jeffmcintirestrasburg

515 Responses to “Green Myth-Busting: Greenland was Once Green”

1. themotie Says:
   August 20th, 2007 at 9:14 pm

   Hi again Bob,

   Just thought I would clarify one point. You do know molecules, like atoms, only can absorb at certain wavelengths? A bit off, and there is no absorption. Might be obvious, but just to be sure we’re on the same wavelength here …

2. BobFJ Says:
   August 21st, 2007 at 12:06 am

   Themotie reur Aug 20. 1:15 pm

   Yep, and Kirchhoff’s thermal law is usually assumed to embrace a non-grey gas, concerning emission.
   BobFJ

3. BobFJ Says:
   August 21st, 2007 at 9:15 am

   Jason Leggett, Reur Aug.20
   Thanks Jason for responding by example number, it makes it so much clearer!

   Ex. 1:————————————————–
   YOU SAID: It seems that you are blaming Mann for ending his graph his latest data. I don’t really see what the beef is here. The IPCC, then, only endeavors to describe the state of climate science, based on an examination of the relevant peer-reviewed scientific research on the subject. They are not producing their own research, and they are not editing other’s works. To think that this is deceptive is to believe in conspiracy theories, which I generally do not. UNQUOTE

   You seem to ignore the fact that the IPCC has a peer review process spread over a period of two years. In 2007, for part 1 (of 3) of the report, there were over 11, 000 comments from their experts, some of them highly critical and rejected. In fact, the IPCC has revised dozens of figures, and here are two simple examples for the first draft, chapter 1.

   1-800 Would it be possible to complement the figure with the most recent years data, in order to avoid nasty speculations ? [Michel Petit]
   RESPONSE: Taken into account. All Chapter 1, FOD figures are changed or dropped.
   1-801 The plotted curve looks unnecessarily fuzzy. Is the size of the points meant convey some level of uncertainty in the data? [Andrew Lacis]
   RESPONSE: Taken into account. All Chapter 1 FOD figures are changed or dropped.

   It is inconceivable that during the 1999-2001 peer review, that the 1998 end data on T was not noticed to be ~40% (forty percent) over 2001 current trend line. If you and Themotie THINK it was too hard to change this gross deception on the graph itself, (yet they can change others for nitty-gritty), then a suitable bold caption would have been an easier alternative, if inferior way of doing it. But no!

   YOU ALSO SAID: On a side note, you seem to be opposed to the 40-year smoothing line stopping 20 years before the end of the data. I find this very interesting, because in your example 3, you explain exactly why one would do such a thing…UNQUOTE.

   Not at all; 40-year smoothing SHOULD stop 20 years short, because there is no raw data available to construct the last twenty years! If you don’t get it yet, see example 3 below.

   Ex. 2: ————————————————-
   YOU SAID: I’ve read most of the D’Arrigo paper that you linked to, and I didn’t think it was nearly as helpful to your case as you made it out to be. The paper stated several possible explanations for the divergence, including drought stress, physiological theshold effects, changing stratospheric ozone levels, and global dimming. Each of these seem to indicate a good reason that more recent proxy data has been less predictable as that of the past, making it perfectly reasonable to set aside such anomolous data. According to D’Arrigo, this issue will continually be studied, but nowhere is there any indication that any recent dendroclimatological studies should be questioned due to this divergence. UNQUOTE.

   First, please refer to the following extract graph from Briffa et al 2001 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/jgr2001/plate3.gif
   You will see that there were 4 studies going back to 1997, where the authors were brave enough to show the divergence. (also, Esper et al elsewhere) It was with Mann et al 1999 where the deletion of “inconvenient data” was first practiced. I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but the purpose of me citing D’Arrigo was ONLY to show that the divergence problem has still not been solved. There is no need for you and Themotie to discuss its content as to what MIGHT be or what MIGHT not! It is irrelevant!

   Just in case you have not got it yet: After 10 years, and replication of the divergence by others, from 1997, such results are clearly typical/good, but the divergence remains unexplained. The problem has not been solved.

   If it cannot be explained why dendro–climatology does not work in recent decades, at least caution should be given in asserting that less reliable indicators, at the time of the MWP are more reliable than today! Furthermore, if anything, the divergence should be the opposite if increased feedstock CO2 and anthropogenic nitrogen are considered.

   It is scientifically reprehensible to exclude data that is inconvenient to your case, without even a mention WHY in the paper, or on the graph. Such cheating is known in the trade as cherry-picking.

