tree ring bs exposed by AGW computer programmers

[polarbear]

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.

.

 

[cnm]

It isn't happening. Don't believe your lying eyes.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

 

[Mousterian]

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!

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

.

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..

 

[Wyatt earp]

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!

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?

 

[cnm]

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

Climate scientists release the best available knowledge at the time. Calling that fear mongering is politicising science.

Being alarmist in fact.

 

[jc456]

It isn't happening. Don't believe your lying eyes.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Fudged. Admittedly so.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

Climate scientists release the best available knowledge at the time. Calling that fear mongering is politicising science.

Being alarmist in fact.

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

 

[polarbear]

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

Climate scientists release the best available knowledge at the time. Calling that fear mongering is politicising science.

Being alarmist in fact.

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

You are quite right like this email doc# 0926947295 shows:
Subject: RE: CO2
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 0935 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: franci <[email protected]>,
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.

 

[cnm]

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.

 

[SSDD]

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

Climate scientists release the best available knowledge at the time. Calling that fear mongering is politicising science.

Being alarmist in fact.

When they call it settled science and fail to assure that the press is fully aware of, and reporting on the level of uncertainty present, it certainly is fear mongering..

 

[Crick]

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.

.

When Mann was at U Mass, he was a student, working on his PhD. This email is 18 years old. For christ's sake. Why don't you dig up his grade school coloring book pictures. I'm sure they reveal a tortured and pathologic soul.

 

[cnm]

When they call it settled science and fail to assure that the press is fully aware of, and reporting on the level of uncertainty present, it certainly is fear mongering..

Ah. Well, over 90% consensus is settled as far as science goes. That alarmists can't accept that is hardly climate scientists' fault.

 

[SSDD]

When they call it settled science and fail to assure that the press is fully aware of, and reporting on the level of uncertainty present, it certainly is fear mongering..

Ah. Well, over 90% consensus is settled as far as science goes. That alarmists can't accept that is hardly climate scientists' fault.

Sorry to tell you guy...but flacaltenn has posted an actual survey regarding the uncertainties that exist regarding the climate and it is showing nothing like the 97T that your self employed cartoonist claims...

Since the science is settled though....perhaps you can tell me precisely what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is...or maybe you can give me an exact number for the albedo of the earth (that one has been shifting for years)...perhaps you can tell me what the top 3 positive and the top 3 negative forcing factors are with regard to global temperatures...and the amount each contributes to within .2 degrees...and describe how they interact with each other and what effects they may have on lesser forcings...

Those are very basic questions...if you find that you can't answer them to a fine degree of accuracy (and you can't) then you should start asking yourself if the consensus isn't based on actual knowledge of the fundamental factors that drive the climate...then what is it based upon....then ask yourself what has historically been the one thing that could get consensus among a group of people who are naturally adversarial towards each other and there is no doubt that scientists have been historically naturally adversarial towards each other. The answer to that question is a great big trough full of money...nothing creates consensus like money.

 

[Crick]

When they call it settled science and fail to assure that the press is fully aware of, and reporting on the level of uncertainty present, it certainly is fear mongering..

Ah. Well, over 90% consensus is settled as far as science goes. That alarmists can't accept that is hardly climate scientists' fault.

Sorry to tell you guy...but flacaltenn has posted an actual survey regarding the uncertainties that exist regarding the climate and it is showing nothing like the 97T that your self employed cartoonist claims...

Since the science is settled though....perhaps you can tell me precisely what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is...or maybe you can give me an exact number for the albedo of the earth (that one has been shifting for years)...perhaps you can tell me what the top 3 positive and the top 3 negative forcing factors are with regard to global temperatures...and the amount each contributes to within .2 degrees...and describe how they interact with each other and what effects they may have on lesser forcings...

Those are very basic questions...if you find that you can't answer them to a fine degree of accuracy (and you can't) then you should start asking yourself if the consensus isn't based on actual knowledge of the fundamental factors that drive the climate...then what is it based upon....then ask yourself what has historically been the one thing that could get consensus among a group of people who are naturally adversarial towards each other and there is no doubt that scientists have been historically naturally adversarial towards each other. The answer to that question is a great big trough full of money...nothing creates consensus like money.

FCT's survey, as I demonstrated to him with the actual survey data, shows over 95% acceptance of a predominantly anthropogenic cause for global warming, so you don't know what you're talking about or you've chosen to lie.

"The science is settled" refers to the fact that human causation for the observed warming is no longer in question by any meaningful number of experts in the field. That does not mean that science's knowledge of the climate is complete and you're being extremely disingenuous to suggest that's the case. Or else you're again either ignorant or dishonest.

 

[cnm]

The answer to that question is a great big trough full of money...nothing creates consensus like money.

Yeah, it's a vast world wide conspiracy to get US rightard dumb fucks to fund climate science. Oh the humanity.

Whatever you do, do not believe your lying eyes....

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, tree rings are accurate to a tenth of a degree

 

[cnm]

Hand over your money, dumb fuck.

 

[SSDD]

The answer to that question is a great big trough full of money...nothing creates consensus like money.

Yeah, it's a vast world wide conspiracy to get US rightard dumb fucks to fund climate science. Oh the humanity.

Whatever you do, do not believe your lying eyes....

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Climate science is the liar...not my eyes.

I can only guess that you are using that graph to show how much adjustment you can get if there is enough money to be had. Lets have a look at the evolution of that graph and see just how much adjustment has been made. While we are looking, perhaps you can come up with a rational, scientifically valid reason to alter temperatures from more than a half century ago...how do you suppose such data manipulation makes the record more accurate?

In 1999, NASA showed 0.6C warming from 1880 to 1997.

Now they show more than 1.C warming during the same period.

Here is an overlay of the two graphs on the same time scale.

Here is a close up pf the period from about 1905 to 1965....they have massaged the data even beyond their own error bars...the data has been altered nearly 200% of the size of the 1930 error bars. In what field but climate science could someone get away with such a blatant fraud?

But one need not go back half a century to see evidence of fraud...hell, the data today doesn't even agree with the data from 16 years ago...

They have altered their own data by .5C since 2000 and are still claiming that the record is accurate to 0.05 degrees. What sort of person is able to ignore such blatant fraud and still believe?

In 1989, Tom Karl, of NOAA said that most global warming occurred between 1881 and 1919, and that the global climate cooled from 1921 to 1979.

Today, as a result of heavy data alteration, they are showing the exact opposite...cooling from 1881 to 1919 and warming from 1921 to 1979...and you might note that this graph from NOAA doesn't really jibe well with any of the graphs above...the record has become so corrupted that it is useless.

The record shows sharp warming after 1970 after they took about 70% of their stations offline...primarily cooler rural stations and began to rely on mysterious adjustments.

Here is the global data coverage at present...

And they use that data to create graphs like this. Do you find it unusual that some of the hottest places on earth are the very places which require the most infilling...in other words...the places where they simply make up the temperatures to suit the narrative?

The fraud and malfeasance are evident and out in the open...again, who else but climate science could get away with data manipulation to that degree?

 

[WheelieAddict]

Yes, yes it is all a huge conspiracy! All the scientist are paid off! They gonna steal all your money!

The power backing this conspiracy is immense! They have paid off:
-NASA
-The pentagon
-Most scientists
-Most world governments

I mean it is just unbelievable, a global conspiracy, including our own govt! You guys keep up the fight against this tyranny of lies! Message boards and emails will tell you the real truth!