Re: Subduing the earth and misinterpretation

At 09:10 AM 4/26/2006, Rich Blinne wrote:

>"...My previous post gave the data behind the
>assertion that we are at unprecedented levels of CO2 right now. ..."

@ You have been duped. Your "data" is
flawed. See the 4 items below. ~ Janice

[1] "...observational data do not support the
sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they
seriously contradict it. Therefore, we should
free the world from the condemnation of becoming
extensively flooded in the near future. ..." ~
Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, Head of
Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm
University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the
INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal
Evolution, Leader of the Maldives Sea Level
Project
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm

*

[2] CO2 Science
Medieval Warm Period vs. Current Warm Period
Volume 9, Number 17: 26 April 2006
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N17/EDIT.jsp

D'Arrigo et al. (2006) note that the Northern
Hemispheric temperature reconstruction of Mann et
al. (1999), which is the one preferred by most
climate alarmists, "demonstrates minimal
temperature amplitude (e.g., during the 'Medieval
Warm Period' and 'Little Ice Age') while others
(Briffa, 2000; Esper et al., 2002; Cook et al.,
2004; Moberg et al., 2005) exhibit more pronounced variability."

Consequently, in an effort to determine the
reasons for this discrepancy, they assembled
mostly tree-ring width (but some density) data
from living and subfossil wood of coniferous tree
species found at 66 high-elevation and
latitudinal treeline North American and Eurasian
sites, after which they analyzed these data via
both Standard (STD) and Regional Curve
Standardization (RCS) detrending techniques, the
former of which (used by Mann et al.) does not do
a good job of capturing the low-frequency
variability that is required to accurately
compare the temperatures of periods separated in
time by many hundreds of years or more. In
addition, D'Arrigo et al. report that "the North
American data are much improved with new or
extended millennial-length records, and updates
of most of the data sets until at least the late
1990s." Also, they say they did not utilize the
long bristlecone pine data sets from Colorado and
California that Mann et al. employed, "as many
appear to portray a mixed precipitation and
temperature signal (in addition to a purported
CO2 fertilization effect)," and that they did not
use the Mackenzie Mountains, Boreal, Upperwright
and Gotland data sets utilized by Esper et al.
(2002) because they either "(1) did not
demonstrate a significant temperature signal on
the local to regional scale, (2) displayed
significant correlations with precipitation, or
(3) were located at lower latitudes than those
compiled for the present analysis."

D'Arrigo et al.'s STD and RCS Northern
Hemispheric (NH) temperature reconstructions
spanned the period AD 713-1995; and, as may have
been expected, they found that "the long-term
trends of the STD reconstruction most closely
match the Mann et al. (1999) and Jones et al.
(1998) series, whereas the RCS reconstruction
compares best with the Esper et al. (2002) and
Cook et al. (2004) series." This observation, in
their words, "validates the hypothesis (Esper et
al., 2004) that one reason for the relative lack
of long-term variability in the work of Mann et
al. (1999) was their use of standard detrending
procedures that removed low-frequency variation."
On this point they thus conclude that "the RCS
reconstruction is superior to the more
traditional STD method with regards to the
ability to retain low-frequency (centennial to multi-centennial) trends."

In comparing the temperatures of the Medieval
Warm Period (MWP) with those of the Current Warm
Period (CWP), based on the six longest (>1000
years) chronologies they analyzed, D'Arrigo et
al. concluded that "the recent period does not
look particularly warmer compared to the MWP."
However, they note that the mean of the six
series does depict a warmer CWP; but they
describe this apparent relationship as "a
bias/artifact in the full RCS reconstruction (and
likely in many of the other reconstructions)
where the MWP, because it is expressed at
different times in the six long records, is
'averaged out' (i.e., flattened) compared to the
recent period which shows a much more globally consistent signal."

Based on these findings, D'Arrigo et al.
correctly concluded that "not enough proxy
records yet exist for this time," i.e., for the
MWP. Nevertheless, they had to work with what
they had, and in doing so they found that "late
twentieth century warming exceeds peak MWP
conditions by 0.67°C when comparing decadal
averages (960-969 (reconstruction) = -0.12°C
versus 1991-2000 (instrumental) = 0.55°C [our
italics])." This conclusion, of course, is based
on an "apples and oranges" comparison; and the
three researchers report that "peak twentieth
century warmth for the period covered only by the
proxy data (1937-1946, 0.17°C) exceeds peak MWP
conditions by [only] 0.29°C," which is a
significantly smaller number than that obtained
by comparing the reconstructed and instrumental results.

