A cornerstone of the Kyoto agreement is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data, and excessive and arbitrary selection of climate records, as revealed by a new scientific study.
This year has been a nightmare for supporters of the Kyoto Treaty. After Canada ratified the treaty in late 2002 - despite strong opposition from many political scientists and Canadians - the environmentalists had every reason to believe that few climate experts would dare to publicly oppose Kyoto's science, and that Russia would ratify the protocol quickly and immediately become international law.
Instead, as demonstrated by the World Climate Change Conference held in Moscow, was exactly the opposite. The growing number of scientists who deny the scientific basis, have been made public - increasingly often - their protests to the media, as that new and groundbreaking studies continue to appear in scientific journals, shaking the foundations of the crumbling building in Kyoto.
of all new published studies that could have a lasting impact on climate science was published on 28 October, in the prestigious British scientific community, Energy and Environment, which explains how one of the cornerstones of Kyoto Accord is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data and choice biased and arbitrary climate records.
The authors of scientific studies, Steve McIntyre, Toronto statistical analyst, and professor at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Ross McKitrick, got the original set of data and information used Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, to support the notion that the rising temperatures of the 20th century was unprecedented in the last millennium. A detailed audit information used by Mann revealed numerous errors in the data. After correcting the error and have updated the source records, McKitrick and McIntyre used the same methodology used by Mann to show that the original ending was totally wrong.
Mann's original version resulted in the famous graph of "hockey stick" that purported to show 900 years of relative temperature stability in the world (the handle of the bat), followed by a sharp rise (the face bat) during the Siglo 20 (see graph in Figure 1). The corrected version of the last 1000 years actually contradicts the view promoted by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change United Nations), and removes the foundation for the belief that Century 20 was unique among the millennium, and the more all hot.
 |
| Figure 1: The chart was published by Mann as the IPCC report |
To understand the significance of the announcement of McIntyre / McKitrick, it is important to consider how that in the past has changed our understanding of long-term climate history of Earth. In its "Assessment Report" of 1990 and 1995, the IPCC clearly identified two major weather events of the last millennium, as confirmed by thousands of scientific studies of geologists in the Quaternary Period published in the last 100 years - a "Medieval Warm Period" (PCM) from about 800 to 1300 AD Christian, who was almost 2 ° C warmer than today and a period of much colder known as "Little Ice Age" (LIA) from the 1300 to 1900.
The effects of these events were felt around the world with compelling evidence in both PCM and the LIA periods in Europe, North America, Africa, the Caribbean, Peru, the tropics of Bolivia, and even China, Japan and Australia. As part of our output LIA, scientists agreed that there was a gradual warming over the 20th century, although the reasons for this warming led to an angry dispute whether those responsible were the greenhouse gases or changes in solar activity and cycles .
In recent years, the case of solar variations, as the leading climate models and their changes, it became much stronger - to the dismay of the proponents of Kyoto. After all, if long before the emission of greenhouse gases produced by man is again significant, temperatures were considerably higher than today, there is little reason to believe that Today's temperatures are a bit unnatural. If temperatures in the late Precambrian were only 1.5 º C to 2 º C higher than now, and the atmosphere having a concentration of between 6,000 and 2,000 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide, it is quite logical to think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as important as claimed by the IPCC, and that a doubling of concentrations (from 370 to 650 ppm) could lead to a "runaway greenhouse effect" and cause disasters on Earth. There was no such effect in the Precambrian, there will not be in 100,000 years. But the more pressing question for scientists today is the problem of where to put the horse and carriage:
What came first?
Does it increase provoked CO2 increased the temperature? Or, as many scientists believe (and have shown), the temperature rise - for reasons not well established, but attributed the Sun - caused the increase of CO2? In many scientific studies, the increase in CO2 is "delayed" between 200 and 400 years after the temperature rise!
