Saying that higher temps correlates to temperature is quite a simplification. Tree growth responds very well to c02 on the other hand. The most important factors to tree ring growth are nutrients, c02, temperature, competition, and water. Always the double standards. In fact they are highly representative of mainstream scientific practice. Pretty please with sugar on it! My guess is that that kind of divergence can happen anywhere at any time.
Then there is the question of the other proxies. It seems like the tree rings have recieved the most scrutiny. Can the proxies that have not recieved that level of scrutiny be trusted?
Most engineers, look for proof, justification, evidence, logic, common sense, etc. As Steve Mc says, this is the engineering method If I understand Lief correctly, he is saying that treemometry is nonsense. I think you would be very hard pressed to find an engineer who who would believe that there is anything but a very coarse link between tree ring thickness and temperature. The reason I take the time to comment on this is that so many people even engineers accept at face value the publicised claims based on very tenuous science. In general, engineers are the most honest and cautious members of any society.
We have an obligation to keep ourselves informed and to speak our minds. The measurement issue is their value in estimating trees before thermometers relative to other proxies. Leif; while I agree that over the full period, all of the trees show an increase. However, 4 of them show a peak temp prior to , while three of the remaining show peak temp prior to Further, only one of the ten shows temperatures at were above the highest temp from to Only six of the ten show temps at above all temps prior to , a period that concluded what is commonly regarded as the little ice age.
At other times, and in other places, the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 is not only small compared with the total energy flux, but is also swamped by water vapor. So I ask you, Prof Briffa, why summer temperatures? The frustration dripping from the RC rebuttal is funny. Apparently there are so few usable graphs that even a graph showing CO2 over last thousands of years is needed to discuss the hockey stick that is supposedly present in temperature the last few decades … The hockey stick is a marketing ploy.
It helps people believe they are responsible themselves. You can try to stretch the dramatic rise as much as you want eventually it either needs to be really noticeable or people will drop the faith. I understand why temperature proxies are of value when looking at the past before real measurements were available, but what is the reason for using temperature proxies for the last couple of decades when the real thing exists.
And why choose trees in Siberia? Has Siberia become a proxy for the whole world. Forgive me if this is too simplistic but my brain is hurting. It seems to me that, at the moment, the entire edifice of US and European environmental and economic policy if balanced precariously on a few Siberian treestumps. With the added bonus of an abundance of hockey sticks in the local vicinity. One key element here is that Dr. Briffa did not archive the data for 9 years until he was cornered to. Therefore the focus of RC reply on McIntyre is indeed misplaced imo. As you all know by now, the crew at Real Climate are in a rage.
But Gavin posted a response to Steve McIntyre and in the comments section he made the comment that everyone was getting all of the data that they needed. So in response to his comment I submitted this comment. JPG And, of course, as everyone might guess, Gavin censored the comment — as he always does when he has no answer for something or when he finds it embarrasing and inconvinient. What were the other trees around YAD like?
New trees, dying trees, diseased trees, burned trees, logged trees , etc? A tree in a grove that suddenly has access to the the majority of the resources can take off. However it is used, there must, of course, be transparency and disclosure. They are anomalous. They are a fix. They are a CON! I was waiting for a serious and substantive rebuttal. I should have known better. Carbon induced climate catastrophe is a serious fraud. Let us all stop wasting incredibly precious time, money and energy attacking the production of an essential trace gas that is necessary for life to flourish, and start, finally, to get a solution to the real and serious environmental catastrophes in deforestation, habitat destruction and wanton chemical pollution.
We need to stop hunting and fishing species to extinction and we need to stop cutting down huge tracts of ancient historic and irreplaceable forests. It is sickeningly perverse that the Urang-utang is on the very cusp of extinction because climate alarmists and environmentalists have boosted the demand for bio-oils that are planted where these magnificent animals used to have a habitat.
It is gut wrenchingly hypocritical of them and I am incensed to a level of frustrated fury every time I think of it. How DARE they lecture and legislate and waste billions of dollars pushing a lie, when the environment is being raped in so many places? Environmentalists are some of the worst environmental vandals in the world and they are desperate to keep us distracted with the fraud, the rubbish that is carbon alarmism.
We should have NONE of it! Bob Kutz : Leif; while I agree that over the full period, all of the trees show an increase. Peter Plail : As much of the tree ring data I have looked at where there is a record back years, what shows most is the precipitation, and the temp is inferred from there uncertainty rises. Comparing such record to the instrumental data, one comes away with the impression that tree ring is generalized for precipitation, and over very long timespans give a rough impression of temperature.