A further confounding fact, according to D'Arrigo
et al., is the "apparent decrease in recent
temperature sensitivity for many northern sites
... with divergence from instrumental
temperatures after ~1986." So great is this
divergence, in fact, the late 1990s instrumental
temperatures are essentially a full degree
Centigrade higher than those of the proxy
reconstructions. Hence, the three researchers
were forced to conclude that "until valid reasons
for this phenomenon have been found, [we] can
only question the ability of tree-ring data to
robustly model earlier periods that could have
been similarly warm (or warmer) than the present."

In concluding their paper, D'Arrigo et al.
suggest that to ultimately resolve the issue of
the relative warmth of the CWP compared to that
of the MWP, "many long records from new NH
locations and updating of existing records to the
present are required." This is our position as
well; and that is why we have embarked upon our
Medieval Warm Period Project, where each week we
post the findings of a new experimental study
that either (1) quantitatively or (2)
qualitatively compares the warmth of the two
periods and/or (3) specifies the MWP's time of
occurrence. Only by acquiring a much greater data
base than what has been obtained to date will we
be able to conclusively determine whether CWP
temperatures are indeed unprecedented over the
past millennium, or whether they are the same as
- or cooler than - those of the MWP. And if
recent temperatures are not unprecedented, as we
believe to be the case in light of the analyses
we have seen to date, it should be clear to all
that whatever was the cause of the warmth of the
MWP could well be the cause of the warmth of the CWP.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso [To see References, click above link]

*

[3] A walk down memory lane:

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:07:26 -0500
To: "Kenneth Piers" <Pier@calvin.edu>, <asa@calvin.edu>
From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Jerry Falwell -- global warming is "junk science"

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1580480/posts>Greenland
Glaciers Melting at Faster Rate (Or ARE they?)
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1580480//^http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1630914&ad=true>ABC
News ^ | February 17, 2006 | Andrew Bridges
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1580480/posts

*

[4] Another walk down memory lane:

Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:25:09 -0500
To: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@adelphia.net>, <asa@calvin.edu>
From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: News clips of interest

[snip]

Summary

Politicized science is an inevitable part of the
human condition, but society must strive to
control it. Although history shows that
politicized science does much more damage in
totalitarian societies than in democracies, even
democracies are sometimes stampeded into doing
very foolish and damaging things. The Kyoto
Treaty, based on assertions that mankind’s
generation of carbon dioxide will cause global
warming, is an example of such a foolish and damaging thing.

The effects of the Kyoto Treaty, if the treaty is
enacted, are likely to be more like those of
Prohibition, than Lysenko’s biology. The
demonizations of rum and carbon dioxide have much
in common. In 1920, the U.S. Congress passed the
Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. This amendment, which prohibited
the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcoholic
beverages, was intended to rid the country of the
accidents, disease,and violence associated with those beverages. It didn’t.

It began a disastrous era that helped organized
crime to flourish as never before and nourished
contempt for the law that has not entirely dissipated today.

In 1933, the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the
Eighteenth Amendment, the only time in history
that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution has
been repealed. Demonization of anything is hard
to combat,since it is so easy to join the
supposed high ground of virtue, while scorning
those who go through the painstaking effort of
looking at the facts for themselves.

This was why it was so hard to stop the bandwagon
of prohibitionor Lysenko’s biology.

The same human motives that cause other problems
in our lives also drive extreme politicized
science. As the examples here show, a common
motive is the love of power and domination. This
was clearly one of the most important motives for
Lysenko. There is no surer way to build a
powerful bureaucratic empire in a democracy than
to promote a supposed peril and then staff up a
huge organization to combat it.

The intoxication of fame and glory is an
important motive, especially for the scientists
themselves. What bliss to be a sainted savior of
the planet, to be the provider of agricultural
abundance as communism dumps capitalism into the
dustbin of history, or to be a new Prometheus,
bringing the fire of cold fusion to desperate humanity!

Greed is often a motive. The University of Utah
was transfixed by the untold dollars they thought
would flow to the inventors of cold fusion.

The Enron Corporation, a politically correct
darling of many environmental advocacy groups,
was a stalwart supporter of the Kyoto Treaty to
limit carbon dioxide emissions. Enron envisaged
huge profits from the trading of emission rights.

Moreover, Enron’s holdings of natural gas, the
fossil fuel that emits the least carbon dioxide
per BTU of combustion energy, would also greatly
increase in value as the constraints of the Kyoto
Treaty began to hurt the coal industry.

One can go down the list of deadly sins of almost
any religion, and most can be found in politicized science.

This should come as no surprise, since scientists
are as fallible as anyone else in their personal lives.

We recall that the first biblical mention of
science (from “knowing” in Latin) occurs in the
story of Eve’s temptation by the Serpent, “Eritis
sicut Deus, scientes bonum et malum; Thou shalt
be as God, knowing good and evil.”

Science has always been associated with good and
evil, and it will always be a struggle to be sure that the good prevails." ~

Reality 101 ~ Janice
Received on Wed Apr 26 11:09:53 2006