   Ex. 3: ————————————————
   YOU SAID: Here, you are once again consumed with the blue data versus red data issue. You’ll notice that the red data overlaps the blue data for about 70 years, and follows pretty much the same trend. Again, to claim that this inclusion of temperature data is “scientifically illegal”, and yet it somehow made it through peer-review, is to believe in a massive conspiracy theory. This was a study of the history of Northern Hemispheric temperatures. Past temperatures were gained from proxy data. For more recent temps, Mann used the instrumental temp record. Is that illegal? Most definitely not. UNQUOTE:

   I really can’t see much connection between what you said above, and what Example 3 is about. To help explain, please see NASA’s graph:
   http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif Revised Aug 7, 07

   NASA clearly knows how it SHOULD BE DONE: The yearly data ends at 2006, and the 5-year smoothing ends at 2003.5, or maybe 2003. The five year smoothing cannot be taken to 2006, because data would be required out beyond to 2009, which of course is impossible! No worries for the Dendro’s though; ever since 1997, they simply invent data for the missing 25, or 20 years, of their choice, and create a little up-turn at the end, where they wanted it to go, opposite to the trend in the raw data. Look again at the first link above to confirm what I say. Furthermore, see the same practice per IPCC, below
   http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch06.pdf Find fig. 6.10, READ footnotes

   It is extremely deceptive to invent data, in order to give what you would rather see in the results

   Ex. 4:————————————————-
   More Mann “hockey-stick”.
   Yes, it is truly amazing that this one infamous graph can have so many serious deceptions!

   Ex. 5: ————————————————-
   “Hockey-stick” again.
   Yes, it is truly amazing that this one infamous graph can have so many serious deceptions!

   Ex. 6: ————————————————-
   Guess what this one is about?
   It’s about additional deceptions, and omissions by the IPCC actually.
   ——————————————————
   YOU SAID: This is just silly, Bob. Others have tried to explain to you that the “hockey-stick” graph is not at all central to the IPCC report and its conclusions. All you’ve done is try to poke holes in a very large report via one very small and outdated portion of it “Mann’s work”, and it has not been effective. UNQUOTE.

   Jason, I reiterate that I agree that the hockey-stick has little to do with climate science. But, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE… The issue is about deception!
   Please think of my remarks above as additional explanation for my long post of Aug.12, and carefully take time to digest the combined evidence and FACTS given in these two posts together. I can only think from your responses that you did not understand my original post.

   Do you for instance still believe, given this new information above, that it is OK for the IPCC and Dendro’s to invent data, when NASA clearly demonstrates this to be illegal? (Re; Example 3)

   Regards, BobFJ

4. themotie Says:
   August 21st, 2007 at 11:20 am

   Bob,

   Re example 1: I’m curious to hear if there were any remarks or questions about Mann’s graph? During the review process or later? There ought to have been plenty, since you clim it’s _the IPCC_ who are deceptive.

   “the purpose of me citing D’Arrigo was ONLY to show that the divergence problem has still not been solved”

   OK …? Was that an issue? Has anyone claimed that the divergence problem had been solved? My impression of this is that you make this (the divergence problem) up to be a huge thing, and severely detrimental to AGW, which it’s not. I’m not aware that anyone questions the existence of the divergence problem. Again, I would also like to point out that “has not been solved” is not, repeat NOT, the same as “is a big problem”, “can be anything” or anything of that kind. The origin of gravity hasn’t been solved either, which doesn’t prevent scientists from sending probes to Pluto. Y’know, it’s because of things like this that the 5–10 percent uncertainty is there. If everything was “solved”, there would be no uncertainty.

   On another tack re the Mann curve. If it is so blatantly falsified, why has it been cleared by quite a few other scientists in the several investigations directed at it? It can’t be that it’s YOU who have misunderstood something?

   You take turns to glorify or vilify the same authorities as it fits your hypothesis. If NASA appear to show something different than Mann, NASA are heroes and examples of scientific rigor, but when McIntyre corrects their figures, NASA are an example of sloppy “climate science”. The scientists that have done the research that the IPCC report are based on are apparently either incompetent or unable to speak, since they don’t denounce the IPCC, yet you easily use their results when it suits you. You also imply that the national academies of science of dozens of prominent nations haven’t discovered this deception that you have uncovered. I come back to the question of humility. I would really, really like to see how you view this? You say it’s about deception? No, it’s not. It’s about _your perception_ of a deception.

   I’ve listened to talks by our own academy of science, and I’d like to know how you think they’ve been duped. I’ve also on many, many occasions listened to scientists who have tangentially confirmed AGW, as their work has some minor impact on climate research. I’d like to know how you think they’ve been duped. I’ve listened to CEO’s and other high-ranking officials of major corporations, like multinational energy corporations and of Toyota, stating AGW as a fact. I’d like to know how you think they’ve been duped. All of them duped. And you hold this as more reasonable, more likely, than that there are areas of front line science where you don’t know or understand? That your perception of a deception rests on an incomplete understanding on your part? I really want to hear you talk about this.

