Modded Mustang Forums banner

161 - 180 of 462 Posts

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age
This one really had me scratching my head. It appears to be written by Scott Mandia, Professor of Physical Science, Suffolk County Community College. It was last updated in 2009 so it is a bit dated.

His Conclusions are just a page from the IPCC report. They appear to be just tacked on at the end. There is no continuity. They do not match his data and are unrelated to his topic which is the Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Culture. Subtitle is the Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age. They appear to be hastily done as if to satisfy the demands of someone else. After reading some of his other writings it appears that his own overall view goes against some of the data in that specific paper.

In several places he has added notes to the general public , "My position on the current global warming is the same as the overwhelming majority of international climate scientists: the current rate of global warming is unprecedented and is being caused by humans. In no way can my summary of the research regarding the impact of regional climate change on the Viking civilization and Europe during the Little Ice Age be used to "prove" the current global warming is due to a natural cycle. Today's global climate is significantly warmer than that of the regional warmth of the Medieval Warm Period."

Did his research go against common climate beliefs? Maybe. It depends upon whether the Medieval Warm Period was regional or global. But... what did he say or show that was so horrible?

In his section "Determining the Climate Record" The Little Ice Age in Europe - Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age He posted several early charts by Mann (Everyone knows I'm skeptical of Mann's research and why.) Mann's regional charts start toward the end of the Medieval Warm Period (600-1150 AD). In general, Mann's charts show the Subtropic North Atlantic, Western Greenland, Fennoscandia, Eastern China, and the Tropical Andes (I assume they are looking at Columbia and Venezuela) as being as warm or warmer in the Medieval Warm Period than today. It shows Western North America and Central England (but it warmed up a little later) as being cooler. He also shows the Northern Hemisphere as being cooler as a whole.

Mandia then presents charts on proxy data (Oxygen Isotope Record, Tree Rings, and North Atlantic Ice) which clearly show that the Medieval Warm Period around the year 1150 was as warm or warmer than today. His discussion of Glaciers only covers the Little Ice Age and not the Medieval Warm Period. He then talks about other sources which I believe are also important to any discussion of historical times. Things like a book written in 1125 talking about swimming a Fiord which humans cannot do today and survive. He uses several of these references in his discussion of the Little Ice Age in Europe. The Little Ice Age in Europe - Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age One of which says:


He really shouldn’t have made references to today. That is probably why he changed his conclusion. I guess we'll never know what his original conclusions were.
While I can agree with the premise that perhaps regions of the planet were warmer then today during Medieval times, the idea that it is somehow relevant to current anthropogenic global warming is non sequitur, on top of the assumption that warmth in one region equates to warming globally.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,049 Posts
Discussion Starter #162
While I can agree with the premise that perhaps regions of the planet were warmer then today during Medieval times, the idea that it is somehow relevant to current anthropogenic global warming is non sequitur, on top of the assumption that warmth in one region equates to warming globally.
Proof? :headscratcher:
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Proof? :headscratcher:
What do you mean proof? It's called logic, JohnC.

1. If one area has warming, it doesn't mean the whole globe does. This is based on the links provided by Eagle that reference global warming in one area of the globe, not the entire planet.

2. AGW is the accepted scientific explanation of why we have warming today. Warming in the past doesn't automatically conclude that humans aren't the cause today.

Come on, John. Think critically.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
What do you mean proof? It's called logic, JohnC.

1. If one area has warming, it doesn't mean the whole globe does. This is based on the links provided by Eagle that reference global warming in one area of the globe, not the entire planet.

2. AGW is the accepted scientific explanation of why we have warming today. Warming in the past doesn't automatically conclude that humans aren't the cause today.

Come on, John. Think critically.
1. True. Warming in one region doesn't mean the whole globe is warming. But the original article was about the Medieval Warm Period and I have posted several links showing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was global in nature and that the northern hemisphere was affected more than the southern hemisphere because it has twice the land mass.

2. Also true. But you stated it as if AGW was the only scientific explanation and it is not. I don't deny that it is likely that AGW is contributing to warming. Again, the question is how much.

RELATED TOPIC:
While stumbling around trying to get a glimmer of why Mandia changed his conclusion in his research to just a page out of the IPCC report that appears at first glance to conflict with some of his own data I found this interesting article written by him. He appears to be a true believer, a true liberal and progressive.