What stands out in tree ring data are the exceptional years, like deluges and hard droughts, and they line up nicely with instrumental. Scientist are getting good at sounding like politicians. To bad I seek out science to take a break from politics. Harsh conditions high altitude, far north are good for producing old trees. Sparser trees, less fire, less diseases, less parasites. Also, when you use fossile trees from near the tree line and on south flowing streams, you have less chance of having a tree wash in from another location.
I strongly suspect Briffa knows that the original data was excluded because it was the basis of several of his publications claiming to show a hockeystick effect and excluding it is a reasonable way to determine if he may have cherry picked data in such a way as to create a hockeystick. His response is bluster. Would others in this field of science agree that this is an appropriate objective? Am I living on an alternate planet where logic and reasoning is distorted beyond my comprehension?
This may be off topic but the Chinese must be laughing their heads off, and, shaking their collective heads in utter disbelief as the free world unravels over the readings of basically one tree. Here they carry most of the States dept, are on the verge to put man on the moon, are fast becoming the worlds number one super power while the free world may go into a financial death spiral chasing tap and trade and green energy. North America could be energy self sufficient, but blocked by an unproven science, just amazing! Thus we are led in a Gish Gallop towards the final destination — the self policed parade of carbon sinners in atonement.
Certainly not without being confounded by other variables. I only ever met one tree growth ring expert and that was back in or He was using them as a proxy for rainfall. After the dam was complete the quantity of water has never since matched the prediction. His tree growth rings showed that the 40 years were the wettest in the last in the catchment. Tilo : Thanks for your screen grab of your comment. JPG The real beauty of that is not the reasonableness of your contribution which failed moderation, but the example of the spittle-flecked ranting which appears in the post above which apparently was quite acceptable to the moderator.
AGW is a groupthink catastrophe. So where were the caveats in the original paper and why were its results allowed to be used in subsequent papers also without caveats? Peter Plail. I thought just the same about the mindset of both the people who run it, and many of the contributors when I contributed once. There was one, dghoza, or somesuch, who posted some very odd comments.
Schmidt also had some very strange reactions to things. I came away thinking it was a peculiar place to be. God, the internet seems to attract them! Scott Mandia beclowns himself by using an official AGW talking point issued a few months back. Crazy is not expecting anyone like Anthony Watts or Steve McIntyre to appear when you started down this road. Crazy is thinking that you have made a strong enough scientific case to cause western democracies to cripple their economies with trillions of dollars in taxes.
Crazy is thinking that the never ending arrogance and contempt shown towards us by the likes of The Team, Tamino, Romm and the rest of you haters would actually help to Save the World. And I too have made civil, relevant comments on RC and similar blogs which were deleted or edited to distort my point.
My opinion only. P Wilson : The most important factors to tree ring growth are nutrients, c02, temperature, competition, and water. But not in that order, you have the dominant one last. Did actual thermometers also show a 1. If yes, then what does it matter what trees were used during that period — it matches so you get the same result whether you use tree rings or thermometers. In which case why would such a paper even be published? Why does tree-ring based temperatures having any use in the 20th century except as a sanity check on whether or not trees can ever predict temperature?
It makes no sense to me. He could simply be measuring natural climate change versus man-made. But I think we all know where the CO2 blame will end up, anyway. NASA said something very similar about foam-impacts on the space shuttle. Perhaps it is not something to worry about? Unchecked Group-think in that case led to death for 7 humans. So please restrain yourself; bite your tongue; pinch your ear whenever you find yourself suggesting that we should stop questioning data.
Doing otherwise is contributing to a perversion of science that leads to problems. Either that, or wants to make a merely good story. I was kind of hoping debunking would be a little more challenging than that…. The sanity check fails in all but a handful of trees. By cherry picking a tiny number of trees Briffa found the hockey stick shape which he and the warmists wanted to suggest that recent temperatures are exceptional but only by ignoring the vast majority of trees in the area which showed little or no similarity to recent temperatures. Please correct me if I am wrong, folks.
Bravo, Ken Hall! Your arguments get to the core of what is wrong with the ACW fiasco. There are so many urgent environmental problems that are being exacerbated by the political choice to focus on a non-existent problem. Overfishing and the balanced use of marine resources especially need more scientific attention, but some fisheries scientists have attempted to deflect criticism from poor management decisions by appealing to unforeseen climate change as the cause of recent fish stock collapses.
Somehow, we have to get the focus back on the real challenges that are facing humanity and our earthly home. Briffa and his ilk need to consider the consequences of their use of shoddy techniques in support of their current paradigm. A sample size of ten trees! I think we learned better as science undergrads. Thank you Steve McIntyre for your persistence in pursuing the evidence and revealing what actually was done.