5. BobFJ Says:
   August 22nd, 2007 at 11:39 am

   Themotie, REUR AUG 21 3:20 am
   Hi ‘motie, Just a couple of quickies I’d like to jump-on: (It’s a big post though, because I’ve pasted some bulk-wordy stuff for your pleasure, and I hope it will keep you quiet for a while, whilst I try and catch-up with your other stuff, and Jason’s/Reasic’s…..hey, give me some space you guys!):
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   YOU SAID: On another tack re the Mann curve. If it is so blatantly falsified, why has it been cleared by quite a few other scientists in the several investigations directed at it? It can’t be that it’s YOU who have misunderstood something? UNQUOTE.
   Well quite apart from the fact that it has also been REJECTED by quite a few other scientists too, I have deliberately NOT, repeat NOT, discussed the millennial shape of the Mann curve, which is what the main uproar has been about. I have dropped it like a scolded cat, because it is a quagmire of; he said this, she said that and they said something else. This quagmire concerns complex statistics and algorithms and whatnot that not many people fully understand, including me. Consequently, I have only discussed the easy first-principles stuff around 5 evident deceptions contained in the final ~50 years of the hockey-stick. My position is that Mann et al undeniably cheated on that very elementary stuff, so….. how can Mann et al be trusted with the really complicated stuff, involving Eigenvectors and Aardvarks and whatever else they try to defend on their blog “realclimate”? This is a quick, not necessarily complete statement by me!
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   YOU SAID: Re example 1: I’m curious to hear if there were any remarks or questions about Mann’s graph? During the review process or later? There ought to have been plenty, since you claim it’s _the IPCC_ who are deceptive UNQUOTE.
   I wish I could, but UNFORTUNATELY, the 1999-2001 peer review information is hidden. However, the 2005-2007 review comments have been obtained under FOI. Despite that the hockey-stick was deleted in the 2007 IPCC report, there was a surprisingly voluminous remnant vocal activity concerning its history, and “where do we go from here”. I’ve pasted below a dozen expert comments that cover a range of different viewpoints, from chapters 1 & 6 in WG1. Please bear in mind that some of the comments are not by native English speakers, including Swiss-German Esper, the first very valuable, if discreet comment: {= my added comments}
   COMMENT 1: 6-1313 ++++++++++++++++++++
   {Following is a very important comment from the large semi independent Swiss dendro group. In effect it is quietly implying under veil, (not wanting to rock the fragile boat of their dendro-industry), that MBH99 should not be in chapter 6- paleo-data, but in chapter 1-HISTORY! }

   As with the Soon and Baliunas paper, I do not see the point to spend a full paragraph on
   the McIntyre and McKitrick critique on MBH99. The IPCC report is certainly not the
   place to defend a single paper (Mann et al. 1999), particularly since this (admittedly
   pioneering) record is now aligned {= buried in & compared} with several other reconstructions as done in Figure 6.8b. I suggest to either remove this paragraph, or alternatively spend one sentence on the work by McIntyre and colleagues saying that some of the methods applied in MBH99 are
   criticized. Alternatively, it seems more relevant to discuss some reasons for the difference
   in low-frequency loading (and thus T amplitude) between the records shown in Figure
   6.8b, with the differing detrending methods applied to tree-ring data likely being a major
   source for these differences. The new study by D’Arrigo et al. (2005) would perhaps be a
   good starting point to highlight the impact of tree-ring detrending on the course of long-term
   T reconstructions. In their work, D’Arrigo et al. clearly show that “standard”
   detrending techniques result in reduced T variations reconstructed over the past
   millennium (admittedly similar to MBH99), whereas the application of RCS (”a statistical
   technique designed to produce ring width chronologies in which evidence of long-
   timescale climate forcing is better represented, lines 31-32 on page 29) results in a
   reconstruction indicating more low frequency loading and thus more T variance over the
   past millennium. A paragraph addressing the seemingly differing low frequency loadings
   of the reconstructions shown in Figure 6.8b would be rather relevant, and should not be
   written as a critique of a single record, but rather as a perspective indicating future paths
   in paleoclimatology. [Jan Esper]

   RESPONSE: Noted – see edited text
   {Repeat: …not be written as a critique of a single record, {MBH99}, but rather as a perspective indicating future paths in paleoclimatology….Capisce?}

