Posted on 04/28/2005 3:49:11 AM PDT by nuke rocketeer
Climate science questioned
The Kyoto Protocol, which sets binding targets for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions on average 5.2% below 1990 levels, went into effect on Feb 16. The U.S. and Australia, the most visible holdouts, have taken the brunt of international criticism for taking a stand against a treaty that seeks to regulate what some scientists believe is a phantom phenomenon—human-caused global warming. The Wharton School of Economics says signing on to Kyoto would double the cost of energy in the U.S. by 2010.
How did we get here?
A decade ago, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report with a phrase—“a discernible human influence on global climate”—that sent shivers down the spines of developed nations. Five years earlier, a graph (based on reliable scientific and historical data) in another IPCC report seemed to confirm that climate change over the past millennium had been cyclical. Between 1000 AD and 1400 AD, average global temperatures were a little warmer (about 1F) than they are today; between 1500 AD and 1900 AD, they were about 1F cooler.
The first stop of the climate “science” palace coup that continues today was the publication of the now-infamous “hockey-stick” graph by Dr. Michael Mann and his colleagues in 1998. This graph, based on tree ring data and other proxies for temperatures (such as ice core borings), suggested that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were relatively stable for over 900 years (the shaft) and then spiked upward during the 20th century (the blade). Mann continued to play to his followers by reiterating in a 2001 IPCC report his belief that nearly all of the climate change over the past two millennia occurred during the 20th century and was due to “human activities.” He went on to claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade and that 1998 was the warmest year of the last millennium.
More than the veracity of Mann’s research is at stake here. For the global environmental movement, the hockey-stick graph still serves as “proof” that global warming is real and anthropogenic.
The real deal
I’ll take the hot seat now and point out the biggest flaw in Mann’s research. His data for the 20th century come mainly from temperature recording stations in urban “heat islands.” As a result, the data are skewed, haven’t been correlated with readings from satellites, and ignore the cyclical nature of temperature trends that the 15-year-old IPCC report identified. If satellite temperature data had been used, the hockey stick’s blade would have been much less pronounced, and Mann’s graph would have become an academic curiosity rather than a movement’s Holy Grail. In essence, temperatures rises in the late 20th century now would be considered “statistically insignificant,” and Kyoto would mean nothing more than the name of a Japanese city.
Perhaps Michael Crichton got it right when he wrote in his latest page-turner, State of Fear, that the environmental movement seems to be more interested in research billions than in scientific accuracy.
Throwing stones at a stick
For those of us in the power industry, the good news is that Mann’s glass house is beginning to show some cracks. Over the past few years, researchers have subjected his research to the intensive review it deserves. For example, David Legates, director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, recently noted that Mann’s latest rendition (2004) of the hockey stick graph shows warming of 1.5F over the past century, 50% more than the 1F rise cited by the IPCC. Legates concludes that “Mann’s warming estimate has grown substantially over the last couple of years, apparently to accommodate his continuing claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the last two millennia. But we found that the blade of the hockey stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann’s or other common statistical techniques. Since reproducibility is a hallmark of scientific inquiry and the blade does not represent the observed climate record, [Mann’s data are] unreliable.”
Dr. Hans Von Storch, a noted German climate researcher, published an even harsher criticism of Mann’s findings in the September 30, 2004, issue of Science magazine. He wrote, “this [hockey-stick] graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically, it is wrong: Rubbish.”
And don’t forget the 4,000 scientists (including 72 Nobel Prize winners) from 106 countries who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, which warns that “no compelling scientific consensus exists to justify mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts.” Or the National Academy of Sciences, which came to the same conclusion. The list goes on and is getting longer.
I fall more into the Crichton camp when he says, “I suspect that people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume much more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don’t think we have to worry about them.”
Perhaps we should take a lesson from the NHL and “lock out” Mann and his hockey stick. We can’t afford the multi-billion-dollar price of admission to the Kyoto games.
Dr. Robert Peltier, PE Editor-in-Chief
Bump
A school child can see thru this fraud, so should everyone else. What crap!
Don't forget that the algorithm used to curve fit the data has been demonstrated to generate 'hocky stick' graphs from purely random data ... repeatedly.
Also ... Having a Master's in Statistics, and having spent a substantial portion of my life fitting curves to data with a random component, I learned many years ago that when you fit curves to data ... you always put in the additional graph of the confidence intervals. The confidence intervals plotted at the end of the hockey stick would have been so large as to make the drawing of any conclusion indefensible.
I know what you're talking about and agree completely. I do analysis on a massive amount of nuclear power plant performance data. The complete dishonesty of their analysis is disgusting. I would be fired and prosecuted if I falsified results like that. A lot of the organizations that now tout global warming also were responsible for a lot of the distorted BS about nuclear power in the '70s and 80's, so I was skeptical of their claims from day one. What gets to me is that on one hand they talk about how warm it was in northern Europe around 1000AD, but then then turn around and claim that we are driving temperatures higher than the have ever been.
Ongoing discussion of this excellent topic at the following place:
http://www.climateaudit.org
And for the Environazi retorts, see:
http://www.realclimate.org
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.