Let science debate begin

The National Post ^ | Jan 27, 2005 | Terence Corcoran

[mista science]

Let science debate begin

Terence Corcoran Financial Post

Thursday, January 27, 2005

For some time now this page has been publishing comment on The Hockey Stick, the central piece of scientific evidence for the United Nation's claim that the world is warmer now than at any time in the last 1,000 years. Today we begin a major two-part investigation that delves deeper into the foundations for what may well be the most important economic, scientific and business graphic in world history.

[snip]

It is a story filled with intrigue, conflict and amazing facts about how science is made, especially climate science. It's also a story about the inner workings of science journals and, especially, the UN panel on climate change that is at the heart of climate politics and the economics of the Kyoto Protocol. Above all, the story threatens to rock the foundations of climate science. .....

Go to the article

[shubi]

life not live

[Drammach]

http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf

This is a pdf file..

It shows graphs, etc. that explain the methodology used, and why it was invalid..
It also severely criticizes that method.. (see "discussion" at end of article.)

[Drammach]

It's all oxygen..

It's just a difference in the number of atoms...

[shubi]

Right, but it is too different molecules with two different characteristics, produced by different processes.

[shubi]

sorry two not too

[JustDoItAlways]

- Oxygen in the atmosphere in the early earth - 0%

- Oxygen in the atmosphere 200 million years ago - 10%

- Oxygen today 20%

- CO2 in the atmosphere in the early earth - 80.0%

- C02 in the atmosphere 200 million years ago - 15.0%

- CO2 today 0.038%

Take any time period and you will see something similar. Why the changes? Plants of course.

I don't know why this information is not taken into account by Climate researchers.

[MonroeDNA]

Yearly temperature graphs:

Top one is Mann's bogus one. Bottom one is the corrected one, using correct statistical analysis.

[MonroeDNA]

Source of the above graphs:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

[Drammach]

Check this out.. It may answer any questions..

http://www.ghasp.org/publications/trees/tree_pollutionFAQs.html

[MonroeDNA]

Source of the above graphs:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

[Drammach]

Take any time period and you will see something similar. Why the changes? Plants of course. I don't know why this information is not taken into account by Climate researchers.

Consider this as well..
This discussion is concerning the last 1,000 years of climate..
This planet is what? 4.5 billion years old or so?

If we only take the last 1 billion years, these climatologists are only taking into account 1 "millionth" of that period of climate change/variance..

How do you even BEGIN to claim to have enough "knowledge" about climate and climate change, to make ANY sort of prediction ?
Their presumptiousness is beyond compare..

[punster]

Perhaps, the 'hockey stick' has even more meaning, the global warming claims are all pucked-up.

[elfman2]

Thanks. Just from reading the abstract, it sounds it’s not critiquing two studies that claim to repeat the results, not the original study.

What is centering? Averaging the temperatures for a centerline on a graph or is it more involved?

Also what does this mean, “MBH98 did not use archived data, but made an extrapolation, unique within the corpus of over 350 series, and misrepresented the start date of the series. ”? Is he saying that they didn’t have data for some important subsection of date ranges and made it up statistically and dishonesty?

It sounds like one “confirming” study used a poor choice of tree species and another did the above, making up holes in the data incorrectly.

I missed the criticism of the original study in the discussion section. I’d dig into the heart of the study myself, but it would be a half day project for me, and I don’t have that kind of time. If you don’t have time either to translate, I understand. Regards.

[Drammach]

I haven't read it all yet, either..
And I will probably have to re read it several times before I begin to comprehend, even partially... LOL...

I think the "centerline" deals with finding a temp at the beginning and one at the end.. that is then used to establish a "linear" progression, i.e., a straight line temp rise or fall..
Then the graphed temps are overlayed, using the centerline as some sort of median point of reference.. ( median as opposed to average.. )

MBH98 I think was the "bristlecone pine" data..
While they had 350 other series of tree ring data, for a set period of time, MBH98 did not.. so, Mann "made up" data for that series.. over a time period for which data did not exist..
In doing so, Mann ruined the calculations used to derive his data, corrupting all resultant conclusions..

In essence, "discussion" criticized Mann for faking data..
It then criticized those that accepted said data at face value, without doing any peer review, or attempting to check out the facts..

[elfman2]

"MBH98 I think was the "bristlecone pine" data.. While they had 350 other series of tree ring data, for a set period of time, MBH98 did not.. so, Mann "made up" data for that series.. over a time period for which data did not exist.. "

Thanks, but I’m still not sure I understand. There was a missing date range for brislecone pine data so Mann statistically made it up rather than use data from 350 non-brislecone pine trees? Presumably because they didn’t support the desired results?

[Drammach]

Presumabley because they didn't support the desired results?

Yepper..
Establish your conclusion, then find, ignore, (or invent) data to support it..

[DaveTesla]

Figures never lie.
Figurers often do.

A Process Model of Cambial Activity and Ring Structure in Conifers Using Daily Climatic Data

Is this even worth debating?

Someone mind telling me how Precipitation, Soil Moisture,
Sunlight (Photosynthesis),Atmospheric conditions, Water
stress, Transpiration, were accurately solved (over 1000
years) to show a deviation of .3 deg c?
There are too many unknown process variables.
I guess one could approximate each variable until the
results suited their purpose.
My guess is that they could not have solved the temperature
within +/- 3 deg c in the first place.
Simply put: There are too many variables and their
errors are cumulative when solving for one.
My guess is that they could not have solved the temperature
within +/- 3 deg c in the first place.

It's nothing but a communist/socialist power grabbing lie.

Now give us all your industry, intellectual property
rights, and your energy. We will make peaceful global
socialist government to rule over you peasants. Any one
who disagrees we make disappear.
*snicker*

[DaveTesla]

Model Limitations:

Is only a beginning of modeling cambial activity,
development of wood structure and ring growth.

Is limited by current knowledge and experience in
constructing mathematical equations that are adequate to
describe the real processes governing growth.

Approximates many parameters and processes that have yet
to be validated with field measurements and controlled
experiments.

Applies primarily to dendrochronologically dated tree
rings that have been limited by variations in climate.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[mista science]

I don’t follow this too closely, but it looks like you two do.

I haven't followed the issues closely for a few years, since it seemed that politics was likely to continue to trump science.

Can I ask, are you familiar with any good studies that question if long term CO2 increases are even possible?

So wouldn’t oxygen be created that brings CO2 levels back down again? Do you think that this balance is adequately addressed in global warming/climate change models?

I can't answer either question. But you might check out www.co2science.org for those specific questions, and www.junkscience.com and www.john-daly.com for more general information. John Daly died last year, and his site, though still maintained, is not as active as before. Not sure if all his work is still available there.