   COMMENT 2: 6-749++++++++++++++++++++++
   The statement “Wahl and Ammenn (accepted) demonstrated that this was due to omission
   by McIntyre and McKitrick of several proxy series used by Mann et al (1998).” is
   incorrect and should be deleted on factual as well as procedural grounds (see previous
   comment). In their paper, Wahl and Ammenn state: “In MM03, the authors describe their
   results as being developed using the MBH reconstruction methodology, albeit with
   elimination of a large number of proxy data series used by MBH, especially during the
   15th century.” There is no such statement in MM03. Quite the opposite. MM03 reported
   that some proxy series data said to have been used in MBH98 were not actually used.
   Subsequently, McIntrye and McKitrick filed a Materials Complaint with the journal
   Nature. In response to this complaint, Mann et al admitted that 35 series said to have
   been used in MBH98 were not actually used, but claimed that this did not affect the
   results. Wahl and Ammenn were able to closely reproduce the original reconstruction
   when all records were included. However, prior to this, McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,
   2005b) also had reproduced MBH98 results using the flawed principle components
   method. Wahl and Ammenn reproduced McIntrye and McKitrick (2005a, 2005b), and, in
   the final version of their paper, also reproduced MM’s finding that MBH98 failed rsquared
   verification. [Jeff Kueter (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 137-68)]

   RESPONSE: See response to comment 6-1157 and 6-1154.

   COMMENT 3: 1-36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
   For accuracy and completeness, after “(IPCC, 2001a)” it is very, very important to add:
   “However, since the TAR {3rd assessment report} several studies have provided doubt to that work of Mann et al..
   Many studies provide data that conflict with the findings of that work of Mann et al. (e.g.
   Beltrami et al) (ref. Beltrami et al “Long-term tracking of climate change by underground
   temperatures”, Geophysical Research Letters v.12 (2005) ). In 2005 McIntyre and
   McKitrick published two papers that together provide a complete refutation of that work
   of Mann et al. (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 16, no.1
   (2005)) (2005), Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32, No. 3, (2005)). But, perhaps the
   most important of their studies of that work of Mann et al. was their publication in 2003
   (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 24, pp 751-771 (2003)) that
   showed it is not possible to replicate the work of Mann et al. There are several reasons
   for the inability to replicate this work of Mann et al.; not least that Mann refuses to reveal
   his source codes. The inability to replicate this work of Mann et al. means it has no
   scientific worth: i.e. this work of Mann et al. is anecdote of similar kind to a report of a
   ghost sighting. Hence, the IPCC now apologises for including it in the TAR. The IPCC
   will now disregard this work of Mann et al. and recommends that all others should also
   disregard it until it can be – and has been – independently replicated.” [Richard S Courtney]

   RESPONSE: Noted, but rejected. Firstly, we disagree with the overall tone and viewpoint of the statements made in this comment, because there are many subsequent studies that have confirmed the essential results of the Mann et al. work; { Really? Take a close look at figure 6.10!}, and secondly, and more importantly, this chapter leaves such modern issues to the later chapters. Chapter 1 is a historical overview, and the history being assessed stops at the TAR. Post-TAR developments, including the topic under discussion here, are the province of other chapters of AR4. {do you guys use the word Gobbledegook at all?}

   COMMENT 4: 1-248 ++++++++++++++++++++++
   In light of the controversies over MBH98 these lines ought to be deleted. It wasn’t a “great
   advance” it was a black box that no one understood at the time and no one has used since.
   If it really yielded “true northern hemisphere temperatures” etc. then why has no one else
   adopted the methodology, and why don’t even Mann and his coauthors use it? The
   methodology has since been shown to be unduly sensitive to minor variations in
   assumptions, (Burger and Cubasch 2005), it embeds a serious error in the implementation
   of principal component analysis (McIntyre and McKitrick 2005a), and it yields results
   that are pivotally dependent on the use of invalid bristlecone pine series and which are
   statistically insignificant. (McIntyre and McKitrick 2005a, 2005b). The adulatory tone in
   these lines is inappropriate. [Ross McKitrick (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 174-9)]

   RESPONSE: Rejected, this is post-TAR material discussed if appropriate in the later chapters.. Also correct as written

   COMMENT 5: 6-262 ++++++++++++++++++++++
   The following sentence, “There is no evidence for centennial to millennial modes of
   natural climate variability generating global warming and cooling in the past, or that
   could explain global warming of the last 150 years.” sounds strange. If this sentence
   explains the conclusion of TAR, {IPCC 2001} can understand. But, we already {more recently} know several papers reporting rather large fluctuations in the temperature of the northern hemisphere ([1]
   Esper et al., 2002; [2] Moberg et al., 2005; [3] Luckman, B.H. and Wilson, R.J.S. 2005.
   Summer temperatures in the Canadian Rockies during the last millennium: a revised
   record. Climate Dynamics 24: 131-144.). These results suggest that the temperature
   changes during 1850-1950 seem essentially the same as those in the past. If the
   temperature change in the second half of the 20th century cannot be explained considering
   only volcanoes and solar luminosity, neither the temperature changes in the past. Even if
   the mechanism of the large temperature fluctuations found by the above reports is not
   known or inexplicable, the observation should be approved as it is. (I am not talking about
   the latter half of the 20th century.) [Kiminori Itoh]

   RESPONSE: Rejected, text will be made clearer, but the text refers to modes of variability.