Global Warming: Man or Myth - How to Talk to a Conservative about Climate Change This was last updated in 2010 and is also a bit dated. It was written before the pause was recognized, before enthusiasm for cap and trade waned, and before countries started withdrawing from Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto Protocol deal loses four big nations | Russia Japan Canada

He says there are three ways the world can deal with global warming.
….. A new international agency with broad powers to micromanage the world’s industry and transportation sectors.
….. A regulated, market-based solution such as a carbon tax or a cap and trade system with concessions to developing countries such as China and India.
….. A business-as-usual solution where reducing GHGs is optional.

He states that the first isn’t acceptable to anyone and the last doesn’t solve the problem so he makes a case for the second, cap and trade. (Again, this was written before the cap and trade agreements started falling apart.) That part didn't surprise me at all but his view on conservatives and liberals did.

He says that conservatives and libertarians either don’t trust the science or they don’t trust their government to administer cap and trade. He is correct. And he says. "I have noticed that people of conservative/libertarian political orientation are generally unconvinced about the science of climate change."

He quotes research that states, "Individuals’ expectations about the policy solution to global warming strongly influences their willingness to credit information about climate change. When told the solution to global warming is increased antipollution measures, persons of individualistic and hierarchic worldviews become less willing to credit information suggesting that global warming exists, is caused by humans, and poses significant societal dangers."

While there is a grain of truth in these statements I would suggest it is because conservatives and libertarians need a greater level of proof than liberals and progressives before they are willing to give more control of their lives over to big government.

Coming from a conservative/libertarian persuasion my question is "Why are liberals/progressives so easily duped?"

Liberals and progressives already believe that humans are destroying the planet. They point to such things as smog, water pollution, deforestation, ozone depletion, acid rain, whaling, etc. as proof. They were a group of ready-made true believers that man-made CO2 would cause catastrophic consequences. They knew this to be true in their hearts so it has to be true in science.

Liberals and progressives already believe that big government is the only solution to our problems. They already rely on big government to implement social programs. Big government is and always will be their savior. Their leadership takes clear advantage of this view. One of their slogans is to "never let a good crises go to waste." And a crises as big as the catastrophic consequences of global warming might be good enough to keep them in power a long, long time.

It doesn't help that some of the lead scientists manipulated the data (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.168.1880&rep=rep1&type=pdf) and that some of the released emails called Climategate are quite damning. They were included here. Global Warming - Just Facts. Many were complaining about Mike Mann being too invested and that they couldn't satisfy both science and the IPCC. One went as far as to say (probably tongue in cheek) they needed to "publish, retire and not leave a forwarding address." I went to copies of the emails and read them.

And overselling the consequences to gain power hasn't helped and it has damaged their credibility. Garth Paltridge, former Chief Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), expressed concern that overselling the consequences of climate change might usher in a scientific dark age. An age where no on trusts scientists. http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2014/02/03/will-the-overselling-of-global-warming-lead-to-a-new-scientific-dark-age/

The problem isn't that conservatives and libertarians are "generally unconvinced of the science of climate change." The problem is that liberals and progressives are too willing to blindly believe it.
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
1. True. Warming in one region doesn't mean the whole globe is warming. But the original article was about the Medieval Warm Period and I have posted several links showing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was global in nature and that the northern hemisphere was affected more than the southern hemisphere because it has twice the land mass.

2. Also true. But you stated it as if AGW was the only scientific explanation and it is not. I don't deny that it is likely that AGW is contributing to warming. Again, the question is how much.
We've agreed to disagree on the topic, so I'm not going to go down that road anymore, but you've misread the second part. I'm not inferring that AGW is the only explanation(the idea that there are multiple explanations is self evident within this thread). I stated that it's the scientifically accepted explanation.


While there is a grain of truth in these statements I would suggest it is because conservatives and libertarians need a greater level of proof than liberals and progressives before they are willing to give more control of their lives over to big government.

Coming from a conservative/libertarian persuasion my question is "Why are liberals/progressives so easily duped?"

Liberals and progressives already believe that humans are destroying the planet. They point to such things as smog, water pollution, deforestation, ozone depletion, acid rain, whaling, etc. as proof. They were a group of ready-made true believers that man-made CO2 would cause catastrophic consequences. They knew this to be true in their hearts so it has to be true in science.

