Evidence for Man Made Climate Change

[convert]

Is it a cherry tree?

 

The only whoooshing going on is above your head.

 

Come on Wiki, google it, unless of course you already know what it is, and how it was used to fudge the hockey stick...

[Wildcat]

Come on Wiki, google it, unless of course you already know what it is, and how it was used to fudge the hockey stick...

 

It didn't fudge the hockey stick. The hockey stick has been shown to be true by numerous proxies and observations.

 

You are citing one tree as some sort of problem.... that is cherry picking of data.

[retep]

Can I get a 'whooosh' please people

 

YAD061 is the most influential tree in the world. In fact if carlsberg made trees...

 

Wiki is still in the shade, and wilting.

[Wildcat]

Come on Wiki, google it, unless of course you already know what it is, and how it was used to fudge the hockey stick...

 

Some more info on the nonsense that you have been reading in the blogosphere from your denial sites.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

[convert]

Some more info on the nonsense that you have been reading in the blogosphere from your denial sites.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

 

So your 'source' for refuting the evidence is realclimate. Hardly an impartial source is it.

[Wildcat]

So your 'source' for refuting the evidence is realclimate. Hardly an impartial source is it.

 

You haven't presented any evidence just a reference to a tree from Yamal.

 

I have found plenty of bizarre websites making absurd claims about it. I can't go refuting them all and realclimate appears to have the background to the story all handily in one nice clearly readable page, with references.

 

You may not like the source because you disagree with it, but unlike denial websites it doesn't restrict debate and does allow reasonable comments from anyone. A huge contrast with litigious deniers like Monckton and Watts that you prefer despite every example you have sourced from having been shown to be rubbish... Like for example retep's example of Abraham's backing down on his critique of Monckton that is still there hosted on his website and that thanks to retep suggesting looking at wiki I now know is being supported and defended by his university.

 

So what is your claim about YAD061 and cherry picking? And what significance can one tree have when compared with the huge wealth of proxy data and temperature readings that support a large increase in temperature of the last few deacades? Who cherry picked it? So far as I am aware... it was McIntyre who as realclimate puts it:

 

McIntyre has based his ‘critique’ on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. People have written theses about how to construct tree ring chronologies in order to avoid end-member effects and preserve as much of the climate signal as possible. Curiously no-one has ever suggested simply grabbing one set of data, deleting the trees you have a political objection to and replacing them with another set that you found lying around on the web.

 

Was this the point about cherry picking you thought you were making?

[convert]

You haven't presented any evidence just a reference to a tree from Yamal.

 

I have found plenty of bizarre websites making absurd claims about it. I can't go refuting them all and realclimate appears to have the background to the story all handily in one nice clearly readable page, with references.

 

You may not like the source because you disagree with it, but unlike denial websites it doesn't restrict debate and does allow reasonable comments from anyone. A huge contrast with litigious deniers like Monckton and Watts that you prefer despite every example you have sourced from having been shown to be rubbish... Like for example retep's example of Abraham's backing down on his critique of Monckton that is still there hosted on his website and that thanks to retep suggesting looking at wiki I now know is being supported and defended by his university.

 

So what is your claim about YAD061 and cherry picking? And what significance can one tree have when compared with the huge wealth of proxy data and temperature readings that support a large increase in temperature of the last few deacades? Who cherry picked it? So far as I am aware... it was McIntyre who as realclimate puts it:

 

 

 

Was this the point about cherry picking you thought you were making?

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/ross-mckitrick-sums-up-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-in-the-financial-post/

 

Steve and I showed that the mathematics behind the Mann Hockey Stick were badly flawed, such that its shape was determined by suspect bristlecone tree ring data. Controversies quickly piled up: Two expert panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media followed the story around the world.

 

The expert reports upheld all of our criticisms of the Mann Hockey Stick, both of the mathematics and of its reliance on flawed bristlecone pine data.

…

 

Most of the proxy data does not show anything unusual about the 20th century. But two data series have reappeared over and over that do have a hockey stick shape. One was the flawed bristlecone data that the National Academy of Sciences panel said should not be used, so the studies using it can be set aside. The second was a tree ring curve from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, compiled by UK scientist Keith Briffa.

…

 

But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself!Had these been added to Briffa’s small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.

 

 

Lets have a look at what's been said @ the Register:-

 

At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's mystery is no more.

 

From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.

 

In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked.

 

Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

[Worjackie]

It looks to me that this argument will never end. Each side will find lots of evidence supporting its view online, while the other will attempt to discredit either the evidence or the organisation behind it.

 

Personally I tend towards the skeptics camp for two reasons. Mainly that the arguments in favour of manmade climate change appear flimsy and inconclusive but also because too many people arguing in favour of it have ulterior motives (Al Gore in particular, who was just another failed politician until he came up with the "inconvenient truth" film he's made millions out of.

[Wildcat]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/ross-mckitrick-sums-up-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-in-the-financial-post/

 

But you know how unreliable Watts is... I don't think you have produced a single article from his website that isn't flawed and I have detailed the way he continues to publish information that he knows has been proved to be false.

 

I am being lazy but I have better things to do, so lets look at what Wiki says:

 

Also in 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper questioning the statistical methods used in the Mann et al paper, and there was continued debate on these issues. Hans von Storch regards that paper as of little consequence, and believes his paper of 2004 to be the first significant criticism.[5] At the request of Congress, a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[6] U.S. Rep. Joe Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported the view that there were statistical failings, although their report has itself been criticized on several grounds.

 

More than a dozen subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.[6]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

 

Rather different from the claims made in the article.

 

Lets have a look at what's been said @ the Register:-

 

Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

 

Do you know what "Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions B" is supposed to refer to?

 

Because their claim that the Yamal dataset is based on 12 trees is utterly bizarre, and isn't something that even McIntyre has claimed. The 12 trees are trees that McIntyre didn't like and removed from a dataset of 100s of tree cores.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

 

Perhaps you might show me where McIntyre has made the claims that that the register is making?

 

Briffa himself observes:

 

We wish to stress that McIntyre himself has made no such assertions. At no time does he suggest that either of his versions of the chronology represents general Yamal tree-growth changes "more realistically" than in our earlier work. However, his original posting has been interpreted in this way by others, both on the Climate Audit website and elsewhere. Some postings on Climate Audit, notably that by Ross McKitrick (comment no. 7), strongly imply that the data used in the published versions of the Yamal chronology were deliberately selected in order to manufacture misleading evidence of a recent tree-growth increase in this region. Subsequent reports of McIntyre's blog (e.g. in The Telegraph, The Register and The Spectator) amount to hysterical, even defamatory misrepresentations, not only of our work but also of the content of the original McIntyre blog, by using words such as 'scam', 'scandal', 'lie', and 'fraudulent' with respect to our work.

 

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

 

I note you complain about my sources being biassed, most recently realclimate. Do you have any similar evidence of bias to the ones I repeatedly have given you, aside from you simply not liking what they say?

[convert]

I' d suggest that you take a look at the 800 peer reviewed papers listed here.

 

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html