Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

EM. You attach a clasping grip with an attached pair of handles to a 10-12 ft length of 12cm diameter irrigation pipe. Stand the pipe vertically above the sediment surface to be sampled, balancing it using the handles. Ram the pipe downwards into the sediment by pulling onto the handles as fast as you can. Place a rubber cap over the end of the pipe creating a vacuum as you pull out the tube with its contained sediment core, using the handles. Place another rubber cap on other end of pipe. Transfer to lab for impregnation.
The speed with which the pipe is pushed into the sediment prevents most of the water from moving so preserving layering and other structures. In a good core the only disturbance occurs within a centimetre of the irrigation pipe, leaving most of the core undisturbed. Compactional shortening is almost non-existent (unless the core is extruded on site).
Initially we sharpened the end of the pipe, but experience showed this to be unnecessary.
If the sediment resists being penetrated using muscle power alone, a vibrocore device must be used - but we are not discussing this type of sediment.

For short lengths of core (topmost 20-25cm) just ram a short length of plastic tubing directly into top sediment, cap end and pull out - nothing could be simpler.

Note that in that reference I gave you, at one locality the sediments cored were calculated to be composed of 90% water.

Feb 23, 2018 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

They are also trained to attempt to minimise the effect of their own biases. Good practice is to collect as much data from as many sources as possible and try to find a hypothesis which embraces them all.

It would be a gross insult to a historian to suggest that their bias had influenced the interpretation of the data, yet you are quite happy to accuse an entire scientific profession of doing the same.

Feb 23, 2018 at 9:52 AM | Entropic man

Lamb v Mann in a nutshell.

Why do you prefer Mann, and insult history, geography, archaeology, science etc. The IPCC accepted Lamb, then Mann. Now they have dropped Mann, you and Climate Science are stuck with Mann.

Mann is Unsustainable. This is neither Green, nor Politically Correct.

Feb 23, 2018 at 11:17 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Supertroll
How do you collect cores from mud soft enough to flow while preserving the layering?
My intuition is that it is impossible.
Feb 23, 2018 at 10:20 AM | Entropic man

Supertroll has done it so can provide his explanation.

A technique I have used, involves a large hollow apple corer, driven or drilled. As with ice cores, samples can be retieved whole. Alternatively, samples can be extracted from within the core that is protected by the metal casing.

Depending on purpose, depth and location etc, dewatering can be used. Drill 6 holes in a circle around the desired location, drop sludge pumps down the holes and run them for hours/weeks as appropriate, then core or drill samples from the centre.

https://theconstructor.org/practical-guide/methods-of-dewatering-excavation-construction-site/13849/

When core sampling saturated "liquid" soils, the problem of extraction is the suction dragging/holding the sample in its position (like trying to get your welly out of mud), rather than liquidity + gravity causing it to flow.

Feb 23, 2018 at 10:55 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Feb 23, 2018 at 8:59 AM | Mark Hodgson & Supertroll

Aged 14, I had to choose either History or Geography O Level to study. I chose Geography. I have never regretted it.

Since then, I have enjoyed learning about the bits of History that interested me, and/or were relevant to work I was involved with. The multiple methodologies used by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lamb keep proving themselves superior to the single method used by Mann.

Dendrochronology has been a massive leap for Historians and Archaeologists, in establishing the AGE of timber, by recording how good or bad a series of growing season were. It remains incapable of establishing WHY a particular growing season was better or worse.

I prefer the Means, Method, and Motive of Lamb over Mann. Mann was driven by incentive, to arrive at a particular conclusion.

Feb 23, 2018 at 10:23 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Supertroll

How do you collect cores from mud soft enough to flow while preserving the layering?

My intuition is that it is impossible.

Feb 23, 2018 at 10:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Supertroll, lapogus

It occurred to me overnight that we have been using intuition when we should be using numbers. You Intuit that the lateral gravitational force of the Greenland ice sheet is insufficient to raise the local sea level. I Intuit that it is sufficient.

None of us know what constitutes sufficient force.

There are other sources of information.

Aqueducts need a minimum gradient for water to flow. The flattest measured had a gradient of 0.07%. What is the lateral force on the water in that aqueduct?

What lateral force produces the tides?

While I redo my calculations, perhaps you could look into this.

Feb 23, 2018 at 10:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Mark Hodgson

I'm a scientist married to a history teacher, so I get both sides.

Both share the same problem, assessing the quality of the data available and reconciling sources which appear to contradict each other. Was Henry VIII's poor health and personality change after his accident due to a brain injury, a leg ulcer, syphilis, the mercury cure or a festering bone splinter?

They are also trained to attempt to minimise the effect of their own biases. Good practice is to collect as much data from as many sources as possible and try to find a hypothesis which embraces them all.

It would be a gross insult to a historian to suggest that their bias had influenced the interpretation of the data, yet you are quite happy to accuse an entire scientific profession of doing the same.

