If AGW is Beyond Dispute....

[concept]

Why the need for manipulated data?

Why the need to delete all of the raw data?

Why the need to edit Wiki and/or ban opposing views and authors from Wiki?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are you a climate scientist? why do you want to look at the data? why can't you accept "because we say so" as an answer?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

how MIT decides agw

 

[concept]

how MIT decides agw

At least MIT is using a "scientific" method.


Here is Old Crock's method.

 

[L.K.Eder]

is this the deep-thought symposium?

 

[Old Rocks]

A meeting of wits trying to make the halfway mark.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A meeting of wits trying to make the halfway mark.

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:
Date: Tue Nov 4 09:42:07 1997

Tom
please do. Actually I would be interested to know whether Malcolm mentioned these results to Dave as he was in Krasnoyarsk a few months ago when I showed this stuff. I will be over in New York in a few weeks to discuss with Ed the possibility of putting in an NSF/NERC proposal to look at the tree biomass change question. Also,the initial impetus to redo this stuff was as part of a NERC project we have running in colllaboration with Ian Woodward - i which we are inputting high resolution climate data to Dolly to assess the roll of such variability on carbon uptake
cheers
Keith

At 02:54 PM 11/3/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Keith,
>
>Malcolm Hughes was here on Friday to see Dave Schimel about precisely the
>issue you raise. Dave wants to see if he can validate his ecosystem model
>using tree ring data. Sounds as if you already have the data to do this.
>Can I show your e-mail to Dave?
>
>Tom
>
>On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Keith Briffa wrote:
>
>>
>> Tom
>> thanks for the info. Actually this is a chance for me to to mention that
>> we have for the last few months at least, been reworking the idea of
>> looking in the Schweingruber network data for evidence of increasing tree
>> growth and hence ,potentially at least, evidence of changing tree(read
>> biomass) uptake of carbon.
>> The results are dramatic - not to say earth shattering because they
>> demonstrate major time-dependent changes - but changes that are consistent
>> in different areas of the network. We have regionalised over 350 site
>> collections , each with ring width and density data , age-banded the data
>> so that we look only at relative growth in similar ages of trees through
>> time and recombined the standardisd curves to produce growth changes in
>> each region. Basically growth is roughly constant (except for relatively
>> small climate variablity forcing) from 1700 to about 1850. It then
>> increases linearly by about up until about 1950 after which time young ( up
>> to 50 year old) basal area explodes but older trees remain constant . The
>> implication is a major increase in carbon uptake before the mid 20th
>> century - temperatue no doubt partly to blame but much more likely to be
>> nitrate/Co2 . Equally important though is the levelling off of carbon
>> uptake in the later 20th century...."

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

I'm done being nice with you, Warmer

Your "science" sucks!

 

[concept]

No takers on why the data needed to be manipulated if it was such a lock?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

A meeting of wits trying to make the halfway mark.

I have some dreams but I don't call them science,
don't call them science, and...

You're so vain, you think that climate change is about you
You're so vain, I'll bet you think the climate's about you
Don't you? Don't You?