[ale] [OT] Psychology of Denial about Climate Change

[Greg Clifton]

As a point of clarification, my 'amen!' and comments were to the application
of the religious framework to the alarmists message rather than the
allegation of fraud.
GC

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Doug McNash <dmcnash at charter.net> wrote:
> > Jim,
> >
> > I thought you declared and end to this?
> > Nevertheless I will still play as long as there is no objection from the
> list.
> > ALE has a long tradition of OT threads, most of which I have found
> educational and amusing in the past.
> >
> > So far as far as I have been able determine, the only provable fraud has
> been been with the handling of the Briffa tree ring data.  The tree ring
> measurements are used as a proxy for temperature for the recent period
> before the invention of the thermometer.  But this proxy shows a decrease in
> global temperature since 1960.
>
>
> As I understand it, the issue is more complex than that and I don't
> think it rises to the level of "fraud".
>
> The tree ring analysis from Briffa in the early 90's originally
> apparently matched the temp record from 1850-1990 fairly well, but it
> also showed the temps being even higher during the MWP than during the
> 1990's.
>
> (MWP - Medieval Warming Period about 1000 years ago.  When Greenland
> was actively being farmed, etc.)
>
> Apparently the emails show a discussion led by Dr. Jones that
> temperatures being that high during the MWP is in disagreement with
> either other data, or with CRU preconceived ideas.
>
> (The emails I have read are not clear on why Dr. Jones felt the MWP
> was cooler than today, just that the MWP being warmer than today
> seemed wrong to Dr. Jones.)
>
> Apparently based on Dr. Jones feedback Briffa went back and adjusted
> the tree ring analysis process to get the MWP era into what Dr. Jones
> felt was a more appropriate temp range.
>
> (That may have been perfectly reasonable if other trusted temperature
> proxies showed the MWP to be cooler than today.  More investigation
> into why the tree ring analysis was modified will surely be
> forthcoming as climategate proceeds.).
>
> The scientific issue was that after Briffa modified the process for
> interpreting tree rings to "properly" address the MWP, it caused a
> divergence in the post 1960 temps.
>
> The solution the CRU came up with 10+ years ago was to simply drop the
> tree ring analysis at 1960 and graft on land based thermometer based
> temperatures.  The end result was the infamous hockey stick of
> temperatures covering the last 1000 years that was published in 1998
> or so.  That hockey stick chart has been widely used/referenced and
> was part of the IPCC report in the early 2000's.
>
> OTOH, It was dropped from the 2007 summary report.  I believe because
> further analysis showed the modified Briffa series was not as accurate
> as it was originally believed to be.
>
> Specifically if you look at the "IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers"
> report <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf>
> you can see that a chart showing temps for the last 1000 years is
> simply no longer provided.
>
> I assume that leads most readers (politicians) to assume the old
> hockey stick is still valid.
>
> Greg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20091214/99c3f298/attachment.html