Free Frank Warner

Tiger Woods drives car into tree, is taken to hospital

This doesn't sound good, except that while they're calling today's Florida accident "serious," it doesn't appear they kept him at the hospital.

It's possible police called his injuries serious because Woods' face was cut badly and everything looked more serious than it was. We'll see. Facial cuts can be serious.

A 2:25 a.m. crash into a fire hydrant and a tree?

Frank Warner

Mann and McIntyre: It's all about the tree rings

Bottom line: The global warming debate is over tree rings.

Scientists have counted on tree rings to give them a record of global temperatures, particularly for the 20th century, but also for earlier centuries for which tree samples can be found. Generally, the wider and denser the tree rings, the warmer the year was.

But that works only for the years up to 1960, according to Penn State's Michael Mann, a climatologist and global warming believer. Then, for some not-completely-explained reason, Mann says, from 1961 on, tree ring density has not been a reliable indicator of temperatures.

Explanation needed. Mann says pollution, rainfall and other factors seem to have rendered tree-ring analysis useless since 1960. Steve McIntyre, the mathematician and global warming skeptic, says Mann and other climatologists have not explained why tree rings suddenly didn't work, and until they can explain that, scientists cannot blindly accept the premise that tree-ring temperature studies were ever valid. This question affects most major studies on global warming.

The "hide the decline" in Phil Jones' Nov. 16, 1999, e-mail referred to a temperature chart that hid the declining reliability of tree-rings after 1960. The chart, prepared by Jones using numbers from Keith Briffa, apparently shows temperatures from 1402 to 1960, as reflected in tree ring studies, and then tacks on actual thermometer readings for the years 1961 to 1998.

Both Mann and McIntyre confirmed this yesterday. According to skeptic McIntyre, the "hiding" may not have been intentional deception, but it was misleading all the same. McIntyre also said Jones has not yet fully explained why tree rings were a good measure until 1960, but a bad measure after 1960.

Hockeystick blade. This matters because 20th century temperatures are the "blade" of Mann's famous "hockeystick" chart. The "hockey stick" is different from the diagram that was discussed in the 1999 "hide the decline" e-mail, but the two charts have a similar shape -- showing the 20th century to be the warmest in at least 1,000 years.

In the case of the "hockey stick," the tree ring data and data from ice core and coral studies showed 20th century temperatures rising to 1980, when the studies end. But for other reasons, skeptics say Mann's chart is wrong. Skeptics say his "hockey stick" relies on tree-ring data that are calculated incorrectly to show that "blade" going up from 1900 to 1980. (After 1980, the chart uses thermometer readings, which continue the upward course. That's the only direct similarity between Mann's chart and Jones' diagram.)

Mann says the National Academy of Sciences reviewed his "hockey stick" chart and vindicated his work in 2006. However, it's hard to tell exactly what the National Academy of Sciences thought of his calculations. It found the chart "plausible," but said:

"substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that 'the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.'"

Test and re-test. I have to admit, I had no idea until yesterday how central this tree-ring question was to the global warming debate. And I don't know who it will take to sort out whether the planet is warmer now or in the year 1200. (If it was warmer in 1200 and humans survived, the warming might not be so serious now, unless the atmosphere is being primed recklessly for even higher temperatures.)

Every study can be tested, and the pressure is on to make sure we get these studies right.

Frank Warner

Phil Jones on Phil Jones

Steve McIntyre quotes Phil Jones:

In the Dec. 3, 2008, e-mail to Jones’ fellow global warming scientists, Jones says:

About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.

In the Nov. 24, 2009 Guardian, Jones says:

We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

Seems to be a contradiction.

Frank Warner

What does the global warming scandal mean?

The global warming scandal, as revealed in the more than 1,000 once-secret e-mails, means that, in the last 10 years, the people who we’ve been told were our best climatologists have found no evidence the world has continued to warm as they predicted, and they have carried on with the same urgency they felt when things really were heating up in the 1990s.

Frank Warner

How does Nebraska escape the recession?

Should we all be growing corn and sorghum?

Click here to see how unemployment grew over the last two years. The animation ends two months ago, but you get the idea.

Then ask yourself: How do Nebraska, north Alaska, Montana and North Dakota keep every worker working?

The first answer: They had no housing bubble, and they had sensible bankers.

Nebraska also has ethanol and hardworking farmers. North Alaska has oil, some of which actually is pumped. Montana and North Dakota's economies are balanced on expanding agriculture and oil exploration.

Energy production, sound banking, competition and freedom are fundamental to any economy. Get those basics right, and the other industries can grow with jobs enough for everyone. That map could look a lot healthier.

Frank Warner

Obama is learning, right?

More than a year after Barack Obama’s election to the presidency, I have to admit I have no idea where he’s going, either on domestic affairs or foreign policy. Right now, let’s look at foreign policy.

Obama’s recent trip to Asia marked the first time in my life that I sensed the world’s center of political and financial power had shifted from the democracies to the dictatorships. This is not an encouraging feeling. This is a Depression.

Lost stature. From Germany, Der Spiegel observes:

The Asia trip revealed the limits of Washington's new foreign policy: Although Obama did not lose face in China and Japan, he did appear to have lost some of his initial stature.

In Tokyo, the new center-left government even pulled out of its participation in a mission which saw the Japanese navy refueling US warships in the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghanistan campaign. In Beijing, Obama failed to achieve any important concessions whatsoever. There will be no binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has been postponed. Sanctions against Iran? Not a chance. Nuclear disarmament? Not an issue for the Chinese.

The White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the question of human rights in China. The president, who had said only a few days earlier that freedom of expression is a universal right, was coerced into attending a joint press conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, at which questions were forbidden. Former US President George W. Bush had always managed to avoid such press conferences.

