"Skeptics" - Are you wasting your intelligence, and our time. ?

[Derek]

Hi All,
Sorry, but this has to be said..

The Hockey Stick, much has been written about it,

we all now know it is a temperature reconstruction for the last thousand years based on tree rings,
mostly bristle cone pines, well, a few "lucky" ones.
(The bristle cone pine is never described as a particularly asymmetrically shaped tree, which is a primary concern in the first place.)

The length, depth, and complexity of the maths and statistics used in compiling, and testing the Hockey Stick are simply breath taking.
Frequently also beyond a normal persons comprehension.
But yet the question apparently still remains is the Hockey Stick good, or not.

Here are two simple points that answer the question.

1) Tree ring width is a result of the trees growth in a year, BUT there are many factors (at least five main ones) that effect the overall growth.
To know how much an individual factor influenced the trees growth in any one year, all the factors have to be separated out.
Assigning the tree ring width to one factor alone, temperature in the case of the Hockey Stick, is not just obviously wrong, it is plainly stupid.
End of story the Hockey Stick is wrong.
Why waste effort showing dodgy maths, method, statistics when the fundamental "measure" used is wrong in the first place.

2) Optimum temperature for growth - as suggested to me by Jonathan Drake.
Let us first suppose you could work out the optimum temp for a trees growth, AND how much it would it grow.
If the temp is above or below this optimum then the tree will grow less, but how would you know if it was because the temp was above or below the optimum.?
Also, how do the other factors move the optimum temp for growth of a tree as they vary over time. ?
I would also add that if other factors vary they will alter both the optimum temp, and the amount of tree growth, so,
the optimum temp and amount of growth would vary because other factors varied, so all these combinations must also be used.
Again however was the temp above or below the new, or rather different optimum temp and growth rate, tree ring width.

The Hockey Stick is plainly fraudulent because the "measure" it uses is obviously useless in the real and variable world.

Then there is the matter of the global energy budgets, these are the real crux of the AGW "science" physics and climate modeling.
The budgets are used to portray how the so called "greenhouse effect" works, and
why man's influence is supposedly causing global warming.
Below is an example.

"We" could go on all night about what the "budgets" portray, how they are "measured", etc, etc, etc.
But what a waste of time and effort.
"Plankton" or, "life" is all you need to say - end of story.
I'll explain, the sun shines, it penetrates the worlds oceans, plankton grow.
Little fishes eat the plankton, and then bigger fishes eat the little fishes, etc, etc.
In short the oceans have life because of the solar input life absorbs. Life on land does exactly the same.
Life the world over uses directly (plants) and indirectly (vegetarians, carnivores, omnivores, etc, etc) solar input.
A lot of this solar input life uses, or looses due to inefficiencies, is never returned to space, it is simply used by life, to live.
Some of life's used solar input is only returned to the system days, weeks, years millenia after the life itself has died.
OK, now go back to the global energy budget, where's life's subtractions. ?
Any way you look at this the global energy budgets MUST be wrong, because earth is NOT a dead planet.
Pretty obvious really, isn't it.
Life alone is the "ugly fact that kills the beautiful theory" to paraphrase Thomas Huxley.

Any "version" of Global Mean Temperature (GMT) has also been recently abandoned as unreliable,
because of so many problems with the measurements, compilation, processing, and correcting of historical data, etc, etc, etc.
These and many other problems not only with GMT, but also AGW, and the "respected scientists" themselves,
which all came to light undeniably in the climategate emails.

Climate models have never been verified, and never will be.
In point of fact the climate models can be traced back to NASA and James Hansen, the same NASA responsible for the above "global energy budget" incidentally...
The (originally NASA) climate models use an assumed warming mechanism, that can not be observed, and has no experimental evidence to support it.
Then there are the climate models cooling factors that were admitted back in 1999 as invented by the UK MET Office....
The list regarding climate models goes on, but it also includes the physics modeled.
The physics of the climate models are from, or contained in the (US Navy) MODTRAN software.
It is normal and standard military procedure to employ flow charts to explain what a computer program computes.
This is so the computer programmers can discuss with none computer programmers (ie scientists / physicists) what the program computes, and in what order.
There are to my knowledge no flow charts for MODTRAN that have ever been released.
Some say this is commercial or intellectual property rights, I say if this is the basis of a science then they should be public, so we can all understand the science,
not have to take it all upon trust only (or rather as inferred by those damned silly thought experiments that don't actually work).
But, in the end the climate models fall upon their own sword, not one, not a single, solitary one "projected" the temp trend correctly post 1997 to present.
Whether GMT is reliable or not, we all know since the late 1990s, temperature have not gone up in any constant or significant way,
which is what all the models "predicted", sorry, "projected" would happen.
It did not, the climate models are wrong.
Climate General Circulation Models (GCMs) are frequently and correctly described as being, Garbage In, Garbage out (GIGO).

It is apparent by this point that AGW is dead, as a "theory", (AGW never got past the unproven hypothesis stage according to the scientific method).
When will so many skeptics realize it is already way past the time,
to actually question the principles of AGW,
and stop wasting your intelligence, time, and effort
merely quibbling the figures of AGW.
This quibbling the figures, so many "merely" do, only prolongs the agony we will all suffer from
what is undoubtedly the biggest scam in human history so far, namely,
man made global warming fears.