Liberals and progressives already believe that big government is the only solution to our problems. They already rely on big government to implement social programs. Big government is and always will be their savior. Their leadership takes clear advantage of this view. One of their slogans is to "never let a good crises go to waste." And a crises as big as the catastrophic consequences of global warming might be good enough to keep them in power a long, long time.

It doesn't help that some of the lead scientists manipulated the data (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.168.1880&rep=rep1&type=pdf) and that some of the released emails called Climategate are quite damning. They were included here. Global Warming - Just Facts. Many were complaining about Mike Mann being too invested and that they couldn't satisfy both science and the IPCC. One went as far as to say (probably tongue in cheek) they needed to "publish, retire and not leave a forwarding address." I went to copies of the emails and read them.

And overselling the consequences to gain power hasn't helped and it has damaged their credibility. Garth Paltridge, former Chief Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), expressed concern that overselling the consequences of climate change might usher in a scientific dark age. An age where no on trusts scientists. Will The Overselling Of Global Warming Lead To A New Scientific Dark Age? - Forbes

The problem isn't that conservatives and libertarians are "generally unconvinced of the science of climate change." The problem is that liberals and progressives are too willing to blindly believe it.
I have to totally disagree here. We think of the left as generally going with the predominant scientific belief versus the right, but that's hardly true. It's unquestionably more complex then that. What it boils down to, in my opinion, is 1) How does the scientific view conflict with other personal views? and 2) How strong are my feelings on those personal views?

When you think of animal rights, most people would associate that movement with leftist ideology and generally that's probably true. Scientists on about a 7 out of 10 basis support animal testing. Why does the left ignore the scientific logic behind this issue? Because it clashes with their belief system, not because they are more or less gullible.

Likewise, when you think of very pro free market person and individualistic, you tend to think of that person leaning right. 87% of AAAS scientists accept AGW. As a whole, the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees, but many right leaning people do not. Again, why? Because they view it as a way of suppressing individualism, something totally against their own ideology.

These are generalizations, but the logic holds pretty well to any cause and any point of view. Among the religious, you have two distinct groups of people on evolution. Those who view evolution as incompatible with their faith (and thus they are very unlikely to believe in evolution) and those who view their God and evolution as compatible(much more likely to believe evolution). I bring this up to show that it's not only your personal view, but how you, individually, relate that personal view to issues. Hence you still have leftists who support animal testing and individualists who accept AGW.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
Like I said, there is a grain of truth. I still think its because conservatives and libertarians tend to require more proof while liberals and progressives tend to have greater trust in big government. Right and left are really relative terms. There are some moderate Republicans from the coastal states that I consider left of moderate Democrats in fly-over country. According to this book we come from different American cultures (assuming you grew up in Delaware.) Which of the 11 American nations do you live in? - The Washington Post At least you don't live in Yankee territory. Plus, there is always the difference in views between city and country. Is there any country left in Delaware?

This is a brief description of two of his eleven American nations.
Tidewater: The coastal regions in the English colonies of Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Delaware tend to respect authority and value tradition. Once the most powerful American nation, it began to decline during Westward expansion.

Greater Appalachia: Extending from West Virginia through the Great Smoky Mountains and into Northwest Texas [including most of Indiana], the descendants of Irish, English and Scottish settlers value individual liberty. Residents are “intensely suspicious of lowland aristocrats and Yankee social engineers.”
Map: http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/files/2013/11/upinarms-map.jpg
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
As usual, we'll have to agree to disagree. It's got nothing to do with political ideology.
Really? When JohnC posted this:
Your first post was this.
Can a brother get another Benghazi investigation while we're at it? :baller: :baller: :baller:
I must have misunderstood. That sounded like a political comment to me.

:)
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
I want to focus a little more on this issue.
It doesn't help that some of the lead scientists manipulated the data (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.168.1880&rep=rep1&type=pdf) and that some of the released emails called Climategate are quite damning. They were included here. Global Warming - Just Facts. Many were complaining about Mike Mann being too invested and that they couldn't satisfy both science and the IPCC. One went as far as to say (probably tongue in cheek) they needed to "publish, retire and not leave a forwarding address." I went to copies of the emails and read them.
I believe that conservatives and libertarians have ample evidence to be worried about the validity of both NASA GISS temperature data and the UN IPCC reports. Here are a few comments from highly respected scientists that were discovered in the UN IPCC Climategate emails. Copies of the emails follow. Read them for yourself.