   COMMENT 6: 6-1153 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
   Take the opportunity here to state that proxies tested against the 1980s and 1990s have
   shown “divergence” (D’Arrigo et al 2006; Briffa et al 2001). This “divergence” is
   unexplained and it means that the proxies are not calibrated at higher temperatures
   contrary to the impression left here and elsewhere.
   [Stephen McIntyre (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 309-49)]

   RESPONSE: Accepted – see response to comment 6-1152

   COMMENT 7: 6-755 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
   The so called “hockey stick” was one of three main lines of evidence used in the TAR {IPCC 2001} to justify the conclusion that human activities were the cause of most of the warming
   observed during the last half of the 20th century. As noted in this chapter, this led to
   critical analyses of the Mann, et al study that was the most publicized “hockey stick.” One
   of the criticisms of their work was the limited amount of data on which its conclusions
   were based. The text in this draft indicates that new studies since the TAR “… represent
   some expansion of the length and geographic coverage of the previously available data.”
   This is a weak statement, suggesting that the expansion of data has not been very great.
   The reader should be given more information about how much new data has been added
   to the analysis since the TAR, and why it justifies the strong statement that it is “…very
   likely that average NH temperatures were warmer than any other 50 year period in the last
   500 years.” The TAR conclusion was different, assigning only a likely probability, albeit
   to the last 1000 years. [Lenny Bernstein (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 20-61)]

   RESPONSE: No change necessary – after reconsidering text it is felt that sufficient detail is provided in the text and Table 6.1 and Figure 6.11 to illustrate what new evidence exists post TAR, and that this evidence is the basis underlying the current conclusions.

   COMMENT 8: 6-709 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
   This remark concerns the handling of the Mann- “hockey stick”. Traditionally we have
   had a conflict between paleo climatologists and climatologists work with the present
   climate. Paleo archives consist of proxy data with different time resolution and different
   coupling to climate parameters. When Mann et al. presented their hockey stick 6-7 years
   ago they formatted paleodata in such a way that climate modellers could use it. But very
   few paleo climatologists agreed to the shape of the curve and now-a-days we have much
   better data to use. It is therefore natural to describe the Mann curve in a history of science
   perspective, but not as a valid data set. A good example of a good modern curve is the one
   presented by Moberg et al in Nature 2005. It can certainly be improved in the future, but it
   has at least the the variation seen in almost all paleo climate records for the past millennia. {Repeat: …variation seen in almost all paleo climate records for the past millennia}
   In the present IPCC-text the view described is that we have the hockey stick and then later
   some scientists have raised critical voices. The basic meaning is that the hockey stick is
   still the number one description of the past millenia. This is not flattering and it certainly
   mis-credit the report. I believe that it is rather easy to go through the 5 pages and update
   the spirit of the text and perhaps make some adjustments in the figure captions.
   [Per Holmund (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 108-5)]

   RESPONSE: Rejected – the Mann et al. curve is included for consistency and to maintain a historical context for the current state of the art. Also, the low frequency character of the Moberg et al. series is subject to very large uncertainty – though it is also included to provide a comprehensive representation of the range of published results. The current text does not give uncritical support to the Mann et al (1999) curve– it shows other reconstructions and discusses possible reasons (as far is currently possible) for the differences. Conclusions are then drawn on the bases of all the current data.

   COMMENT 9: 6-1319 ++++++++++++++++++++++
   The authors seem pretty uninformed about my work with Steve McIntyre. For instance
   there is no mention of our 2005 GRL or E&E papers, even though these contain the bulk
   of our arguments; and indeed the paragraph shows that the chapter authors are unaware of
   what our arguments actually are. The paragraph trots out the straw man that we are selling
   an alternative climate history, despite our repeated and persistent statements that we are
   not trying to offer “our” climate history curve. From the outset we have been trying to
   show what Mann’s curve would look like if he had done what he said he had done, using
   the data he said he used. Lest any reader of this comment think it pejorative for me to
   suggest that the MBH98/99 data and methods were inaccurately or incompletely
   disclosed, the Corrigendum ordered by Nature and published July 1 2004 by Mann et al.
   should settle that. We filed a Materials Complaint with Nature in January 2004, Nature
   asked Mann to respond, and based on their review of his response Nature ordered a
   complete restatement of the data and methods of MBH98. The methodology described in
   the new MBH98 SI differs fundamentally from that presented in MBH98 itself, notably in
   its use of a highly irregular PC methodology and the splicing of proxy PCs in hitherto
   undisclosed segments. [Ross McKitrick]
   RESPONSE: Noted – see edited text