Thrill gone. The “Saturday Night Live” skit two days ago said it all. The Chinese are lecturing America about our reckless economic policies, including Obama’s health-care plan, and ignoring America’s calls for human rights. Obama looks helpless.

Now even Chris “Leg Thrill” Matthews is comparing Obama’s approach to Jimmy Carter’s malaise.

I can’t explain the “change” in our foreign policy. Where is listening to tyrants, but never acting against them, supposed to get us? Why do we expect concessions from our adversaries when we give away our chips before the bargaining begins?

No bargainers. America is not just any other nation. In many ways, we’re the only chance half this world has to remain free, and only chance the other half has to escape its chains. Our freedom continues to give us the strength to stand up to tyranny, but we need the will to use it.

I wonder if the Obama administration’s cynicism is so deep it can’t bring itself to demand anything, even fundamental human rights. I also wonder if this administration’s lack of real-world skills, specifically in bargaining contracts, has left its diplomats at a permanent disadvantage. (On the domestic front, I have a similar worry about its unfamiliarity with balancing budgets.)

We owe it to any president to give him a full year to test his policies, make adjustments and crystallize his approach as chief executive. Jan. 20, 2010, isn’t far. To this point, the learning curve looks flat.

Frank Warner

Global warming game: Reading the tree rings

John Hinderaker at Power Line gives us a tightly wrapped case study of how the newly exposed global warming e-mails betray a casual attitude toward accuracy in parts of academia.

Hinderaker’s case study: The clash between Keith Briffa and Steve McIntyre over Briffa’s finding that tree rings in Siberia prove that late 20th century temperatures rose so fast they could be charted sharply upward, like the handle of a hockey stick.

McIntyre, a global warming skeptic, reviewed the data presented by Briffa, a global warming theorist, and concluded Briffa might have “cherry-picked” trees in Yamal, Siberia, to assure that the global temperatures reflected by the tree rings were consistent with an earlier “hockey stick” chart, developed by Michael Mann.

In other words, McIntyre alleged that, considering the inconsistencies in Briffa’s data, Briffa might have ignored intentionally the Siberian trees that contradicted the theory that Briffa wanted to prove. McIntyre wanted Briffa to explain how he chose the trees that he sampled. He also wanted to know how many trees Briffa studied.

No loose cannons. According to the secret e-mails revealed two days ago, the response by the global-warming establishment to McIntyre’s challenge was panic and something worse than panic.

The “scientists” made little effort to check Briffa’s data. But even without confirming any of Briffa’s records and methods, the “scientists” announced falsely that they knew Briffa’s findings were valid. They did not know.

Reports Hinderaker:

The alarmists’ effort to respond to McIntyre was complicated by the fact that Briffa had been ill and undergone surgery, and was then recuperating. So several of them wrote to Briffa’s co-author, Tim Osborn, for advice on how to respond to McIntyre’s critique. Osborn replied on September 29, 2009:

Hi Mike and Gavin, thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith. I’ll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He’s been off almost 4 months now and won’t be back for at least another month ....

Regarding Yamal, I’m afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that I am 100% confident that “The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result” is complete crap. Having one’s integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil....

Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn’t be directly contacted about this....

So: these scientists don’t really have any idea whether McIntyre’s critique of Briffa’s work is correct or not. Even Briffa’s co-author professes ignorance. There is one person they could approach who could “shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal.” But they don’t do it. Why? Because “he can be rather a loose cannon and shouldn’t be directly contacted....” In other words, his loyalty to the cause of climate alarmism may not be absolute.

A silly game. Hinderaker’s case study goes into much more fascinating detail on the false certitude, and you really should read it all.

Frank Warner

Great pictures of Afghanistan

Take a look.

Poland is watching

My post on the global warming e-mails is getting hundreds of hits from Poland. In Eastern Europe, people actually seem to debate this stuff.

Frank Warner

Note: The commenter is correct. Poland really is in the center of Europe. Unless you don't count Russia.

15 global warming e-mails, summarized

Bishop Hill has put together a helpful list, summarizing a sample of the more than 1,000 recently disclosed Climate Research Unit e-mails written by global warming theorists.

Here are just 15 of the Bishop Hill summaries. Note that the scientists don’t sound particularly eager to release complete data or hear from skeptics (or as the British spell it, sceptics). The numbers are the cataloged e-mail numbers.

1. Michael Mann discusses how to punish a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

2. Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!

3. Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series...to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)

4. Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)

5. Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘‘‘contain’ the putative Medieval Warm Period”. (1054736277)

6. Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)

7. Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)

8. Reaction to [Steve] McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL [Geophysical Research Letters]. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

9. Prior to AR3 [the IPCC Assessment Report No. 3] [Keith] Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)

10. Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI [the new Freedom of Information law]. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)

11. [Andrew] Revkin quotes [Hans] von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick. This back in 2004.(1096382684)

12. Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)

13. Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure [Gavin] Schmidt put together to refute [Lord Christopher] Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)

14. Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)

15. David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)

You may click on an e-mail number to read the original text.

Frank Warner

* * *

E-mail example 16: Global warming game: Reading the tree rings. This is e-mail 1254230232.

E-mail example 17: From Charlie Martin on hiding from Freedom of Information Act rules:

Email 1107454306 [Feb. 2, 2005] is particularly interesting. In it, Dr Jones writes:

The two MMs [McKittrick and McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

What makes this interesting is that the CRU, in later years, announced that they had “inadvertently deleted” their raw data when they responded to an FOIA request from … McIntyre.

Search: You can search through the alleged e-mails by clicking here and typing a few key words in the search box. Try "hide" and "data."

* * *

See Also: Wider selection of Climategate global warming e-mails.