….. I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions
….. Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this.
….. it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though
….. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
…..IF WE ONLY PLOT THE FIG FROM CA [abbreviation for "about"] 800 TO 1400 AD, IT WOULD DO WHAT WE WANT... AND SHOW THAT THERE WERE NOT ANY PERIODS WHEN ALL THE RECORDS ALL SHOWED WARMTH - I.E., OF THE KIND WE'RE EXPERIENCING NOW
..... I am afraid the Mike [Mann] and Phil [Jones] are too personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in… Bradley hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they can contribute without just defending their past work
….. Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH [Northern Hemisphere] temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know f**k-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know f**k-all).

Note: f**k-all is slang for little or nothing at all.

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 PM ----------

From: GIORGI FILIPPO† <[email protected]>
To: Chapter 10 LAs [Lead Authors] -- Congbin Fu <[email protected]>, GIORGI FILIPPO <[email protected]>, Bruce Hewitson <[email protected]>, Mike Hulme <[email protected]>, Jens Christensen <[email protected]>, Linda Mearns <[email protected]>, Richard Jones <[email protected]>, Hans von Storch <[email protected]>, Peter Whetton <[email protected]>
Subject: On "what to do?"
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:58:02 +0200 (MET DST)

Dear All …

First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). I realize that chapter 9 is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this. Anyways, this is only my opinion for what it is worth. …
Curriculum Vitae: Filippo Giorgi, October 2010. http://www.ictp.it/media/55110/fgvita.pdf. " Vice-Chair: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group I, The physical science of climate change, April 2002–September 2008. … Lead Author of Chapter 6 ("Climate Models - Projections of Future Climate") of the IPCC Working Group I Second Assessment Report on the Science of Climate Change (1996). … Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 10 ("Regional Climate Information - Evaluation and Projections") of the IPCC Working Group I Third Assessment Report on the Scientific Basis of Climate Change (2001). … Lead Author of Chapter 21 ("Regional Context") of the IPCC Working Group II Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the Impacts of Climate Change and Adaptation."

---------- Post added at 07:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------

From: "Michael E. Mann"†<[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>, [email protected] [Raymond S. Bradley], Tom Wigley <[email protected]>, Tom Crowley <[email protected]>, Keith Briffa <[email protected]>, [email protected], Michael Oppenheimer <[email protected]>, Jonathan Overpeck <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
Cc: [email protected], Scott Rutherford <[email protected]>
Re Figures, what I had in mind were the following two figures:
1) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal and reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature reconstructions around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2 thousand years to convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly regionally variable. Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare this (?). Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put in an inquiry to Judy Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we could do this the way certain plots were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it 1990?) in which a spatial map was provided in the center (this would show the locations of the proxies), with "rays" radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to rectanges showing the different timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to convey both the spatial and temporal information at the same time. …
Mann is the lead author of the hockey stick graph. He is cited by name 29 times in the chapter about proxies in the 2001 IPCC report. [Paper: "Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium." By Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes. Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf] [Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis." Edited by J.T. Houghton and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. Chapter 2: "Observed Climate Variability and Change." By C.K. Folland and others. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.pdf]

Jones is the Director of the CRU and is cited five times in the 2007 IPCC "spaghetti graph." [Web page: "Professor Phil Jones." Accessed June 29, 2011 at http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/jonesp. "I am the Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich."] [Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis." Edited by S. D. Solomon and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chapter 6: "Palaeoclimate." By Eystein Jansen and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf. Page 469: "Records of Northern Hemisphere temperature shown in Figure 6.10. … Jones and Moberg, 2003 … Jones and Moberg, 2003 … Jones et al., 2003 … Jon

---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: ray bradley <[email protected]>,[email protected] [Michael E. Mann], [email protected] [Malcolm Hughes]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected] [Keith Briffa],[email protected] [Timothy J. Osborn]

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil
Jones's background was posted earlier.

