Climategate 'hide the decline' in depth explanation by Stephen McIntyre 1/3

[Aanthanur]

what does that liar mean wit disgising? it was not disgised at all, it was a known thing to do and was published in peer reviwed literature as early as 1995. Either he is just ignorant or a blatant liar. maybe both.

[dman1311974]

gobal warming fraud

[Diamonddavej]

To summarise - Temperature proxies based on tree rings give a mistaken appearance of falling global temperatures since 1960. It ran counter to expectations & trustworthy weather station measurements that show a resent steep rise in global temperatures (see e.g. Berkeley Earth Project results).

The UK scientists removed what they felt was unreliable post-1960 tree ring proxy data, and replaced it reliable direct temperature data from weather stations. They hid this "trick" from the public.

[Androidoful]

@Diamonddavej yeah, thank God we have such trustworthy weather stations going back for 1000 years so we can check the whole reconstruction against them ... it would be awful if the same reconstruction that is clearly unreliable after 1960 would be just as unreliable before that, phew! /sarc

really? REALLY? is this what you're going to claim? That the reconstruction that has been SHOWN to be unreliable for over 40 years is somehow magically reliable for 1000 years? Oh my, those alarmists :O

[Diamonddavej]

@Androidoful No need to get so defensive, just summarised the 3 videos you uploaded, interesting viewing.

Good point. Either, pre-1960 tree ring proxies are unreliable & should be disregarded, based on 40 years of weather station data (which you also deem unreliable). Or post-60s tree ring proxies are disturbed by anthropogenic effects e.g. deforestation, drought, acid rain, land use changes etc. The latter appears more likely, there's very little pristine forest free of human interference.

[Androidoful]

@Diamonddavej Sorry, it's pretty hard to not get "defensive" when you get people claiming the same reconstruction which has been shown to be unreliable for over 40 years can be somehow safely considered reliable before that and used to support to restructure THE WHOLE FREAKING SOCIETY based on some wild unsupported speculation of "anthropogenic effects" without ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER! I thought we were talking science here? I'm sorry, it really makes me mad this disregard for logic and reason!

[cristop5]

@Androidoful In the light of the research I linked you about the demonstrated effects of CO2 in reducing outgoing long wave radiation over the last few decades, the concomitant increase in downward refracted radiation over the last few decades, and the night vs day heating trends - all of which point to CO2 - in future you should reconsider using terms such as "wild unsupported speculation ".

Unless we're not talking science here after all.

[L571J]

@Diamonddavej The BEST paper is based on the same data as shown in the original studies, it just utilizes all of it. It is hardly surprising it came to the same conclusion given it is the exact same data. There are two other things that the paper pointed out.

1. Ocean surface temp data needs to be added before a conclusion of global warming can be reached.

2. There is no link in the paper between the warming seen and human activity. It does not even try to make that connection at this time..

[L571J]

@Diamonddavej The problem with your response here is that it fails to consider that the temperature sensor data may be wrong. NASA and the NCDC have both identified a number of sensors that do not function well-enough for a conclusion to be drawn. So, the tree rings may be right all along and unaffected by human activity. It is quite possible the temp is stable based on that information and that the sensors are wrong. Bottom line, we need better data than the crap we have.

[Diamonddavej]

@L571J "So, the tree rings may be right all along and unaffected by human activity."

First, that is an assumption not based on evidence.

Second, that would mean trees are right and several other data sets are wrong. Occam's Razor calls on us to choose the parsimonious theory, that simply the one tree ring data set is wrong for post-1960, and the precipitous post 1960 temp rise is real. Indeed such a rapid temp rise would neatly explain the unusual behaviour of tree rings since the 1960s.

[L571J]

@Diamonddavej Of course it is an assumption, no different from the assumption that tree rings ARE affected by human activity. Your second point is invalid because you fail to consider the reliability of the other data sets. Remember too that stalagmites and other data sets agree with the tree rings and not the instrument data, suggesting the tree rings are more likely to be accurate.

[Diamonddavej]

@L571J "Your second point is invalid because you fail to consider the reliability of the other data sets."

The other data sets e.g. BEST, show a rapid and frightening rate of global warming post-1960.

[L571J]

@Diamonddavej BEST data has yet to be through peer review and from early comments it seems there are many issues with the reliability of the data. Remember it is based on the same data as previous studies, just analyzed differently. The statistics may or may not be correctly applied, so we will see what the outcome is. The other thing to keep in mind is the following:

1. The temperature increase is less than 1C, hardly "frightening"

2. BEST points out that the data says nothing about cause.

[Diamonddavej]

@L571J You might find these papers useful, they talk about tree rings showing an apparent cooling trend.

The phenomena is restricted to high latitude Russian Taiga forest, and it is likely erroneous.

Briffa et al., 1998. Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature 391(6668), 678-682.

Esper et al., 2010. Trends and uncertainties in Siberian indicators of 20th century warming. Global Change Biology 16(1), 386-398.

[L571J]

@Diamonddavej I'll take a look at those this weekend. I think I read the first, but I cannot completely remember. I appreciate the references though. I'll get back to you after reading those and we'll continue the discussion.

[Diamonddavej]

Hold on. Stalactites & tree rings are proxies. Proxies are constructed by determining a relationship between e.g. weather station/borehole temp. & a property exhibited by stalactites or tree rings. This property must vary with temp. e.g. Temp. v's delta-13C.

Since proxy data is derived, direct data is usually more convincing.

That said, I'd like to see a paper that shows a correlation between tree rings & stable isotopes for post-1960 e.g. the paper "Stable isotopes in tree rings" is a start.

[Diamonddavej]

@L571J That said, since we are dealing with probability, not absolute certainty. Few things in science are certain, Laws. So you're welcome to your scepticism. But neither can be categorical with our beliefs.

Sceptics can express doubt but not opinion, whereas I tend to express a opinion based on partial data & probability. Indeed, scientists are trained to deal with partial knowledge, something the general public is not at all accustomed to.

See: Ascent of Man: Knowledge or Certainty

[L571J]

@Diamonddavej I know what I am talking about and the first thing scientists are trained to do is evaluate the reliability of their data. Unreliable data is useless and cannot be used to make predictions. As such, the climate data is useless for making predictions. Many colleagues have expressed this very same view.

In science there is fact and there is hypothesis. Hypothesis becomes theory when it is supported by facts gleaned from evidence that is reliable. We do not have that here.

[wimahlers]

@Androidoful,

,

So you really trust the MWP, which is based on proxy data. And at the same time you claim proxy data is not reliable?

really? REALLY? is this what you're going to claim?

[jordapen]

Stephen McIntyre deserves the Order of Canada. I like his stand on not accusing somebody of fraud and not being angry. Last fall during a presentation I made on climate change called Climate Change: A Cloud of Deception, I presented it without anger and without disparaging remarks towards politicians. It was extremely well received.