Though in England it might just be a bucket of urine! The effects on our understanding of climate due to any form of resolution of this issue will be so minor as to be meaningless. The reason this is a big deal is simply and plainly because one group of people made claims. These people published in scientific journals and in official government reports while being paid with taxpayer dollars. Some of them even became outright activists esposing their views that their research was supposed to back up with evidence… However, it is now clear that the scientific backing for any claims made by these people is unknown at best, and outright fraud at the unthinkable worst.
Presuming that it is simply an unknown, then there is still scientific misconduct going on because if you are truly a scientist and you make claims, you are honor-bound to share and discuss your data and methods for making said claims. These sorts of fencing battles between minds occur in many fields in science when there is something that is truly unprovable, and they generally resolve themselves when more data becomes available.
Again, as far as our understanding of climate is concerned, this is almost a non-issue. However, as far as accurate representation of available data is concerned particularly in the highly-publicized IPCC reports, this is huge. This is frankly a battle over propaganda fought with the rapier of scientific method. Dr Svalgaard has a point about Dendrochronology and the use of such data for temperature proxies. Even at the point of collection, the radial sample cores may not give a complete picture of tree ring growth because very few trees appear to have perfect tree ring symmetry.
Even averaging out a great many samples would still leave a very wide margin for error. Bottom line is that the entire dendro scheme is highly questionable at the very best and downright fraudulent at the worst. With this team, I expect the worst. A lot of the reduction in growth for old wood is due to production of seed.
Every now and then a tree naturally appears that is sterile and they grow unnaturally quickly at old age. It had yellow needles which reduced its efficiency at photosynthesis, but since it was also sterile, it grew fairly quickly. From seeing these individual trees, all from the same area displayed above, I conclude that any interpretation can be put on any collection depending on the results desired. All data available must to used to balance the picture with only the outliers excluded, i.
He has been working for teny ears, not to improve the robustness of the results, except in the negative sense, by refusing to yield the data he is protecting the claimed robustness from being exposed as not robust. Except that Briffa writes with the clarity of a PR obfuscationist. There, nastiness, ridicule and condescension toward skeptics remain the Team mandate. Briffa and his defenders need to respond not only to the data manipulation charge — but also to the stonewall charge.
There is little doubt that the years of delays and impediment to review have made their whole enterprise more than a little suspect. The climate modelers needed evidence that substantiated the assumptions and conclusions of their models. Briffa obliged.
Which is not to say Briffa deliberately misrepresented the data or conclusions. Whenever post hoc selection of data occurs, so does confirmation bias. As noted above, dendro studies need randomized sampling to have any scientific validity. The reason this event is so damaging to AGW science is that a dozen or so proxy studies were based on Yamal data that was processed, not raw.
Basing a proxy study on raw data is acceptable, but basing it on data that has been filtered and then smoothed is not. But the further use of his processed results is inexcusable. I have posted two comments on RC. It seems only one was posted. I am disappointed on the quality of debate RC allows. As a layman, i am very disappointed by the quality of the rebuttal on this issue by the pro-AGW.
Bret Take cores and find 10 with a hockey stick shape? All that says is you found 10 hockey stick shaped cores because the trees were fertilized, segregated, better watered, etc. But take cores and get hockey sticks? Now you have something. Take in 10 places around the world and get 10k hockey sticks? Also matching to the instrument record is tenuous at best seeing the measurement bias.
When you restrict the instrument record to just a few locations near the trees, you have an even better chance of UHI or something similar. But my previous point of selecting individual cores based on a correlation to the instrument record still stands. It is no more valid than matching them up to CO2 which some do or rainfall which some do or the number of sparrows in Rosslyn VA which some do too.
With a big enough set to sample from you can always get matches to anything. If Briffa explains that these 10 trees were selected completely randomly from a much larger number of cores, that would be satisfying, at least for that location. Then that process would need to be repeated at many other locations around the world. P Wilson : Boreholes go back much further than years.
This study goes back 2, years: Huang, S. The reconstructed peak temperatures in the MWP appear comparable to the AD — mean reference level, with the bold mid-range curve slightly below. None of the borehole reconstructions show MWP peak temperatures as high as late 20th century temperatures, consistent with the conclusions of both National Research Council and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about the warmth of the MWP.
