Proxies in climate science - The hockey stick theory is DEAD.

A lot of studies around the climate of the past and prediction of the future is based on the study of proxies. Here a quick definition from Wikipedia.

In climate research, a proxy variable is something that is probably not in itself of any great interest, but from which a variable of interest can be obtained. Temperature proxies such as tree ring widths and ice core layering are used by climatologists to create a temperature record.

To put it in simpler terms... You read the size of tree rings from old trees and deduce with complex equations, past temperatures of the climate where that tree lived.

So how complex is it, for example, the study and extraction of temperature data from tree rings? I invite you to read on the subject here. To put it simply, VERY complex and VERY hard to verify.

On top of that, it seems that the raw data from ring tree proxies used has been "cherry picked" to graph past temperature of the climate.

Again from Wikipedia...

Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

In RED the cherry picked data, in black the full data set.

It will be interesting to follow this subject to see if those studies stand to scrutiny. You can follow more closely here : here and here.

UPDATE: The Bishop Hill blog did a fantastic job of putting this complex story in layman's term. I urge you to read it. You will understand quickly how the data was cherry picked to fit the anthropogenic global warming theory.

THE HOCKEY STICK THEORY IS DEAD
In RED the cherry picked data, in black the full data set.

Not a lot of Mass Media has had the courage to publish this new finding... Maybe time will help. But here a few who did:

James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph blog) How the global warming industry is based on one massive lie.

Chris Horner (National Review online) Mann-made warming confirmed

Andrew Orlowski (The Register) Treemometers: a new scientific scandal.

Tom Fuller (San Francisco Examiner) New data questions claims of accelerated warming

Source

Rap video of the week...

Reference

News around the world on global warming hysteria

Not Evil Just Wrong is the film Al Gore and Hollywood don't want you to see. It reveals the true human cost of Global Warming hysteria.


The producer asking hard questions and the age of stupid film presentation:


Can we trust the data...

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Sun and oceans cycles vs temperatures, chasing for a more accurate global trend.

Good News: Climate sensitivity less than believed

According to this new paper, the climate sensitivity has been exagerated by a factor of 6.

MIT climate scientists Richard Lindzen and collaborator Yong-Sang Choi soon-to-be published paper (Geophysical Research Letters, American Geophysical Union) pegs the earth’s “climate sensitivity”—the degree the earth’s temperature responds to various forces of change—at a value that is about six times less than the “best estimate” put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The smaller the climate sensitivity, the less the impact that rising carbon dioxide levels will have on the earth’s climate. The less the impact that CO2 emissions will have on the earth’s climate, the less the “problem” and ability to reverse the “problem.”

To put it simply, it means that the models using a climate sensitivity of 6x more than normal would overshoot a lot on the predicted temperature of the planet, like this graphic shows.

Source

United to combat climate change

This is the motto used by the UN for the upcoming Copenhagen conference on climate change. Not so long ago, in the 70's, we where calling this global cooling, then later, it became global warming and now it is called climate change.

The United Nations of the world are now embarking in the goal of combating climate change!

Does this make sense?

Climate change is by definition true, the climate is always changing and always will. From daily changes, seasonal changes, to other cyclical changes like the 11 years sun cycles and 3 types of orbital cycles (Orbital_eccentricity, the tilt angle of Earth's axis of rotation , precession). From other long term cycles like the path of the earth cycling around the galaxy center and passing through different concentration of cosmic rays.

Can we influence Climate Change?

I see this as a physical impossibility, climate change is here to stay and is necessary for the evolution of life on earth. We have adapted and will adapt to climate changes in the future.

So what are they talking about?

It is clear that the target of the UN IPCC and other "green" groups on "combating" climate change stems from the perspective that CO2 concentration in the air is mostly responsible for the "sudden" climate changes we have seen since humans are pumping large amount of CO2 in the air by our burning of fossil fuels.

So the main theory is that CO2 by humans (call Anthropogenic CO2 or Anthropogenic global warming AGW) and temperature are the main cause of all that BAD climate change. The more CO2 in the air, the more the temperature changes... Or wait... The more the climate changes... Up or Down... Left of right?

The main reason it is now called climate change, instead of global warming is that the CO2 keeps going up and the global average temperature of the atmosphere if stable of maybe going down. So calling it global warming does not make sense anymore, since we have seen for the past 10 years or so a flat trend in temperature changes and it seems that we are going to see a 10-30 years global cooling.

The main goal now is to cut the "greenhouse gas emissions" by large amounts worldwide.

Does this make sense? Is CO2 the cause of temperature changes?
Obviously the relation of CO2 concentration in the air and temperature changes does not seems to be related. So why do we still want to cut CO2 concentration in the air if CO2 is not the main driver? Well we need to combat climate change! Why?

So this is the main question that remains, WHY are we doing this if the CO2 is not responsible for climate change. CO2 is going up in an almost constant rate and temperature is going up... down... left... right...

I have documented in this blog many aspect of the climate change debate, many aspect of why some groups (like Al Gore) are pushing this. I will not repeat everything here, but I invite you to browse the blog if you want to know more.

It took me years of research to convince me that what is happening has nothing to do we humanity pumping CO2 in the air. I have tried to document most of my research, but many more exist online.

Does this mean we can keep burning fossil fuels?
ABSOLUTELY NOT... Humanity now rely on fossil fuels for almost 90% of our energy needs. Humanity needs this to survive, but we must strive to find other sources of energy that will not be gone in a generation or two, that is more dense, that will last for thousand of years and most importantly we need an energy source that will not put pollutant in the air we breathe.

We have this energy source now, it is used in 450+ power stations in the world, France is powered by it for around 80% of their needs. The world need more of it NOW before it is too late.

Comments?