You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Vindication for science: EnviroMENTALists are lying about Kyoto
2003-11-05
EFL
This has been a nightmare of a year for aficionados of the Kyoto Accord. After Canada’s ratification of the treaty in late 2002, environmentalists had every reason to believe that few climate experts would dare continue to publicly oppose Kyoto’s science, Russia would quickly ratify the accord and it soon would become international law.
But that didn’t happen. Vlad likes the idea of warmer weather. I suspect that the Rooskies have seen through the lies as well.
Of these, none may have the long-term impact of the paper published yesterday in the prestigious British journal Energy and Environment, which explains how one of the fundamental scientific pillars of the Kyoto Accord is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data and a biased selection of climate records.
Enviros (read commies) lied?? Say it ain’t so!
The paper’s authors, Toronto-based analyst Steve McIntyre and University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, obtained the original data used by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia to support the notion that the 20th-century temperature rise was unprecedented in the past millennium. A detailed audit revealed numerous errors in the data. After correcting these and updating the source records they showed that based on Mann’s own methodologies, his original conclusion was flawed. Mann’s original version resulted in the famous "hockey stick" graph that purported to show 900 years of relative temperature stability (the shaft of the hockey stick) followed by a sharp increase (the blade) in the 20th century (see graph). The corrected version of the last thousand years actually contradicts the view promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and removes the foundation for claims of 20th-century uniqueness.
Maybe it contradicts it because of the crazies running the show out of Europe want to dismantle what industrial might the U.S. may have left.
To understand the significance of the McIntyre/McKitrick announcement, it is important to consider how our understanding of long-term climate history has evolved over the past decade.
I have a pretty good idea of how science ran amuck, funded by many of the same socialists who supported Clinton in the 90s.
In recent years, however, the case for solar variations being the 20th century’s major climate driver has become much stronger, much to the consternation of Kyoto supporters. After all, if long before human-induced GHG emission became significant, temperatures were considerably higher than today, there would be little reason to think today’s temperatures were anything unnatural. This was especially true since long-term solar records indicated that both the MWP and LIA were closely correlated with changes in solar activity, and the output of the sun has indeed been increasing during the past century’s 0.6C warming. Supporters of the GHG-induced warming hypothesis desperately needed a "smoking gun" to prop up the need for Kyoto.

Among the many mistakes in Mann’s paper, some appear blatant, some simply careless apparently due to clerical errors (for example, allocating measurements to the wrong years, "filling" tables with identical numbers for different proxies in different years, etc.). In many cases, obsolete source data was used that have since been revised by the originating researchers. As an example of their numerous "truncation errors," Mann’s Central England Temperature series stops without explanation at 1730, even though data are available back to 1659, thus hiding a major 17th century cold period. Similarly, Central Europe data are truncated at 1550, rather than 25 years earlier, for which the data are available, the effect being to remove the warmest data in the series. Of course, no one with an understanding of climate history really believes there was a dramatic temperature spike in the middle of the Little Ice Age. Yet Mann’s data and methodology actually supports such a notion, completely contradicting his contention that there was merely a gradually cooling between 1000 AD and 1900.
Well, that is what you get for partying with the Green aparatchiks and not watching what you are doing. This is all a nice way of saying the work was sloppy and possibly politically motivated.
Posted by:badanov

#10  Arctic ice has exactly zero impact on sea levels, unless it somehow becomes thick enough or large enough that it grounds. Last time that happened, it also accumulated over most of North America and Europe.
Antarctic and Greenland glaciation does matter. My understanding is that the critical balance is snowfall versus sublimation. Increased sea temperatures actually shift that balance towards thicker ice.
Posted by: Dishman   2003-11-5 5:57:57 PM  

#9  I hope the sea levels drop again so I can find some decent spear points.
Posted by: Shipman   2003-11-5 4:28:40 PM  

#8  A key requirement of the scientific method is that the results must be reproducible by others when the same procedure is used. Example: cold fusion, which was never reproduced by other scientists under controlled conditions.

When McIntyre & McKitrick attempted to do this (with Mann's help, incidentally), and were unable to reproduce the results using the same methodology used by Mann, they decided to conduct an audit of Mann's data and found many discrepencies in it. After fixing those errors and redoing the analysis, the results were still fundamentally different -- the supposedly unique increase in temperatures in the 20th century isn't unique, after all.

Mann's response (summary "you're all wet"), and the authors' response to *that* can be found on-line at this location. Although the original paper is pretty technical, the critiques & responses are quite readable. I'd suggest reading just the first couple sections of the original, then go to the linked critiques...

If you're interested, that is...
Posted by: snellenr   2003-11-5 2:20:18 PM  

#7  Isn't it true that something like 97% of the CO2 comes from Natural sources? (I.e. cow burps, the earth itself, etc....).
Posted by: CrazyFool   2003-11-5 2:19:02 PM  

#6  Mercutio, you need to do a bit more research. According to a couple of major scientific sites, the ice in Antarctica is THICKENING, not thinning. The Arctic "melt-down" happens from time to time - say every 33 years or so, due to variations in the solar output.

Kyoto was a blatant attempt to destroy US productivity, which is why the majority of the burden to "reduce CO2" fell on the US, while the third-world nations, some whose CO2 output is almost the same as that of the US, got a pass.

Two very good sites for information about CO2 and Climate change are Envirotruth (http://www.envirotruth.org) and CO2 Science Magazine (http://www.co2science.org/). Most of the stuff published "proving" global warming is hokum, exposed by these two sites. There are many, many other sites also devoted to proving/disproving global warming. These are the best, IMHO.

Sea levels do change, but the current changes, if any, are not caused by man-induced 'global warming'. The SUN plays 99% of the role in climate change, as demonstrated by more than thirty independent studies.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-11-5 2:07:30 PM  

#5  Yeah - bad math, so what?

In case no one noticed, both icecaps are melting hand over fist. The weather in Tacoma isn't going to be that great when it's 30 feet under water, though with Tacoma, that'd be an improvement.
Posted by: Mercutio   2003-11-5 1:56:00 PM  

#4  See my comments on solar flares.
Enviros tend to ignore the blindingly obvious.
Posted by: Dishman   2003-11-5 12:38:55 PM  

#3  I live in the Tacoma area and have just been through the most fabulous spring and summer. If this is Global Warming, bring it on. Sadly PST has brought with it a very cold snap, Oh well. If I could bring back the Ice Age would you all still love me. Damn, gotta go$
Posted by: Lucky   2003-11-5 12:29:37 PM  

#2  Ummm, you might head over to Calpundit, where there is a different view (scroll down, might in his archives by now): apparently the original authors have responded and have said that these guys are all wet and made some fundamental errors. Apparently that's true.
Posted by: Steve White   2003-11-5 11:39:06 AM  

#1  Vlad likes the idea of warmer weather.

So do I. I rather relish the thought of being able to scoot around on my motorcycle more days out of the year.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2003-11-5 11:00:03 AM  

00:00