The LIA temperature minimum shows an amplitude about 1. I will be posting from Hawaii on Saturday! NOT just tree rings. That is quite an incentive. It is quite compelling. Notes from Underground. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that humans are warming the climate and that we are now dominating natural forcing mechanisms. Click the link on my name and see what I have presented which is, to the best of my knowledge, a pretty fair summary of what these thousands of scientists are finding. I am just the messenger — I do not do any research.
I have nothing to gain by taking this position and I never voted for Gore. In fact, I am a registered Independent. More importantly, I am a scientist that seeks to know what the heck is going on. Jeremy : I never said we should stop questioning data. I think when the data keeps looking the same perhaps we should start thinking that maybe it is accurate. The hockey stick does not discount the instrumental record which shows tremendous warming in the modern era, especially the last few decades. Trees or no trees. CA, and subsequently WUWT, got into a tizzy because it appeared that only a subset of tree data was being used to reconstruct past climate.
Posters at these two sites asked why not use ALL of the tree data instead of a subset? Now let us think about surfacestations. I think it was 70 out of ? Is this why you are working to develop these methods? Leif Svalgaard : does not look entirely flat to me Ahh, but does it look like a Hockey Stick? That graph was featured in it. Statisticians, scientists, economists, professors, politicians, and many other people from all walks of life have looked in to the issue of this ever so slightly important ingredient to the topic of global warming.
Response from Briffa on the Yamal tree ring affair – plus rebuttal | Watts Up With That?
You may wish to take some time to brush up on the topic of global warming before commenting on it. We all know this was cherry-picking, pure and simple. And we all know that tree rings are not thermometres. And we all know the team like them because of their cherry-picking potential. And we all tired of having to pussy-foot around calling the kettle black.
Quote Quote: My colleagues and I are working to develop methods that are capable of expressing robust evidence of climate changes using tree-ring data Mr. He made no reference to AGW. Bugs: I see other problems with the Briffa quote. Now that this data is available any scientist, statistician, engineer, or mathemtician etc who is on the fence about global warming will have something to work with for themselves which will influence them one way or the other!
Thank you Mr. And thanks to the Royal Society for the pressure! Mandia : The hockey stick does not discount the instrumental record which shows tremendous warming in the modern era, especially the last few decades. Nobody is saying to use a subset. The whole point is to demonstrate that the record, as it stands, is completely contaminated and essentially useless.
Glad to see where some of my tax pounds went…down the drain it seems. Mandia , I honestly wish the alarmist crowd would try and get it right for once. The long accepted hypothesis is natural climate variability. The climate has gone in regular cycles for hundreds of thousands of years. The current climate is benign, and it is well within historical parameters. Nothing unusual is happening.
But someone from the alarmist crowd always tries to turn the Scientific Method on its head, and demands that skeptical scientists must falsify whatever odd conjecture comes along:. If I propose a new hypothesis that claims a CO2 breathing dragon lives under my bed, does the mainstream science community have an obligation to falsify my hypothesis?
Of course not. Same with AGW. Skeptical scientists [which is the subset of all good scientists] have no obligation to falsify every hypothesis that comes along. They will, of course, make the attempt — if a hypothesis is testable and falsifiable, and if all raw and adjusted data and their methodologies are made plainly transparent, and available to anyone who asks.
Furthermore, the originator of the new hypothesis must, according to the Scientific Method, do whatever he can to falsify his own hypothesis, and fully cooperate with anyone else trying to falsify it. They have become politicians, anxious to keep both front feet in the public grant trough. I love this. I live in a logging town and county. The lowest guy on the logging crew could give you 10 legit reasons why this stand versus that stand 10 yards away is the same age but bigger. And did you say punch cards?
Mine did that all the fricken time. And often in the same place on the cards. And if you had a mixed set of cards different manufacturing dates and sources , you might as well bite the bullet and load up on stiff coffee cuz you will be up all night for several nights in a row pinching off recalcitrant hanging chads. I always check out the rings, for every tree has its own story. They live on the borderline of existence, for trees, because trees go dormant when water freezes.
As soon as it drops below freezing the sap stops dripping into the sugar maple buckets. Then, with sunshine and the rotting remains of its elders to feed it, the tree could take off. I have seen growth patterns much like YAD in the rings of many stumps in New Hampshire, and not once have I thought it showed a sign of global warming, or of increased levels of CO2 in the air. Briffa should spend less time gazing at computer screens, and actually get out and associate with trees more. At the very least, it might be good for his health. Let us compare the two methods of selection. The surfacestations method is to survey every site possible, and applying consistent, published, standards which are designed to minimize temperature error.
