Mann's hockey stick wrong?
Jim McGinn
The particular "hockey stick" shape derived in the MBH98 proxy
construction - a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early
15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to
1980 - is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and
incorrect calculation of principal components
Here a letter from Prof. Fred Singer (also a "climate sceptic") with more
information:
Dear All
There is an additional point I would like to add to Aynsley Kellow's
excellent letter:
1. As Knutti/Joos/Stocker correctly point out, the IPCC conclusion, i.e.,
that the 20th century was the warmest in 1000 years, is based on the
instrumental record of surface temperature and NOT on the Mann et al
reconstruction. They should have said "SOLELY based" since Mann et al
stopped in 1980, at which point their temperature did not exceed the
Medieval values.
2. Mann et al do not show proxy temperatures beyond 1980. When I
questioned him regarding this matter 3 years ago, he replied by e-mail that
there were no suitable data available. I had found several proxy records
[1-6] that extended well beyond 1980; none showed higher temperatures.
3. I have now examined several dozen more [7]; again none show higher
temperatures.
4. I conclude therefore that -- contrary to Mann -- many data sets ARE
available; as far as can tell, none agree with the instrumental
SURFACE record; all agree with the satellite and balloon data that show NO
appreciable atmospheric warming trend after 1979.[8]
5. Hence, the IPCC conclusion is not tenable
Best Fred Singer
************************
References:
1. Briffa K.R. 2000.Annual climate variability in the Holocene:
Interpreting the message of ancient trees. Quat. Sci. Rev. 19: 65-73 ;
2. Broecker W. S. 2001. Was the medieval warm period global? Science 291:
1497-1499;
3. Dahl-Jensen, D., Mosegaard, K., Gundestrup, N., Clow, G.D., Johnsen,
S.J., Hansen, A.W. and Balling, N. 1998. Past temperatures directly from
the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 282: 268-271;
4. Jacoby et al 1996 Mongolian tree rings and 20th century warming, Science
273: 771-773; Jacoby and DArrigo 1997 Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 8351;
5. Naurzbaev, M.M. and Vaganov, E.A. 2000. Variation of early summer and
annual last two millennia inferred from tree rings. J Geophys Res 105:
7317-7326;
6. Thompson L. G. et al. 2000. Ice core evidence for climate change in the
tropics. Science 289: 1916, Fig 6B
7. Singer, S.F. 2003. Science 301, 595 .
8. A full account is submitted for publication elsewhere.
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
1600 S. Eads St., Suite 712-S
Arlington, VA 22202-2907
e-mail: sin...@sepp.org Web: www.sepp.org
Tel: 703-920-2744
Coby Beck
news:ZhZWf.54115$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> http://winnetou.lcd.lu/physique/global/hockey_stick/hockeystick01.html
> 4. I conclude therefore that -- contrary to Mann -- many data sets ARE
> available; as far as can tell, none agree with the instrumental
> SURFACE record; all agree with the satellite and balloon data that show NO
> appreciable atmospheric warming trend after 1979.[8]
Of course, now the satellite and balloon records have had their errors
uncovered and Mann was clearly using good judgement.
> 5. Hence, the IPCC conclusion is not tenable
>
> Best Fred Singer
Hence, Fred Singer is as honest and reliable as he was on the ozone hole and
the tobacco-cancer link.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:n70Xf.10155$Ph4.792@edtnps90...
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:ZhZWf.54115$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> http://winnetou.lcd.lu/physique/global/hockey_stick/hockeystick01.html
>
>> 4. I conclude therefore that -- contrary to Mann -- many data sets ARE
>> available; as far as can tell, none agree with the instrumental
>> SURFACE record; all agree with the satellite and balloon data that show
>> NO
>> appreciable atmospheric warming trend after 1979.[8]
>
> Of course, now the satellite and balloon records have had their errors
> uncovered and Mann was clearly using good judgement.
References?
Coby Beck
He asks for references, I am providing them. Will Jim have a meaningful
response? HA! Not likely.
> References?
Actually, it is already many years since the satellite analysis showed
actual cooling. Until recently though, one of the analyses of tropospheric
temperatures did show very little warming and was in direct contradiction of
model predictions.
However, it turns out that some (more) errors were uncovered and the MSU
Satellite ( http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html ) temperature
analysis now shows warming (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements ) well in
line with model expectations. This was a validation of the models and the
death knell of the "earth is not warming" crowd. Beware of zombies, like Jim
McGinn.
See this discussion as well: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
HTH!
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
> He asks for references, I am providing them. Will Jim have a meaningful
> response? HA! Not likely.
>
>> References?
>
> Actually, it is already many years since the satellite analysis showed
> actual cooling. Until recently though, one of the analyses of tropospheric
> temperatures did show very little warming and was in direct contradiction
> of model predictions.
> However, it turns out that some (more) errors were uncovered and the MSU
> Satellite ( http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html ) temperature
> analysis now shows warming (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements ) well in
> line with model expectations. This was a validation of the models and the
> death knell of the "earth is not warming" crowd. Beware of zombies, like
> Jim McGinn.