Feb 23, 2018 at 9:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic Man

Thank you for your response at 12.48 a.m. We have to part company regarding your response, which included this:

"This is real world data.and you will never get 100% agreement between different studies. I do not know why the different studies date the onset of cooling differently, but I am not surprised."

My point is that the two different studies did not merely fail to show 100% agreement; over a period of several thousand years they produced diametrically opposite results, with one showing warming over that period and the other showing cooling. Yet both are cited approvingly by you, and nobody in the world of climate alarmism seems to have picked up on that glaring inconsistency (or, if they did, to care about it).

"The historical record is EVEN less reliable..." (my emphasis) says you. Which seems to be an admission that proxies are unreliable. "For example, it says that there were vineyards in Southern England in Roman times. There are now vineyards in Yorkshire and Fife, yet golf charlie is not rushing to argue that the present is warmer than the Roman period".

Your example (which is true) does not prove your point, though it does prove that the historical record is "open to selective interpretation," as you assert - you have just selectively interpreted it! The fact that there are now vineyards in Fife and Harrogate doesn't mean it wasn't warmer in Roman times. The Romans didn't colonise Fife, for instance, and vineyards would have been unknown to the locals. Harrogate was in an area of the country that was much less stable and settled than the south of England in Roman times (we are increasingly learning of massive incursions into the north of England by the unconquered tribes to the north again). It might not have been worth the effort of planting vineyards for that reason - or there might have been vineyards there then, but we don't know about them. Then again, today we have scientific advances in fertilisers and farming methods unknown to the Romans, which also might explain the lack of (known) vineyards in Yorkshire then and there presence there now. Certainly in the Roman period and the Iron Age immediately preceding it there were hilltop forts lived in year round by locals all over Britain, including Scotland and the far north of England, in locations which today would be far too cold for year-round habitation.

Thank you for this clarification: "Mitrovika et Al chose to cut off their graph at a rate [date?] when all the proxies still gave data." Do we know why they did it? Was the more recent data inconvenient in the answers it gave? Your earlier response, which sees you now in an argument with Supertroll, seemed to suggest it was because they had been unable or unwilling to obtain the proxies for more recent periods because of the difficulties involved. Your argument seems to be shifting ground at an alarming pace as you get caught out at every turn.

"Marcott et al included the tail. From the late 1800s their mean temperature was based on gradually fewer proxies and was therefore more uncertain. The last dendrochronology proxies reached the 1950s. As they said, their mean became less statistically robust. Note that "not statistically robust" does not mean "wrong" It means that you are less certain of it. Rather like using a secondary source rather than a primary source in history."

Indeed, but it doesn't stop alarmists shouting their certainty from the rooftops. If I read them correctly, both said that their results were consistent with the computer programmes demonstrating man-made global warming (despite the uncertainty).

"You can splice different proxies and modern temperature records." Indeed you can, but the question is whether you should. I don't think the key is SIMPLY callibration, I think the key is to overlay all results of different proxies over the same periods. Otherwise there is a danger of splicing in the results for the periods that suit you and give you the results you want. That should be impermissible unless the different proxies show consistency one with another over the extended time frames involved. In the case of the 2 sets of proxy data you linked to they didn't - being in direct contradiction of one another for several thousand years. But nobody in the world of climate alarmism - including you, apparently - seems to have a problem with that. I do, however.

Maybe it's because I'm a keen (amateur) student of history and you're a science teacher that where the proxy record and the historical record conflict I'll choose the historical record every time and you'll choose the proxy record. But when proxy records conflict with each other, which do YOU choose? And why?

"Marcott et al's uptick overlapped the instrument record by 70 years and agreed with it, which was why it annoyed those here so much." I repeat from your link: "However, Marcott et al. do note in their paper that the ‘uptick’ shown in the graph is not statistically robust...". Again, that didn't stop it being heavily cited and relied on, since it gave the "right" answer.

Feb 23, 2018 at 8:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

EM. You should not dismiss what you know not of. You blatantly deny that it is possible to collect cores of unconsolidated muddy sediments into which you sink into up to you hips. In effect you are calling me a liar when I tell you it can be done and that I have done it. I could search out my own photographs but have no way to get those images to you. So I put "Wanless","core" and "Florida Bay" into Bing and in 30 sec or so came up with
www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2005/wanless/images/wanles… · PDF file
In it you will find images of people sinking up to their hips in mud, together with cores taken in such mud (up to and including surface muds) with preserved layering.
Just because you don't know how to do something you believe is impossible doesn't mean that others cannot do it. Someone with a still questing mind would respond "on the basis of my experience I find it very difficult to believe, but how did you do it? You have lost your "open mind".

Feb 23, 2018 at 8:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

@Feb 22, 2018 at 11:46 PM | Registered CommenterPcar

British Horse Racing is ‘Too White’, Industry Told

Sexist too ! Not enough wimmin jockeys let alone that Metros. are not represented at all. Need a white oops black paper written in parliament.

Feb 23, 2018 at 1:20 AM | Unregistered Commenterkleinefeldmaus

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>