tree ring bs exposed by AGW computer programmers

Discussion in 'Environment' started by polarbear, Aug 15, 2016.

  1. polarbear
    Offline

    polarbear I eat morons

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,103
    Thanks Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +969
    email doc# 0907686380
    From: mann.geo.umass.edu
    Subject: Re: climate of the last millennia...
    Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:06:20 -0400 (EDT)
    Dear all,
    I just wanted to thank Keith for his comments. They are right on target.
    There is indeed, as many of us are aware, at least one key player in the
    modeling community that has made overly dismissive statements about the
    value of proxy data as late, because of what might be argued as his/her
    own naive assessment/analysis of these data. This presents the danger of
    just the sort of backlash that Keith warns of, and makes all the more
    pressing the need for more of a community-wide strategizing on our part.
    I think the workshop in Jan that Peck is hosting will go far in this
    regard, and I personally am really looking forward to it!
    cheers,
    mike.

    "Community-wide strategizing" That sound a lot like Adolf Hitler code such as "Sonderbehandlung" for dissenters.
    Anyway here is an example of what got Mann`s nose out of joint:

    re.:
    Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
    > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
    I will send you the time series you need in a minute for the Central
    west Greenland Stack...
    And some other bits and pieces,,, The NGRIP record has the trend in it
    that is no doubt closer to the truth for the fixed elevation temperature
    history. But even there one could need a correction for elevation
    change. The elevation corrected south GRIP Holocene has a very strong
    negative delta trend in it and I expect there should be some correction
    done to the north GRIP record too,, eventually I think they should all
    come out looking like our records from Northern Canada. Now at least
    ice core records have some low frequencies to correct..
    not like your bloody trees that can not remember one century to the next,,,
    And then there is this one by another climatologist:

    email doc #0981859677

    Cc: "P. Dietze" usgcrp.gov, Michael E Mann
    > the first is Keith Briffa's rather comprehensive treatment of getting
    > climate variations from tree rings: Annual climate variability in
    > the Holocene: "interpreting the message of ancient trees", Quaternary
    > Science Reviews, 19 (2000) 87-105. It should deal with many of the
    > questions people raise about using them to determine temperatures.

    Take this from first principles.
    A tree only grows on land. That excludes 70% of the earth covered by
    water. A tree does no grow on ice. A tree does not grow in a desert. A
    tree does not grow on grassland-savannahs. A tree does not grow in
    alpine areas. A tree does not grow in the tundra
    We are left with perhaps 15% of the planet upon which forests
    grow/grew. That does not make any studies from tree rings global, or
    even hemispheric.
    The width and density of tree rings is dependent upon the following
    variables which cannot be reliably separated from each other.
    sunlight - if the sun varies, the ring will vary. But not at night of
    course.cloudiness - more clouds, less sun, less ring.
    pests/disease - a caterpillar or locust plague will reduce
    photosynthesis access to sunlight - competition within a forest can disadvantage or
    advantage some trees.moisture/rainfall - a key variable.
    Trees do not prosper in a droughteven if there's a heat wave.
    snow packing in spring around the base of the trees retards growth
    temperature - finally!
    The tree ring is a composite of all these variables, not merely of
    temperature. Therefore on the 15% of the planet covered by trees, their
    rings do not and cannot accurately record temperature in isolation from
    the other environmental variables.

    .
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2016
  2. cnm
    Offline

    cnm Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Messages:
    12,657
    Thanks Received:
    8,938
    Trophy Points:
    2,255
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    Ratings:
    +35,265
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Mousterian
    Online

    Mousterian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,616
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,562
    Nit-picking and amplifying outlyers is the only way deniers can justify the ridiculous 'conspiracy' religion they favor.
    Tree-rings are a hazy view of past climate specifics, but they do give a good picture of the general health of the specific trees they come from.
    Ice cores are complicated by the slow upward migration of trapped gasses, and even isotopic analysis can be confounded by unforseen circumstances.
    Fundamentally, Science is never 'finished' on any subject, and new and exciting methods are coming at us apace.
    And they all point to the fact that we are fucking this planet over in a way that is coming back to bite us, and will savage our children.
    Like planting a fruit tree, the best time to start was years ago!
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  4. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    47,450
    Thanks Received:
    7,877
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +27,947

    Did I actually read that a dendochronologist blamed his difficulty in fabricating a climate fantasy on "the bloody trees that can't remember one century to the next"?

    Must be fun to get paid to cook the books. Much easier than my career has been..
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. bear513
    Offline

    bear513 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    41,197
    Thanks Received:
    5,238
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +26,107

    Science is never 'finished' on any subject, and new and exciting methods are coming at us apace.

    Exactly so why does the AGW cult must fear monger? And put politics above science?

    And they all point to the fact that we are fucking this planet over in a way that is coming back to bite us, and will savage our children.

    Lmao, you put in a reasonable statement and then turn around and scream chicken little?

    Why?
     
  6. cnm
    Offline

    cnm Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Messages:
    12,657
    Thanks Received:
    8,938
    Trophy Points:
    2,255
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    Ratings:
    +35,265
    Climate scientists release the best available knowledge at the time. Calling that fear mongering is politicising science.

    Being alarmist in fact.
     
  7. jc456
    Offline

    jc456 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    Messages:
    55,110
    Thanks Received:
    3,650
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Ratings:
    +19,088
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. bear513
    Offline

    bear513 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    41,197
    Thanks Received:
    5,238
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +26,107

    Not when you have a motive and using junk science to promote that motive, your ilk has been doing that since the first earth day
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. polarbear
    Offline

    polarbear I eat morons

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,103
    Thanks Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +969
    You are quite right like this email doc# 0926947295 shows:
    Subject: RE: CO2
    Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT)
    Cc: franci <franci@giss.nasa.gov>,
    I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working
    with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are
    scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines.


    Followed by blah blah blah and some advice how to hype it up by an additional 50 %

    apply 1% compounded increase to the 1990 actual levels.
    > That gives a concentration of real CO2 in 2100 that is > 1050 ppm. THAT'S
    > 50% higher than projected by IS92a, and even 17 % higher than the worst
    > emission case devised in IS92f.
     
  10. cnm
    Offline

    cnm Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Messages:
    12,657
    Thanks Received:
    8,938
    Trophy Points:
    2,255
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    Ratings:
    +35,265
    The earth is not warming. Do not believe your lying eyes. It is a massive world wide conspiracy to play a few dumb fuck rightards in the US as suckers.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page