---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ----------

… Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:38:31 +0100
To: Tom Crowley <[email protected]>, Jonathan Overpeck <[email protected]>
From: Keith Briffa <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: thoughts and Figure for MWP box
Cc: Eystein Jansen<[email protected]> …

Jonathan Overpeck wrote: …

ANOTHER THING THAT IS A REAL ISSUE IS SHOWING SOME OF THE TREE-RING DATA FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 1950. BASED ON THE LITERATURE, WE KNOW THESE ARE BIASED - RIGHT? SO SHOULD WE SAY THAT'S THE REASON THEY ARE NOT SHOWN? OF COURSE, IF WE ONLY PLOT THE FIG FROM CA [abbreviation for "about"] 800 TO 1400 AD, IT WOULD DO WHAT WE WANT, FOCUS ON THE MWP [Medieval Warm Period] ONLY - THE TOPIC OF THE BOX – AND SHOW THAT THERE WERE NOT ANY PERIODS WHEN ALL THE RECORDS ALL SHOWED WARMTH - I.E., OF THE KIND WE'RE EXPERIENCING NOW. TWO CENTS WORTH
Crowley was a reviewer of the chapter about proxies in the 2007 IPCC report. [Curriculum Vitae: Thomas John Crowley, January 2009. Thomas Crowley.
"Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Chapter on Paleoclimatology (April, 2005)"]

Overpeck is a coordinating lead author of the chapter about proxies in the 2007 IPCC report. [Article: "Nobel Peace Prize Winner has UA Connections." University of Arizona News, October 12, 2007. Nobel Peace Prize Winner has UA Connections | UANews. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was one of the winners of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, and a professor at The University of Arizona was one of only 33 lead authors on an IPCC assessment report released earlier this year. Jonathan Overpeck, director of the UA's Institute for the Study of Planet Earth and professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences, was a coordinating lead author, Chapter 6 (Paleoclimate), for the IPCC's fourth assessment report."]

---------- Post added at 07:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ----------

From: Edward Cook†<[email protected]>
To: Keith Briffa <[email protected]>
Subject: An idea to pass by you
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 08:32:11 -0400

Hi Keith,

After the meeting in Norway, where I presented the Esper stuff as described in the extended abstract I sent you, and hearing Bradley's follow-up talk on how everybody but him has f**ked up in reconstructing past NH temperatures over the past 1000 years (this is a bit of an overstatement on my part I must admit, but his air of papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times), I have come up with an idea that I want you to be involved in. Consider the tentative title:

"Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are The Greatest Uncertainties?"

Authors: Cook, Briffa, Esper, Osborn, D'Arrigo, Bradley(?), Jones (??), Mann (infinite?)

I am afraid the Mike [Mann] and Phil [Jones] are too personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in

Bradley hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they can contribute without just defending their past work

this is the key to having anyone involved. Be honest. Lay it all out on the table and don't start by assuming that ANY reconstruction is better than any other.

Here are my ideas for the paper in a nutshell (please bear with me): …

7) Publish, retire, and don't leave a forwarding address

Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH [Northern Hemisphere] temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know f**k-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know f**k-all).

Of course, none of what I have proposed has addressed the issue of seasonality of response. So what I am suggesting is strictly an empirical comparison of published 1000 year NH reconstructions because many of the same tree-ring proxies get used in both seasonal and annual recons anyway. So all I care about is how the recons differ and where they differ most in frequency and time without any direct consideration of their TRUE association with observed temperatures.

I think this is exactly the kind of study that needs to be done before the next IPCC assessment. But to give it credibility, it has to have a reasonably broad spectrum of authors to avoid looking like a biased attack paper, i.e. like Soon and Balliunas.

If you don't want to do it, just say so and I will drop the whole idea like a hot potato. I honestly don't want to do it without your participation. If you want to be the lead on it, I am fine with that too.

Cheers,

Ed
Dr. Edward R. Cook†
Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964
F**k-all is slang for little or nothing at all.

Cook is a contributing author of the chapter about proxies in the 2007 IPCC report and is cited by name 15 times in this chapter. [Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis." Edited by S. D. Solomon and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chapter 6: "Palaeoclimate." By Eystein Jansen and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf. "Contributing Authors … E. Cook (USA) …"]

Briffa is the Deputy Director of the CRU and a lead author of the chapter about proxies in the 2007 IPCC report. [Web page: "Professor Keith Briffa." Accessed June 29, 2011 at http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/briffak. "I am currently Deputy Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K., where I have worked since 1977."] [Report of Working Group 1: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis." Edited by S. D. Solomon and others. World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chapter 6: "Palaeoclimate." By Eystein Jansen and others. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf. "Lead Authors: Keith R. Briffa (UK) …"]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
You have to be naive to think that global warming doesn't exist. Go back 200 years ago when the world didn't have any of the pollutants we now have. Everyone is trying to go green because its so bad now that companies are trying to have the image of we support green but yet still pollute the **** out of it. This isn't nature taking its course, its man who has destroyed the planet.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
You have to be naive to think that global warming doesn't exist. Go back 200 years ago when the world didn't have any of the pollutants we now have. Everyone is trying to go green because its so bad now that companies are trying to have the image of we support green but yet still pollute the **** out of it. This isn't nature taking its course, its man who has destroyed the planet.
Did you read any of the posts in this thread? Did you take the time to read any of the references? Your statement has the conviction of a true believer but we've been discussing facts and supporting data.
 