Once this has been done, let the data fall where it will. Briffa uses methods that are fine in and of themselves, if one honors the assumptions under which they were developed, which he does not. How you can say these are the same is totally beyond me. When Craig Loehle did a reconstruction only using data that had been independently proven to be accurate temperature proxies in peer reviewed literature. Guess what? No hockey stick. Briffa is either [snip]. I think he is probably locked into group think. Mandia : I guess you have a snappy defense of Briffa keeping the data under wraps for 10 years?
Are the data for your other hockey sticks out in the open? Are these techniques proven any better than tree rings? I doubt it. Mandia : Group think happens all the time in science. It is known as dogma. It is usually a single scientist who has to fight the battle against dogma, and then the dogma changes. I can give you many examples of this happening in the past.
As a fellow scientist, you should know this is true. For the record, I believe AGW is hokum. I wonder about the resolution of the reconstruction over the MWP. Could not a similar. Svalgaard comes off as an prostrate apologist for poor science. Caleb : Great post, Caleb, this is why I love this site. Insight from people with a lifetime of experience.
- Account Options;
- Beurteilung und Förderung beruflicher Leistung (German Edition)!
- The Ghost of Rationality.
- Balance Point;
- LAube Naît, Op. 17, No. 3.
- The Lance of Kanana: A Story of Arabia;
Mandia Thanks for the URL pointers. I am always interested in learning things. It seems to me that there are a number of related hypotheses: 1. Global temperatures have been rising in parallel with industrial development. The rise in temperatures correlates well with CO2 in the atmosphere. The rising temperatures are controllable by controlling CO2 in the atmosphere. The rise in temperatures can be predicted by the climate models of the IPCC.
The rise over the rest of this century will be so large that it is incumbent on society to do whatever it takes to limit production of CO2. That seems to be true. There have been temperature events, though, that appear to be entirely uncorrelated with CO2 concentration. My background is Engineering and Physics. I think we are at the stage of trying to understand the phenomenon. We are a long way from designing a solution. Trying to stampede me by predicting that a crisis is at hand is a waste of time. Incidentally, I place a very high premium on being able to predict the outcome of an experiment.
Yep, with a very short handle. Leif Svalgaard, Anthony Watts and all my dear colleagues… Many factors, biological and abiotic, affect the growth of any plant living on this planet. However, a factor exists which is preponderant over the remainder factors like the concentration of CO2, rainfalls, glaciations, etc.
Even so, the Media gives more credit to this myth than to the trusty elements taken from careful observations of nature. The treerings are not a reliable source of information about the environmental paleotemperatures, but for showing that the plant is taking more energy from the incident solar radiation. There is a very humble tool for measuring the intensity of the light striking on a plant, i. Ask a biologist if he has detected years with high incidence of light on the surface standing out against years with extremely low incidence of light on the surface.
This factor is determinant for the health and robustness of any plant. It would NOT be a compliment. The Skeptics do not have to do anything. Nothing at all.
There are no real observational reasons to be concerned, outside the normal cycles of the planet, however extreme they might be. The burden of proof is on your camp. Produce the evidence. Show the actual tropical tropospheric fingerprint.
More titles to consider
Show those independent reproductions of hockey sticks and how they were reproduced. Mass delusions have happened before in human history and they will no doubt repeat themselves. We can certainly make the Pacific Trash gyre worse though. Check how many of the staff are salaried by the UEA. All grants go to pay for researchers and other non salaried staff.
Like Anthony, I do not accept that Keith Briffa is giving full, plain disclosure as to why Yamal should be used as a proxy for anything, why the Polar Urals chronology disappeared after it was updated, nor why Yamal is so artificially sparse in its critical variance.
If Keith Briffa had not replied because of his health problems, I would have understood. But the fact that he could respond so quickly while ill throws a spotlight on his obstructive and uncooperative behaviour over the last ten years while healthy. Mandia : Nice bore hole graph. I did notice that the heavy black line seems to be the one that shows the highest increase in temperature or maybe it just hides the other lines.
I noticed that the paleo reconstructions in the main paper have the modern instrument data spliced onto the paleo data. Comparing apples to oranges comes to mind. James F. Evans : Response: Because they made claims this was a good indicator. If that is the claim they made, then that is the claim we should address, attack, and beat down if we think otherwise. Not just their various shenanigans. And if it is such a poor indicator, then their poor analysis is moot, because of GIGO. Thanks for this, Bugs. Was it ever? Spot on. May our species produce more engineers and scientists with this outlook.