   Comment 10 : 6-1355 +++++++++++++++++++++++
   Please be more specific here about what conclusion the reader should draw about the
   Esper record. You say it is different from others, { Meaning Mann and colleagues} but you don’t provide enough information for the reader to know if it might be better, or not.
   [Susan Solomon] RESPONSE: noted

   Comment 11: 6-1361 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
   Please be more specific here about what conclusion the reader should draw about the
   Moberg record. You say it is different from others, { Meaning Mann and colleagues} but you don’t provide enough information for the reader to know if it might be better, or not. [Susan Solomon] RESPONSE: Accepted

   Comment 12: 6-1263 ++++++++++++++++++++++
   Insert after “studies”; “McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005) have identified several
   serious errors in the compilation of Mann et al (1998), which, when corrected, show a
   temperature rise in the 15th century much larger than is observed currently
   [Vincent Gray]
   rejected – covered in updated text
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   I stopped at 12 examples, just the tip of the iceberg! There is a great deal of comment from Mann, which I totally ignored, because I hold him in less than zero respect, given his prior multiple frauds. There is also a great volume from M & M, of which I restricted it to 1 or 2, of dozens.

   I would like to give you an analysis of the various techniques that the IPCC use to fob-off dissenters, yet still claim them to be contributors. But, do you want to know?

   Regards, Bob FJ

6. themotie Says:
   August 22nd, 2007 at 3:24 pm

   Hi Bob,

   “Consequently, I have only discussed the easy first-principles stuff around 5 evident deceptions contained in the final ~50 years of the hockey-stick”

   Yes … But that STILL does not explain why none of the scientists that have reviewed Mann’s work didn’t mention this, if it was so obvoius. The logical conclusion as to why this is would of course be that there is no fraud.

   As to the rest of your post, I really don’t see what I am supposed to see. This seems like a scientific discussion. Many scientists with different views are trying to agree on a single wording. I really don’t see what I’m supposed to be excited about.

7. BobFJ Says:
   August 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 am

   Themotie, Reur Aug 20, 11:34 am
   First of all, I think we have successfully confused each other: I was talking about the broad spectrum EMR from ground, whereas you seem to be discussing only those wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2. (and the careers of individual photons and molecules). Thus for example, I am right in saying some EMR goes unimpeded to space, and you are also right in saying NO it can’t.

   I have never enjoyed quantum mechanics, when faced with some of the theories that seem to break the rules of the real world.

   However, you may have noticed my repeated capitalization of the word HEAT, alongside EMR. This is to emphasize the difference between these two distinct forms of energy. EMR is often discussed as if it is HEAT, and it is subjectively experienced to be that if it is from a hot source, and say is felt upon the skin. (is absorbed as HEAT) However, EMR from a colder source cannot be absorbed as HEAT; its only effect would be to slow the rate of escape of HEAT, as in the typical heat transfer equations involving the terms T1 –T2. (The bigger T2 is relative toT1, the slower is the rate of heat loss, as seen in the greenhouse effect).

   Maybe there are some funny things going on at the molecular level, but in the net result at the material level, the rules are clear; such as; in hydraulic energy, water cannot flow uphill. (unless an additional pump energy is supplied) Similarly, HEAT cannot flow from cold air above to the warmer ground below. (although T1 – T2 comes in again to slow the rate of heat loss from ground) Again, some climate people confuse back-radiation from the sky as HEAT. It is not. It is EMR. Perhaps the following example helps to explain: consider a momentarily stable thin layer of air at say -10 degrees C. EMR in that layer is flying around in all directions, including 360 degrees horizontally. However, there is no HEAT content change, because the temperature of the layer does not change. (T1 = T2)

   I also comment that the layer of air at -10 degrees C has a non-grey spectrum of longer wavelengths than the warmer stuff below. Furthermore, not all its molecules have the same KE, which explains the varying wavelengths.

   Coming back to your quantum stuff, I only have difficulty with; “The temperature of the CO2 molecule is irrelevant.” I understand that the KE of a molecule; its T; can only go up in progressive exact steps, (and as you corrected me, for an INDIVIDUAL molecule, can only similarly go down) by a precise quanta size specific to its T. If a molecule already has a particular quanta size, which defines its KE or T, how can it take-on another one the same size? The next energy level step-up requires a different but precise quanta size. Therefore T does matter?