·
Will Eat Spam From Your Butt
Joined
·
6,807 Posts
You have to be naive to think that global warming doesn't exist. Go back 200 years ago when the world didn't have any of the pollutants we now have. Everyone is trying to go green because its so bad now that companies are trying to have the image of we support green but yet still pollute the **** out of it. This isn't nature taking its course, its man who has destroyed the planet.
Global warming is a misnomer.

Climate change is a very real phenomenon.

Have the activities of man affected the climate? Certainly.

Are they solely to blame? Of course not. Climate is affected by more than just pollutants.

"Going green" is every bit about marketing trends and sales, with environmental impacts being a secondary concern. I wish I still had the paper I wrote in college about Greenwash Marketing, but you can read about it on Wikipedia.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Hey Eagle, I'm not going to quote your post since it'd be twice the huge wall of text but:

Obviously, you've done your research and formed an opinion from it and that's understandable and logical. But do you honestly think the majority of libertarians/conservatives are aware of all this when they form their thoughts on climate change? I mean, I'm heavily aware of climate change and research it and try to look at all aspects of it disregarding political slant and this is the first time I've ever heard of "Climategate". Do you actually think "Bo" and "Joe" out in bumfuck nowhere America are that in tune with this stuff? Or just circle jerking about what the rest of the good ol' boys are being told?

^All of what I just wrote seems kinda like an attack (don't mean to be) but I'm genuinely curious since you said that conservatives and libertarians are justified in being suspicious. And I know this same line of thought goes for "Wonderful" and "Flowerpower" out in Hippyville, California forming their opinion based on what their own circlejerk crew have convinced them of.

Really, I just wish politics could somehow not have anything to do with it.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
Do you actually think "Bo" and "Joe" out in bumfuck nowhere America are that in tune with this stuff? Or just circle jerking about what the rest of the good ol' boys are being told? And I know this same line of thought goes for "Wonderful" and "Flowerpower" out in Hippyville, California forming their opinion based on what their own circlejerk crew have convinced them of.
I wish I could say that your are wrong but you aren't. There are a lot of uninformed people out there.

Really, I just wish politics could somehow not have anything to do with it.
So do I. But politicians got involved early. Politicians control the money the scientists need. Politicians even have some control over the UN IPCC summary.
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
"Climategate" was investigated, EXTENSIVELY. This particular argument goes after the people but not the science, and that's telling.(BTW, red flag when you start chopping up e-mails to try to make your point.)

FINAL REPORT

Every argument made here gets addressed in there, such as Mann's "trick".

The report's conclusion:
Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour, and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognize not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science. [1.3]


Also, some more specific breakdowns of elements of the "Climategate" argument:

Did CRU tamper with temperature data?

Mann's "trick" to "hide the decline" explained.

Did politics keep skeptic scientists out of the IPCC?
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
"Climategate" was investigated, EXTENSIVELY. This particular argument goes after the people but not the science, and that's telling.(BTW, red flag when you start chopping up e-mails to try to make your point.)

FINAL REPORT

Every argument made here gets addressed in there, such as Mann's "trick".
I’m sure I read that comment in one of your links. You seem to really like the skeptical science site. I highlighted the parts of the emails that I thought was interesting then posted the entire email for people to read so that the comment could be placed in its proper context. And the emails that I selected were talking about the science and the presentation of the results.

That report is 160 pages long. Did you read it or just post some of its conclusions. Since we were discussing the Medieval Warm Period, proxy data, and tree rings I went to that section. Their conclusions are on page 62 and did not come as a surprise. It basically says that considering the variability and uncertainty of the data and that other results have been published in other papers they could not find where they intentionally mislead the public. So as long as their conclusions fit somewhere within the variability of the data and someone else publishes a counter argument then they are good to go. I don’t really have a problem with that. We are discussing differing results from other research. I have a problem when people accept their results as gospel.