That is what we are after, right? That sounds like manipulation. I really feel that this discussion has been too focused on the validity of arctic tree rings as temperature proxies for or against the Hockey Stick. Although I am a sceptic I feel RC and Scott Mandia are rightfully trying to turn the discussion to the various other methods used in reconstructions on more of a global basis. What concerns me the most is that the hockey stick presented in the media does not even closely represent what these scientists are showing us. Wishing Dr. Briffa health and wellness…. Especially when your research is leveraging the entire world right now [even though Carbon Credits are not looking too good right now on the CBT].
Caleb, Nice post — thanks. One need not cherry pick at this proxy to confirm that the climate change threat is proving to be a motivational bust. But all is not lost. We are moving forward with global electrification of transport. Big oil companies are seriously at work on alternative fuels. The urgency to end foreign oil imports is clear.
And there is a healthy awareness of the need to balance development against the resources that allow it. The temp record should discredit the dendro BUT…. Leif Svalgaard : Tim Clark : But the statistical contortions leading to erroneous conclusions drawn from a few scrawny trees really [snip] me off. Their concerns are seemingly academic and procedural in nature.
It is completely beyond me as well….. The fact that CRU has and has had a number of long-standing research staff is testimony to the quality and relevance of our work. Such longevity in a research centre, dependent principally on soft money, in the UK university system is probably unprecedented. The recipients are: Prof K. Briffa Prof P. Jones Dr T. Osborn Dr S. Keep real.
It looks like the Briffalump has been at the Honey Jar! Briffalumps love Honey! The fact was Piglet was wishing that he had thought about it first. And it must be a Cunning Trap, so you will have to help me, Piglet. Excellent rebuttal, Anthony. The mere presence of debate works in our favor, even if the media ignores it which admittedly is frustrating. Tom Jones : 1. Yup, but a correlation is still not a cause. And this because in the past there have been periods when the average temperatures have been as warm or even warmer as it is now. If you leave room for natural variation than i could suggest that a least part of the current warming is caused by natural factors, your task is to disprove this.
Even the IPCC admits that at least a part of the warming is caused by natural factors. No it does not. Especially on long periods of time in our past. But on a shorter timescale, the last 10 years do not correlate at all. Unproven theory, because we only know how this works on a small scale in a laboratory, we still have no clue how this work on a global scale with a lot more natural and artificial factors land-use, UHI and so on thrown in, this is also the reason why modelling fails as a prediction tool.
No it can not, the margin of errors are to wide to make a sensible prediction. If you are to pick a number out of than you should not choose 25 to 75 in the hope that you are correct somewhere in the next 9 decades. Still its only a prediction, Lehman Brothers believed in AGW yet no one did predict that the bank would go belly-up within a year. Why should i trust those longterm predictions with so much unknown factors if shortterm economic predictions fail even if we know almost all factors that are in play?
Not very likely at all since all models did not predict the current decline in average temperatures.
- photoportrait - Wiktionary;
- The Death of Dalziel: A Dalziel and Pascoe Novel (Dalziel & Pascoe, Book 20) (Dalziel & Pascoe Novel 22)!
- Back from the Abyss: The Autobiography of a Low-Bottom Alky;
- Dimensional Analysis High School Physics Series -I?
When does this thermageddon take off, now, in 10 years time, at the end of the century or perhaps never? And by how much? And what of that much is caused by artifical factors and what is cause by natural factors? How much is factor A? Some of the problems with bore hole measurements. Leif set me off googling tree rings indicate global warming,to see how much publicity there was about the subject.
The only part I wondered about was where she states that temperatures are warmer over the last couple of decades than they have been for a thousand years. Is there a thousand years of tree ring data? I will see a lot of documentaries by educated people saying AGW is a problem,who am I as a member of the unwashed masses to challenge that? For me,my conclusion to all this scientists are not as smart as they think they are,they have hoodwinked the public into believing they are smarter than they are.
I am not saying all scientists,but it seems to me the majority have been corrupted. Time for a new broom,and accountability. Noelene : Is there a thousand years of tree ring data? And they know who controls the voting for the Nobel Prize…those that maintain and enforce the dogma…. Observe that the easiest method by far is to look a bit stupider than you are. The feeling of victory over Briffa and the Hockey Stick : Priceless.
Mandia : What bothers me the most about this story and appears to be a running theme here at WUWT is that somehow there is this massive conspiracy among scientists to delude the public for no other reason than we do not wish to look wrong. It is not a matter of conspiracy in the political sense. It is in the sense of group think delusion, and yes, it happens to scientists.