So, you'd have us focus on corrections in the data and you'd have us ignore
the fact that the model fails to indicate anything but a very modest
increase in global temperature.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Here a letter from Prof. Fred Singer (also a "climate sceptic") with more
> information:
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enerprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.
SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.
In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.
Fred Sing is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.
SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known convict.
FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Kock and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
INDUSTRIES, which itself has been convicted of the largest fine in
corporate history -- $35,000,000.00 for pollution of air, lands and
waters of six states.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37628-2004Jul8.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/981d17e5ab07246f8525686500621079?OpenDocument
Charges G. Koch co-founded CATO Inst., David Koch sits on it's board
watching the family interests, and SINGER, MILLOY, MICHAELS, LINDZEN &
BALLING are all organized crime figures on the payrolls of a known
ORGANIZED CRIME ring founded by known ORGANIZED CRIME Lords.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html
Dr. Singer. SEPP's address is 4084 University Drive, Suite 101,
Fairfax, VA 22030 (Tel. 703-934-6932).
http://snipurl.com/og9j
Results about 172 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 Koch.
http://snipurl.com/og9o
Results about 92 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 SEPP.
http://snipurl.com/og9s
Resultsabout 149 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030
IHS | "Institute for Humane Studies"
http://snipurl.com/oga1
Results about 581 for Fred Singer Koch IHS | "Institute for Humane
Studies".
http://snipurl.com/ogai
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer
http://snipurl.com/ogay
Results about 333 for "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A
Critical Examination".
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> References?
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> So, you'd have us focus on corrections in the data and you'd have us ignore
> the fact that the model fails to indicate anything but a very modest
> increase in global temperature.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>http://winnetou.lcd.lu/physique/global/hockey_stick/hockeystick01.html
>
>The particular "hockey stick" shape derived in the MBH98 proxy
>construction - a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early
>15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to
>1980 - is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and
>incorrect calculation of principal components
>
>Here a letter from Prof. Fred Singer (also a "climate sceptic") with more
>information:
>
Singer runs a right-wing think tank; he's a paid lobbyist.
>Dear All
>There is an additional point I would like to add to Aynsley Kellow's
>excellent letter:
>1. As Knutti/Joos/Stocker correctly point out, the IPCC conclusion, i.e.,
>that the 20th century was the warmest in 1000 years, is based on the
>instrumental record of surface temperature and NOT on the Mann et al
>reconstruction. They should have said "SOLELY based" since Mann et al
>stopped in 1980, at which point their temperature did not exceed the
>Medieval values.
>2. Mann et al do not show proxy temperatures beyond 1980. When I
>questioned him regarding this matter 3 years ago, he replied by e-mail that
>there were no suitable data available. I had found several proxy records
>[1-6] that extended well beyond 1980; none showed higher temperatures.
>3. I have now examined several dozen more [7]; again none show higher
>temperatures.
The 1990s were the hottest decade on record, ever.
>4. I conclude therefore that -- contrary to Mann -- many data sets ARE
>available; as far as can tell, none agree with the instrumental
>SURFACE record; all agree with the satellite and balloon data that show NO
>appreciable atmospheric warming trend after 1979.[8]
Total lie. All data -- balloons, satellites, ground -- show warming. Either
you're lying, or this is way out of date. Which is it? Are you dishonest or
just incompetent?
Go to sepp and see what they say their mission is, who their funders are.
>Tel: 703-920-2744
>
>
>
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
> Singer runs a right-wing think tank; he's a paid lobbyist.
Your point?
> The 1990s were the hottest decade on record, ever.
Yeah, so?
>
>>4. I conclude therefore that -- contrary to Mann -- many data sets ARE
>>available; as far as can tell, none agree with the instrumental
>>SURFACE record; all agree with the satellite and balloon data that show NO
>>appreciable atmospheric warming trend after 1979.[8]
>
> Total lie. All data -- balloons, satellites, ground -- show warming.
> Either
> you're lying, or this is way out of date. Which is it? Are you dishonest
> or
> just incompetent?
So, anybody that doesn't agree with you is a liar?
Jim
Lloyd Parker
2. The models, which are used to predict future warming, are quite good.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>>So, you'd have us focus on corrections in the data and you'd have us
>>ignore
>>the fact that the model fails to indicate anything but a very modest
>>increase in global temperature.
>>
>>
> 1. Data shows the earth is warming; no model needed.
> 2. The models, which are used to predict future warming, are quite good.
We're supposedly supposed to take your word on this? Guess again.
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>>
>> Actually, it is already many years since the satellite analysis showed
>> actual cooling. Until recently though, one of the analyses of
>> tropospheric temperatures did show very little warming and was in direct
>> contradiction of model predictions.
>> However, it turns out that some (more) errors were uncovered and the MSU
>> Satellite ( http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html ) temperature
>> analysis now shows warming (
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements ) well in
>> line with model expectations. This was a validation of the models and the
>> death knell of the "earth is not warming" crowd. Beware of zombies, like
>> Jim McGinn.
>
> So, you'd have us focus on corrections in the data and you'd have us
> ignore the fact that the model fails to indicate anything but a very
> modest increase in global temperature.
I offered this in response to your "the satellite and balloon data that show
NO appreciable atmospheric warming trend after 1979". You are wrong, that's
all. Admit it, learn it and move on!