Your first link isn’t related to our topic (Medieval Warm Period, Proxy Data, Tree Rings) I have said nothing measured temperature data. I found reading it interesting though. It compares CRU measured temperature data to NASA GISS data which is the subject of the current Congressional investigation.

Your third link talks about a conspiracy. I’m not a big believer in conspiracy theories. The closest I’ve come to even suggesting that something might be happening is when I mentioned Group Think. They are not the same thing.

Your second link is on topic. Mike’s trick was on the presentation of historical temperatures based on proxy data which included the Medieval Warm Period. On page 62 paragraph 37 said:
In relation to ―hide the decline‖ we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in two regards. It did not make clear that in one case the data post 1960 was excluded, and it was not explicit on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, but that the reason for doing so should have been described.
I have to agree with this conclusion as well. It was not misleading to curtail reconstructions as some point. It was a trick to visually portray something that the tree ring data didn't portray. You second link to skeptical science discusses this. It says, “Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques.” That was not in the email I read and posted. It says, “I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.”

Skeptical science also said there is nothing secret about it. The charts were clearly labeled. This is true. But it’s a curious presentation method. They also state that the decline was about northern tree rings not about temperature. That is correct but a better way of saying it would be that the decline was about how tree rings represented temperature. They provide a link to the “divergence problem.”

I hadn’t read about this before. It was very interesting. Apparently they believe that the tree ring proxy data is good back centuries but that it suddenly became not accurate in 1960. Skeptical science automatically suggested that it was a man-made problem but when challenged they said the cause was not known but was it was suspicious. I’m going to try to find more information on this.

Sixpointslow, you would have saved me a lot of time by just mentioning and posting a link to the divergence problem.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,049 Posts
Discussion Starter #180
Harvard-Smithsonian Physicist: Computer Models Used by U.N. Overstate Global Warming

(CNSNews.com) – A scholarly paper explaining why predictions made by climate computer models used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tend to exaggerate global warming has ignited a political firestorm.
Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, a solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, came under attack by environmentalists after co-authoring a peer-reviewed paper explaining “the widening discrepancy between prediction and observation” in climate change models, and members of Congress soon took sides.

The scientific paper, entitled “Why Models Run Hot,” concludes that the computer models overstated the impact of CO2 on the climate: "The impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century... may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC's current projections."

The paper was published January 8 in China’s Science Bulletin, and has been downloaded more than any other paper in the publication’s history.

The paper was co-authored by Lord Christopher Monckton, David Legates and William “Matt” Briggs.

“The billion-dollar climate models that have so profitably predicted Thermageddon are hopelessly wrong,” Monckton said.

“We said the models were wrong because they were using a rogue equation borrowed from electronic circuitry and bolted on to the climate, where it does not fit. That equation, and that alone, leads the modelers erroneously to triple the small and harmless 1 Cº global warming we should expect from a doubling of CO2 in the air,” he wrote.

“Our irreducibly simple climate model does not replace more complex models, but it does expose major errors and exaggeration in those models, such as the over-emphasis on positive or amplifying temperature feedbacks,” Monckton explained.

“Take away the erroneous assumption that strongly net-positive feedback triples the rate of manmade global warming and the imagined climate crisis vanishes.”



The paper generated a blizzard of responses, including an accusation by former Greenpeace researcher Kert Davies that Soon had failed to disclose “substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry” totaling more than $1.2 million over the last decade.

According to documents obtained by Davies under the Freedom of Information Act, donations to support Soon’s research on the link between solar radiation and climate change were signed off by Smithsonian officials, including center Director Charles Alcock, and the checks were made out directly to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.

They included a $76,106 donation for “general support” for Soon’s research from ExxonMobil that was reclassified as an “unrestricted contribution” at the request of Smithsonian advance and external affairs officer Amanda Preston, who signed an affidavit on April 2, 2009 stating that no “goods and/or services [were] provided to ExxonMobile in return for this contribution.”

Smithsonian spokeswoman Linda St. Thomas confirmed to CNSNews.com that the Smithsonian accepted the donations, and then gave Soon a grant for his research after keeping 30 percent of the funds for “overhead.”

The Smithsonian does not monitor potential conflicts of interest when it accepts donations for targeted research, St. Thomas told CNSNews.com. “Individual scientists go to the science journals themselves and they have their own regulations about what researchers must tell them about conflicts of interest,” she said.