I have seen it happening in my field, particle physics, and, because people are really scientists and because there is not general publicity or world policy hanging on the scientific sidetracking, the system self corrects. The hockey stick shape comes only with the dendro misuse of data. Nobody that I know thinks that there has been no warming since the little ice age. It is evident and clear that there has. In your link there is a rise of 1 C the last century? I always check out the rings, for every tree has its own story….
Caleb, My grandpa was a lumberjack for most of his life. He was outside all day. He understood nature like you. In hunting season he was always the first to get his deer. He knew all about fertilizers for gardens. He knew the best day to plant crops—and boy, was he certain to plant them on those days! He could eye crops and know when they were ripe for picking. He seemed to know something about everything in nature. And he made it all seem so simple. He never went to college. Briffa would do well to sit and listen to people like you and my late grandpa. Evans : Liar, liar, pants on fire.
No, no more pants on fire. They burned up long ago. The Hockey Stick crowd is walking around in underwear. Nobody has said it, but bristlecone pines follow a C3 photosynthetic pathway. This is very important because the results of this characteristic on assessing the paleotemperatures could flaw any comparison with modern instrumental records. C3 plants do not respond to the intensity of solar irradiance in the same way that C4 plants do it. C3 plants prosper better in cold regions with a low incidence of solar radiation.
The latter means that the growth of the treerings is delayed at high luminosities. The calibration is useless in these cases because we would never know when the slow growth was due to higher or to lower luminosity indexes. Notice why I said the treerings are not good proxies for temperature, but for incident solar irradiance; nevertheless, there would be grim problems also if we take treerings seriously even for getting information about the incident solar irradiance.
That treerings are reliable sources of paleotemperatures is not true. The CRU archive during the overlapping period with the Schweingruber series has much older trees in it, as you have already pointed out. Let us have a look at the peers who do or did the reviews. Who were the peers of e. Briffa ?
Did they have any conflicting interests? How could they review e. Briffa without the data? Why did they not ask for the data? What did they review? Are there any written remarks, papers which document their reviews? I am sure that among the peers group there are some with rather sloppy working habits as of course everywhere.
Is there a check list of items peers have to look at? What about a map of the relations between all the peers and authors, which could serve as a demonstration of the non-existance or existance of a self-reference system? Why not a list of journals of premiere quality, journals which care about data like The Royal Society and journals with lower claims for quality, those which do not care about that. Bankers are greedy for money, scientists are greedy for reputation. We need clarity and transparency in science. Even though the mainstream media is reluctant to touch this story I see it cropping up in climate-related blogs on mainstream media outlets.
At least this is heartening. Perhaps if science is being discussed once again, there is a chance to avert the political lunacy. Yes, I am a hopeless optimist. A couple of points, 1. We can also say that, as soon as a market developed in carbon credits, they were all in a position to know that the decision to delay the release had an enormous financial value.
So perhaps the regulators of the carbon-trading market ought to take a look, to satisfy themselves that there were no market abuses. But to understand the impact: Can anyone give an oveview of where Briffas Yamal data was used, and to what degree it has affected the hockey stick and the later hockey stick?
It would be nice to know how much this alone changes the hokeysticks. Hope you can help. Frank Lansner. Honestly, I doubt it. More likely he will be castigated. Scott Mandia. The one you extracted was figure 2. Figure 2 then claims to be based on figure 1 but stretched out over the last years. It also claims that both figures are based on data merged with the 20th century instrumental temperature database. It seems this last point displays a similar principle to the disputed Briffa methodology: superadding inferred temperature proxies to the temperature database.
In the revised paper, there are quite a few references to the IPCC whereas in the original paper which infers a warmer medieval warm period warmer than today, there are not. Importantly, this is data unmerged with the instrumental temperature record. Gene Nemetz : James F.
McIntyre has distanced himself from all claims of briffa wrongdoing to the extent of even writing to the Telegraph for them to correct their article — See CA. Overpeck et al. While this may prove to be a valid interpretation of the data, some caution is warranted at this time … … The emperically derived regression equations upon which our reconstructions are based may be compromised if the balance between photosynthesis and respiration is changed by differential heating in the light and dark.
Changes in the start, end, or length of growing seasons; changes in the efficiency with which water or limiting nutrients are used, as well as changes in CO2, UV radiation and a host of other environmental factors may all exert their influence on tree growth. To varying extents, such factors have always affected trees, but their recent influences, and especially the extent of their combined influence, requires serious investigation, beyond that undertaken to date. The rate for the past years is 0. Regarding consensus, here is an analogy: Suppose you are feeling very sick.