[Derek]

Over at the air vent blog, on this thread,
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10...atstrophe/
I have just noticed post 67 by Brian H.

Brian H refers to a beautiful post by Iconoclast, following this article at Scientific American.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...comment-14
Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues
Why can't we have a civil conversation about climate?

By Michael D. Lemonick October 25, 2010


14. Iconoclast 05:06 PM 10/23/10

The proposition that the average temperature of the earth’s surface is warming because of
increased emissions of human-produced greenhouse gases cannot be tested by any known scientific procedure.

It is impossible to position temperature sensors randomly over the earth’s surface
(including the 71% of ocean, and all the deserts, forests, and icecaps) and
maintain it in constant condition long enough to tell if any average is increasing.
Even if this were done the difference between the temperature during day and night is so great that no rational average can be derived.

Measurements at weather stations are quite unsuitable since they are not positioned representatively and
they only measure maximum and minimum once a day, from which no average can be derived.
They also constantly change in number, location and surroundings.
Recent studies show that most of the current stations are unable to measure temperature to better than a degree or two.

The assumptions of climate models are absurd.
They assume the earth is flat, that the sun shines with equal intensity day and night, and
the earth is in equilibrium, with the energy received equal to that emitted.

Half of the time there is no sun, where the temperature regime is quite different from the day.

No part of the earth ever is in energy equilibrium, neither is there any evidence of an overall “balance”.

It is unsurprising that such models are incapable of predicting any future climate behaviour, even if this could be measured satisfactorily.

There are no representative measurements of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide
over any land surface, where “greenhouse warming” is supposed to happen.

After twenty years of study, and as expert reviewer to the IPCC from the very beginning ,
I can only conclude that the whole affair is a gigantic fraud.

---

AND,
with thanks to slimething also from the air vent blog, on this thread, post 3.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10...ment-39315

Please see attached word document of Chris landsea's why he resigned from the IPCC open letter to the community.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/Clima...omIPCC.htm

[Sunsettommy]

When I first saw this chart 10 years ago.I knew it was garbage.



It was a supposed Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction of the last 1,000 years.

To this day there are still legions of fans of that chart.Stupidity is in vivid display.

When they do bother to read the many historical and geological reports,posted over the CENTURIES.It would quickly become obvious why that chart is garbage.

The MWP and the LIA were real.

[strogoff]

(10-23-2010 10:24 AM)Derek Wrote:  2) Optimum temperature for growth - as suggested to me by Jonathan Drake.
Let us first suppose you could work out the optimum temp for a trees growth, AND how much it would it grow.
If the temp is above or below this optimum then the tree will grow less, but how would you know if it was because the temp was above or below the optimum.?
Also, how do the other factors move the optimum temp for growth of a tree as they vary over time. ?
I would also add that if other factors vary they will alter both the optimum temp, and the amount of tree growth, so,
the optimum temp and amount of growth would vary because other factors varied, so all these combinations must also be used.
Again however was the temp above or below the new, or rather different optimum temp and growth rate, tree ring width.

Derek,

although this thread looks like a general rant I have something to say in the quoted tiny point.

Jonathan Drake is right and there´s an optimum. As far as I can remember there were two different temp optimums in photosynthesis, one for the reaction "catching" light in ATP chemical links and another one in the reaction using this energy to build glucose. You cannot compare artichokes to bristlecones and this is determined in vitro and each species is different and bla bla bla... It doesn´t mater: there´s an optimum.

When this optimum is surpassed, and that happens EVERY year in reality, each species undertake a different strategy. Mediterranean and other species are adapted to a dry hot season (lets call it summer). When this season happens, the priority is not growing but not dying: they completely shut their stomata to stop water loss. This becomes a secondary dormant stage, absolutely normal, not as deep as winter one when most of them throw out their leaves (can also happen in tough summers). Then recover in autumn with a very short growing period, acumulating specifical hormones before becoming completely asleep for winter rest.

This means that for THAT species in SUCH conditions, that high temperatures that translate into a higher annual average does not mean more growth but quite the contrary. This is: narrower tree rings for higher annual temperatures.

So... I don´t think that could be taken into account for Larix in Yamal, but looks quite plausible for bristlecones living at 2000-2500 meters... I´m reading about it.

[Derek]

Errr, Strogoff, the point of the rant / thread is to make people realise that they keep on going off into the finer points,
and missing what is staring them in the face.

If you concentrate on only one tree (and a playstation tree at that), you do not see the shape of the forest..
This forest don't exist, it's imaginary.....

By looking so closely at an individual tree you may have inadvertently fooled (or even worse tacitly "accepted") yourself into thinking there is a forest in the first place..

[ajmplanner]

Derek-
Thanks for the Lemonick post. After reading posts to this forum, my next task this evening was to write a Letter To The Editor of Scientific American with regard to the Curry interview, first congratulating them on at least presenting an article ( I think the first that would even suggest anything negative about AGW) that indicates there is at least one AGW kool ade drinker willing to start questioning her beliefs; and second to criticize them for not interviewing Pielke, Lindzen, or any on of the many reknowned scientists who can provide a real rebuttal to AGW much like Lemonick's. Lemonick should send that blog entry to Scientific American.