additional goals are being developed that will take more time to unfold. I’m playing with 3D trunk/bark models in my copious (hah) spare time. We hope our (dumb?) fresh look at methods and process will eventually bring clarity of understanding, whether publishable or not. Might even produce a real innovation or two.

Bottom line: Original #1 and #2 goals 100% complete. Added goals #3 and #4 also 100% complete. Added goal #5 in process. Additional objectives under development.

If you see ways to improve on that record, I’m all ears. Honest! E.g. one bit to ponder: appropriate method to make core micro-scans publicly available with no overhead, so more people can usefully participate in manual crossdating. From what I hear, it’s a LOT of data (just a guess: 600-1000MB).

For an off-hours unfunded citizen science project, I’m perfectly satisfied. If you want to see more, better or quicker results, feel free to jump in and help. Nothing we’ve done is proprietary. So yes, you can shoot it full of holes :).

By: TCO

TCO — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:01:00 +0000

Well then Mr. Pete: Since you all ALREADY published partial data, go ahead and publish whatever you’ve gotten dated so far. Heck, publish the raw undated data as well. BTW, the issues in this study and the (probable) need to resample sort of validate something Dano advised you guys of several years ago. Litt;le less self-congratulation on the coffee to tree transit. Little more delivery. You all have already shown that this is not quite so easy as you thought. More King Log, less King Stork from you critters…

By: Dano

Dano — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 05:41:13 +0000

Mr Pete:

Heard that, been there.

Why f’n bother to borrow an increment borer if you’re not going to publish?

Why bother to pose as know-it-all if you can’t defend it to the folk who know?

Poseur.

Go away now, lad. You got nothing.

Best,

By: dhogaza

dhogaza — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:48:59 +0000

From what I understand, the vast majority of the data feeding into the meat grinder does not contribute to the “HS” picture. Even though it is all supposedly proxies for climate. On the other hand, a small number of the proxies (guess which) produce the HS picture. If they’re all temp or precip proxies, they should correlate as such.

This is good, really good. MrPete, I humbly suggest you have a lot to learn before you succeed in overturning the entire field of climate science …