You visit ten doctors and here are the replies: [snip — Scott what kind of insensitive dolt are you? Because you are a scientist, all I can really say to this statement is: WOW! Wow, again. Will he and his colleagues publish robust evidence of cliamte changes that do not support the theory? TomP Please ask your friends at RealClimate why they are censoring every reasonable question posted on their site.
RealClimate is about as Real as selecting 10 trees from a population of what? Ask them how many studies used Yamal and ask them if any of those studies used the just-released Yamal raw data. Any scientist looking at that raw data would have rejected it. Instead they all apparently went along for the ride using the cooked data.
There is no honor among thieves, no disgrace upon scientists only more grant money to continue the study of answers. Somebody famous said this once and I think it applies here when the global man warmers stand on a chair that has now had two legs cut off, maybe three. What it seems to me is that he has been mandated to produce a particular result in the peer reviewing process. It actually contracts out the research and in this case the contractor is the Met Office Hadley Centre.
The Department of Environment judged that climate change was set to become a major policy area and hence decided to expand its climate change research programme. The Climate Prediction Programme was a 17 year contract renewed annually with new research deliverables as a 3 year rolling contract which provided a programme of research into climate change, relevant to the formulation of government policy.
As the policy requirements changed, so did the research programme objectives. Recent examples of significant scientific contributions are highlighted by the Met Office Hadley Centre contributions to the IPCC AR4: We provided 8 lead authors, 1 convening lead author, 2 review editors and numerous contributing authors. The report on the Economics of Climate Change published by Sir Nicholas Stern published in November relied heavily on the quantified probabilistic estimates of future climate change carried out in the Met Office Hadley Centre. Agreed future work: Defra has recognised the value of the work funded under the CPP contract and has just agreed a 5 year fixed price contract for an Integrated Climate Programme jointly funded with MoD to deliver policy relevant science as follows.
Met Office will support Defra in leading efforts to tackle climate change at a UK, European and International level to build an international consensus on the need for and shape of further action post The Met Office will focus on research that contributes to UK government policy objectives and will communicate the results to government and the public. This will be done through leadership of the UK climate community, collaboration with UK and world-wide institutions and internal customer-focussed links within the Met Office.
If you pay someone to do that, logic says they are going to find something, come hell or high water, both are predicted! Go find it. These thousands of brilliant scientists you refer to — are they all climatologist? I would also suggest that many of the scientists, whilst perfectly competent, would not justify the term brilliant. I was also going to question the use of ice core proxies for 20th century temperatures reference your link when there are perfectly good ish instrumental records available. The reconstruction of climate over the past one to two millennia has not been free of contention, because of its relevance to assessing the significance of 20th century global warming.
An early reconstruction that drew considerable attention was that of Mann et al. The contentiousness followed from the statement by Mann et al. In the ensuing debate one of our publications [Huang et al. Yet in our later publications on climate reconstruction [e. They later say: There are important differences that need to be understood between the 20, year reconstructions of HPS97 and the more recent five-century borehole reconstructions typified by HPS HPS97 is a broad-brush look at the entire Late Quaternary exclusive of the 20th century as noted above , using a large but noisy, low temporal resolution dataset of heat flux measurements aggregated in meter depth intervals.
The HPS00 reconstructions use a smaller but higher quality and more homogeneous dataset of several hundred borehole temperature versus depth T-z profiles comprising actual temperature measurements at 10 meter intervals. The selection process for these T-z profiles has been conducted under strict quality control criteria, ensuring a much less noisy dataset than that used in HPS In a sense these studies are complementary, with HPS97 taking a long low-resolution view, and HPS00 making a more focused and sharper assessment of the past five centuries.
The rate for,ithe past years is 0. Oscillating behavior allows rates to change too, on the upside and on the downside. The derivative is a cosine curve, and that is the rate of change, which is not constant of course and can be as big as the maximum change. It will not be pleasant but it can cure you. If you wait you will surely die. Waiting will not kill you and it might actually help you.
There is no cure but you will save money by taking no action. The poems in this book are chronologically arranged. They explore a variety of moods that often resonate with scenes in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. Included as well are evocations of visual artists and their works, meditations on the authors' past and present, glimpses of the American scene and commentaries on pop culture leavened with skewed humor. Help Centre. My Wishlist Sign In Join. Be the first to write a review. Add to Wishlist. Ships in 15 business days. Link Either by signing into your account or linking your membership details before your order is placed.
Description Product Details Click on the cover image above to read some pages of this book! Boy Swallows Universe. In Stock. The Yield Order a signed copy! Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine. Where the Crawdads Sing. My Name is Monster. The Subjects. The Forgotten Letters of Esther Durrant. Fleishman Is in Trouble.