Heartland Institute senior fellow Robert Carter argued that Soon met all of the publication’s disclosure requirements.

“Because of the way in which the Smithsonian oversees and manages outside funding sources, simply by identifying himself on publications as being engaged by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr. Soon makes full and sufficient disclosure that he has no funding conflicts regarding his research.

"No further disclosure of funding sources is necessary because, for a scientist employed in this fashion, there simply are none,” Carter wrote in Soon’s defense, calling the attacks on him “false, mean-spirited, insulting and potentially libelous.”

One of Soon’s co-authors pointed out that they did not receive any financial remuneration for the Science Bulletin paper.

”Soon, like most research scientists, has in the past accepted money from sources other than our beneficent government (and what makes government money pure?),” Briggs said. “But we did this paper on our own time driven only by our intellectual curiosity. We had no conflict of interest of any kind.”

Nonetheless, the Smithsonian announced on February 22 that it was “greatly concerned about the allegations surrounding Dr. Willie Soon’s failure to disclose funding sources for his climate change research,” and has asked the inspector general to “review the matter.”

Two days later, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, sent a letter citing the Soon controversy to seven universities, including the University of Delaware where Legates works, citing “potential conflicts of interest and failure to disclose corporate funding sources in academic climate research.”

The letter, which Grijalva later admitted was “an overreach,” asked for all sources of external funding that Legates and six other climate researchers who have challenged the prevailing "consensus" on global warming received, as well as copies of their correspondence.

Minority Democrats on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works also cited the Greenpeace allegations in a Feb. 25 letter they sent to 100 “fossil fuel companies, trade groups and other organizations to determine whether they are funding scientific studies designed to confuse the public and avoid taking action to cut carbon pollution,” according to the Climate Investigations Center (CIC) founded by Davies.

Senators Edward Markey (D-MA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-CT) asked each group for a list of all research projects they have funded over the past ten years “as well as support for other efforts related to climate change.”

One of the recipients accused the three Democrats of “an attempt to silence public debate.”

“Are you not aware that neither his employer, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, nor the journal that published the scholarly article in question… has found Dr. Soon violated any of their rules or disclosure policies? Who asked you to repeat that lie?” Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, wrote back.

Bast’s organization, which is sponsoring its Tenth International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C. this June, gave its 2014 Courage in Defense of Science Award to Soon last year for challenging “computer modelers and advocates who consistently underestimate solar influences on cloud formation, ocean currents, and wind that cause climate to change.”

“I am very proud to report that The Heartland Institute has spent millions of dollars over the past ten years supporting scientific research that contradicts alarmist claims about climate change,” Bast said in his reply, adding that all the requested information could easily be found on The Heartland Institute’s websites.

Eleven majority members of the Senate Environment Committee then sent a letter to the same groups on February 27 calling their minority colleagues’ previous missive “wholly inappropriate.”

“Rather than empower scientists and researchers to expand the public discourse on climate science and other environmental topics, the [Democrats’] letter could be viewed as an attempt to silence legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry,” the Republicans' letter said.

It was signed by Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK), and Senators David Vitter (R-LA), John Barrasso (R-WY), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Mike Crapo (R-ID), John Boozman (R-AR), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Mike Rounds (R-SD), and Dan Sullivan (R-AK).

In a March 2 statement, Soon called the Greenpeace-initiated attacks on him “a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming….

“Let me be clear. I have never been motivated by financial gain to write any scientific paper, nor have I ever hidden grants or any other alleged conflict of interest.

“I have been a solar and stellar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for a quarter of a century, during which time I have published numerous peer-reviewed, scholarly articles. The fact that my research has been supported in part by donations to the Smithsonian Institution from many sources, including some energy producers, has long been a matter of public record.

“In submitting my academic writings, I have always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally, consistent with the level of disclosure made by many of my Smithsonian colleagues.

“If the standards for disclosure are to change, then let them change evenly. If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures are appropriate, I am happy to comply. I would ask only that other authors - on all sides of the debate - are also required to make similar disclosures.

“And I call on the media outlets that have so quickly repeated my attackers’ accusations to similarly look into the motivations of and disclosures that may or may not have been made by their preferred, IPCC-linked scientists.”

Harvard-Smithsonian Physicist: Computer Models Used by U.N. Overstate Global Warming | CNS News
 
161 - 180 of 462 Posts
Top