   The reason I was surprised at your photon free path of 100m, is largely from study of typically published graphs of the EMR absorption from ground, and a vague recollection of it being stated somewhere that it may occur at ~10 Km.

   If we ignore the typical lack of definition as to what the graph (see earlier link) really means, and take it at face-value, most absorption bands are showing 100%, right at their tips, whilst STILL displaying their typical rounded shoulders. These bands are made-up of a cluster of absorption lines, which typically reduce in strength at the sides of the bands, so giving the classic rounded shoulders. What this would surely mean is that the alleged full absorption is rather high in the atmosphere, and approaching a full window to space.

   However, I think the diagram is misleading. For instance, it covers the spectrum of both incoming and outgoing EMR. But, the considerations are different, in that the incoming is a parallel beam, whereas the outgoing is very different because radiation is in all directions equally, hemispherically from ground. Thus, upon first absorption, it would seem that much of the EMR would be absorbed rather close to the ground. However, our old friend (T1 – T2) comes in here. The closer it is to ground, the smaller the difference in T1 and T2, and thus the smaller is the HEAT transfer. Developing this argument further, suggests that the photon free paths need to be rather substantial for there to be any substantial HEAT transfer upwards.

   There are some other “difficulties” with such absorption graphs, but this will do for now. Remember, I am only quoting the literature!

   Keep smiling, BobFJ

   BTW: Jason/Reasic, I want to come back to your two RayPierre articles from “realclimate”, but let’s see if Themotie gives me a big hard-time in this ‘ere first! Meanwhile, you may find the following commentary interesting:

   http://truthortruthiness.com/blog/?cat=2 jump to 24 Jan. 07
   And, meet the man himself at:
   http://geosci.uchicago.edu/people/faculty/pierrehumbert.shtml
   In which he says: “…in much of this work is the determination of the Earth’s relative humidity distribution, which is the key to many climate change problems.” Ripper! I could not agree more! Bullseye!

   Elsewhere: He directs the Climate Systems Center, which was established with a $3.6 million grant from the National Science Foundation… the lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report (1997-2001).
   You complain of mining and big-oil funding stuff?

8. BobFJ Says:
   August 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am

   Hi ‘motie, reur Aug 22 7:24 am
   “Yes … But that STILL does not explain why none of the scientists that have reviewed Mann’s work didn’t mention this, if it was so obvoius. The logical conclusion as to why this is would of course be that there is no fraud”. RESPONSE: Well, actually your use of the word “none” is incorrect, and based on pure assumption, and lack of research and impartiality.
   I can only suggest that in the majority, the uproar was centered on the outrageous deletion of the MWP and LIA, whilst meanwhile the lesser frauds at the end of the graph may have been overlooked by that majority. What you should do is put aside your preconceived notions, and look with a clear mind at the evidence and facts that I have detailed. Whether I first identified them, or whether I may have plagiarized them is irrelevant. Just look at the facts! Don’t shoot the messenger!
   Do you for instance insist that trees grow at night, and in winter, and in the middle of the ocean?

   “As to the rest of your post, I really don’t see what I am supposed to see. This seems like a scientific discussion. Many scientists with different views are trying to agree on a single wording. I really don’t see what I’m supposed to be excited about.” RESPONSE: You did ask if there was any scientific comment to dispute the claims of Mann et al. So, I present some, just a few, there are lots more, and you simply obfuscate. Try reading it with an open mind and digest what is said therein. Do you want more such comments by the experts?
   Sleep gently, BobFJ

9. themotie Says:
   August 23rd, 2007 at 7:06 pm

   “Well, actually your use of the word “none” is incorrect, and based on pure assumption, and lack of research and impartiality.”

   OK. Give me the name of any _one_ of the official reviewers of Mann’s article that mentioned this fraud your are on about. As in claimed it was a fraud.

   “the uproar was centered on the outrageous deletion of the MWP and LIA”

   The uproar almost solely among non-scientist denialists, yes. As far as I know (which is quite far) there was no uproar in the scientific community. Discussion, yes (which is entirely normal), uproar, no.

   “What you should do is put aside your preconceived notions, and look with a clear mind at the evidence and facts that I have detailed.”

   Sigh. Those evidence and facts I have checked have rested solely on a misunderstanding of the underlying science or of the scientific process.

   “You did ask if there was any scientific comment to dispute the claims of Mann et al.”

   This, then, is incontrovertible proof that you don’t understand the scientific process. Of COURSE there is discussion! Do you seriously believe that a normal scientific discussion is proof of deception and fraud? This is so inane that I don’t know what to say.

