Let us continue my objections to AGW / CC with no further delays.
OBJECTION: Hockey Stick: So the proponents of AGW / CC have a curve showing clear departure from the gently rising temperatures prior to man’s massive emissions of CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere. I will demonstrate several problems with this curve. The first one is that the study is paleo or type. Paleo studies contain more than one flaw, but his one is essential: they study the past. If a person makes a prediction into the future, then all those who would confirm or prove false the theory upon which the prediction is based must do is wait around a bit.
But predictions into the past are more difficult. We cannot wait until the past happens. The past already happened. And, unless Fred Flintstone happened to be keeping reliable records for our perusal during the time in which the predictions occurred, then we cannot ever truly know whether or nor our prediction was correct. Further, paleo studies tend to be of a certain type. . .
OBJECTION: Hockey Stick: The study is not only paleo, but also proxy. A proxy is a thing that is used to represent a different thing. In this case rather than using thermometers to measure temperature, tree rings are studied. But tree rings are not thermometers. Many different factors can influence a tree’s growth in both quantity and quality of ring development.
Certainly temperature can and will influence the growth of a plant. Temperature as a growth factor is not quite so simple as AGW / CC proponents would have you believe. However, a tree may not experience greater growth with an increase of temperatures if the temperature was already near the top of the optimal temperature range for that species. Plants respond to things other than temperatures: humidity – both atmospheric and soil, precipitation – rain snow; when, CO2 levels, pH – soil and atmospheric, insolation, blight, soil nutrition, and others. To state that wider and / or denser rings indicate higher temperatures is incorrect and another of these errors that would lead a person to wonder whether it exists due to incompetence or mal intent. A tree ring is a single track recording many channels, akin to a monaural recording of a blues group.
OBJECTION: Hockey Stick: Was a single species study*1, and therefore unlikely to contain any data useful for segregation of growth due to a positive delta T and any other potential factor.
OBJECTION: Hockey Stick: The hockey stick study was performed in one place: the Yamal Pennninsula. It may or may not indicate global anything.
OBJECTION: Hockey Stick: Data set. I am having a difficulty in finding current websites indicating exact numbers of trees in the Briffa study of Yamal trees. However, the numbers are approximately this: total number of trees cored: 252, number of trees whose data is plotted in study: 12, number of trees indicating anything like the hockey stick curve: 1*2
OBJECTION: Hocky Stick: Data set: The trees left out of the study biased the data in the direction of AGW / CC support. *3
OBJECTION: Hockey stick: The core data does not take into account the effect of Krummholz. *4
OBJECTION: Hockey stick: The Briffa team which conducted the Yamal Penninsula tree ring study which produced the famous “Hockey Stick” curve of global warming misused PCA software in such a way that led to the hockey stick. That is to say that used as the Briffa team used it, the software CREATES hockey sticks when fed random data! *5
OBJECTION: Hockey stick and other delta curves as related to atmospheric CO2 curves: The AGW / CC proponents tell us that increased atmospheric CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and that increases in atmospheric CO2 cause increases in Earth global temperature. However, evidence shows that positive delta T always precedes a positive delta CO2. *6 Thus far, no modeling of a forward, that is: positive delta atmospheric CO2 to positive delta T effect has ever been demonstrated correct. *7
OBJECTION: Hockey stick: Tor years, the Briffa Yamal team and Hadley CRU stonewalled – refusing to release basal data and source code despite requests. *8 Generally, in cases other than AGW / CC stonewalling is seen publically as prima facie evidence of malfeasance.
OBJECTION: Hockey stick: I do know that there have been a few, not many but a few, newer studies that would seem to confirm the hockey stick curve. However, the Earth is a ball nearly 8,000 miles in diameter. That is approximately 196,940,000 square miles. *9 That is a lot of territory and with climates from hot tropics and hot deserts to polar regions. From seas and lakes and rivers to deserts. From tall mountains to Antarctic dry valleys and then t deep caves. If one goes looking for it; if one deals with proxies; if one is in control of the interpretations, then one can find confirmation for nearly anything and everything. There is an immense difference between finding data and then fitting one’s hypothesis to it than looking for data to make a positive confirmation of one’s hypothesis. Remember the Creation Science problem that I referenced in an earlier blog in this series.
OBJECTION: AGW / CC models in general do not include the effects of water vapour as a greenhouse gas. *10
OBJECTION: Lack of solar data. Prior to launch of solar observing satellites such asSOHO, there was no way to study the Sun’s activity, Sun’s output, without looking through the earth’s atmosphere.SOHOwas launched in 1995. *11 Prior toSOHOgoing online there was scant usable data about the Sun. Even withSOHOin place, any gauging of solar output prior to its going online is questionable, therefore. . .
OBJECTION: When the AGW / CC hypothesis was initiated at during the 1970s could not reasonably eliminate solar variation from possible causes because sufficient data did not exist.
OBJECTION: In general: The people at work on AGW / CC are all pro that hypothesis which keeps them employed. What would a person who has spent his professional career do to replace AGW / CC income, if the folly of this “research” were to become so well known as to cast him out of work? Remember the wise words of Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
*1 Bristlecone Pine. Please note that other species were available and that Arctic Larch were cored. These other trees do not appear to have been used in the study.
*2 That tree is known by its designator: YAD 06, and the famous core is YAD 061
*3 Link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/ross-mckitrick-sums-up-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-in-the-financial-post/
*4 Krummhoilz, a term from the early 20th century. German; Krumm: bent or twisted, holz: wood. Trees growing in twisted, perhaps largely horizontal directions do not grow at the same rates as to trees whose growth is largely vertical and single stem. Link: http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/28/krummholz-and-the-yamal-chronology/
*6 Link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/ Now, how would that happen? Simple, the ability of water to dissolve carbon dioxide is inversely related to the temperature of the water. This is why one does not open a hot beer. Link: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03416.htm
*11 Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOHO_satellite