The almost exclusive influence of solar activity on Earth's climate is especially true, given that long-term records of solar cycles suggest that both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period were closely correlated with solar activity, and Sun's energy output has been increasing during the light 0.6 ° C warming over the last 100 years. The promoters of the induced warming hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse gases desperate need of a "smoking gun" to promote the urgent need to implement the Kyoto Protocol.
this 'smoking gun' in a manner which was very convenient for Mann, Bradley and Hughes in his study of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "MBH98" ) where they reduced the PCM and PEH to events that did not exist outside of Europe, and developed their famous "hockey stick." Mann's study concluded by saying, "Our results suggest that the last part of the 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the last millennium, The 90's were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year, with a moderate level of confidence. "
course Kyoto fans were delighted. Despite going against most of the scientific literature, and the fact that the study MBH98 was only one of the thousands of possible constructions of the temperatures of the millennium, the advocates of warming hypothesis anthropogenic greenhouse gases began to promote the results of Mann as the definitive history of global temperatures. Within a year, the hockey stick became the new orthodoxy, appearing in all the official documentation of the world. See corrected chart of the climatic history of the last millennium in the figure below:
 |
| Figure 2: temperatures according to "The Hockey Stick" (red) and actual temperatures of the last millennium (blue), according to review and update made by McIntyre and McKitrick. |
However, the scientific review process that must follow all the scientific studies before publication failed to study the case of MBH98 . The temperature data prior to 1900 were not directly measured, as was done after that year, when they started using thermometer readings from weather stations on land. Instead, pre-1900 temperatures were calculated based on measurements "proxy" , ie studies of natural phenomena as the growth of tree rings or coral, or lake sediments and ocean floor, indicating the temperature at certain periods of history.
Therefore, mixing the two different types of data together without significant overlap to reach dramatic conclusions, did not offer any guarantee and must have been seriously challenged by Authors of the study. Chris de Freitas of the School of Geography and Environmental Sciences, University of Auckland, New Zealand, sums it up well; "The 'hockey stick" Mann is nothing more than a mathematical construct vigorously promoted by the 2001 Report IPCC, to affirm the notion that the change of century temperatures 20 were unprecedented. "
Scientists Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard Institute for Astrophysics, joined in March this year to criticism of "hockey stick" of Mann, when they said they had shown that after careful analysis of 240 studies 'proxy', that both the PCM and the LIA had been a truly global climatic phenomenon extension, not restricted to Europe and North America. The results of Soon and Baliunas study coupled with the McIntyre / McKitrick published this week, could end the debate forever, permanently burying Kyoto Protocol and the absurd hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming .
carefully examining the information and data from MBH98, and computational methods, McIntyre and McKitrick found serious errors as temperature indices computed from them are quoting McIntyre, "unreliable and can not be used for comparisons between the current climate and of previous centuries." Mann's claims that "temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century were unprecedented," and confident assertions by the IPCC and Environment Canada that the 90 "were probably the decade hot , and "1998 was the warmest of the millennium," lack any scientific basis.
Among the many errors in the study Mann, some are glaring, others just careless because, apparently, transcription errors (eg, assignment of measurements to the wrong years, 'filled' tables with identical numbers for different 'proxy' in different years, etc.. ) In many cases, we used outdated information sources that have been revised since then by the original investigators. As an example of its many 'truncation errors' of Central England temperatures given by Mann was arrested without explanation in 1730, even though the data are available until 1659, thus hiding a major cold period of Century 17. Similarly, data from Central Europe are truncated in 1550, instead of 25 years earlier, for which data are available, the effect is to remove the data series to more heat.
Of course, anyone with an understanding of climate history really believe there was a dramatic spike in temperature in the middle of the Little Ice Age. However, the data and methodology used by Mann really support that notion, completely contradicting his argument that there was simply a gradual cooling between 1000 and 1900.
Correcting and updating database 'proxy' used by Mann and his coauthors, and then repeating the methodology of Mann, McIntyre and McKitrick showed that the MBH98 study actually shows that the trend of temperatures in the late 20 in the northern hemisphere is not exceptional when compared with previous centuries. In doing so, they demonstrated that the so-called "rigorous review" the 2001 IPCC report failed miserably, giving highly flawed work central prominence in the 2001 IPCC report.
As a result, governments around the world are now taking some of the most costly ever faced decisions based on the full acceptance of a report IPCC we know now that is basically wrong.
Eduardo Ferreyra President of FAEC
Science Foundation Ecology Argentina
0 comments:
Post a Comment