   I’ll also repeat this:

   I’ve listened to talks by our own academy of science, and I’d like to know how you think they’ve been duped. I’ve also on many, many occasions listened to scientists who have tangentially confirmed AGW, as their work has some minor impact on climate research. I’d like to know how you think they’ve been duped. I’ve listened to CEO’s and other high-ranking officials of major corporations, like multinational energy corporations and of Toyota, stating AGW as a fact. I’d like to know how you think they’ve been duped. All of them duped. And you hold this as more reasonable, more likely, than that there are areas of front line science where you don’t know or understand? That your perception of a deception rests on an incomplete understanding on your part? I really want to hear you talk about this.

10. BobFJ Says:
    August 24th, 2007 at 9:54 am

    Themotie: Reur Aug23

    I get the feeling that the reason you have difficulty in composing a rational and unprejudicial post is that you are in too much of a hurry. For instance, in my long post of Aug.12, I implied I won’t be coming back for a week, please take your time, but you rushed-off a reply almost immediately. Jason on the other hand took well over a week, and he was a little more careful, even if he was also in denial.

    I have not made this claim before, but I’ll be very brave, and give it a go: FACT: “If you look at the sun without eye protection, you may cause yourself eye damage”. I imagine that you will spontaneously find at least two things wrong with this: 1) You will guess, (without even investigating it), that it does not appear in any of the IPCC reports; therefore it can’t be true. 2) BobFJ said it, therefore it must be wrong. However, could you please carefully review my new claim with an open mind and let me know, after prolonged careful consideration, if you may possibly accept the suggested risk of eye damage as a fact? Just insert somewhere either YES, or NO.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    If you are humble enough to do that, then let’s look again at just EXAMPLE 1 in my Aug.12:
    The hockey-stick ends with that freak high published temperature in 1998. The graph was iconically published in 2001 by the IPCC, with some minor changes, but without any correction of the TREND in published temperatures. The strong El Nino spike in 1998 was a massive ~40% (forty percent) over the published trend of 1999 through 2001, and it gave a gross exaggeration to the height of the toe on the hockey-stick. The IPCC has a peer review process, through two draft levels before publication, which is spread over two years, and they had ample time and capacity to make any corrections. However, had they done so on the hockey-stick, their much trumpeted icon would have been much less scary to the policymakers and media around the world.

    Your denial of these truths included a principal claim that the IPCC does NOT update graphs. This was a baseless unresearched claim on your part. I then showed you some IPCC review records proving that indeed they do make such graphical updates. (if they want too)

    Do you still have any basis for denial of these facts in EXAMPLE 1 …..??????
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    I was unable to supply you with expert criticisms of the Hockey-stick in 2001, (as you requested), because IPPC has made them unavailable. However, although the IPCC dropped the Hockey-stick in 2007, it still provoked a surprising amount of comment in expert critical review within IPCC 2007. I supplied you with a neat dozen examples out of the many more that were available.

    You belligerently demanded of me: (something like): Show me just ONE example of a scientist that shares BobFJ’s view. Well, why don’t you try properly reading COMMENT 6; perhaps spend a whole 3 minutes on it? It highlights the divergence problem, which still remains unresolved after 10 years (ten years = a decade) of musing it. This is THE most important of the various deceptions, by virtue of unexplained deletion by Mann et al of this well-known “inconvenient” data, which I detailed in my Aug 12.

    I find it very hard to make any connection between what you say, and what I have presented to you. For instance, see COMMENT 2. The paper by Wahl and Ammenn is widely used by the IPCC and other deniers to condemn the work of M & M. (the pariahs) However, Jeff Kueter AND OTHERS in the IPCC, point out that W & A were wrong, and that Nature journal forced Mann to admit his corrupt use of data and computer code…..not to mention inappropriate Bristle-cones etc, elsewhere. Try carefully reading COMMENT 2, perhaps for a whole 5 or 10 minutes, and see if you can understand it. Try;…. wrinkle your brow, and repeat over and over in monotone to yourself; I am not biased, I am not biased, I am not biased etc. Then, if you can overcome your preconceived notions, perhaps read very carefully the other 11 COMMENTS. Spend real time on it! T H I N K!

    BobFJ

    BTW, did you and Jason/Reasic notice that I recently posted a response to your version of quantum mechanics, immediately below yours, and you need to scan-up to find it, if you are interested.
    Oh and it occurs to me that I should elaborate that in any parcel of matter at a temperature T, at the molecular level, not all the molecules and photons are at the same energy level….e.g.see Planck curve for a black body. Thus it is inappropriate to follow the career of any one molecule or photon as being progressive or typical.

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 52 »

Post new comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Advertisement