Michael Mann says hockey stick should not have become 'climate change icon'
The scientist behind the controversial 'hockey stick' graph has said it was 'somewhat misplaced' to make his work an 'icon of the climate change debate'.
The U.K. Telegraph has this report that the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph developed by then UVA Scientist Michael Mann now has Mann saying it should have never become the icon it has...
.
This is the guy, along with the University of Virginia which continues to refuse to release the data that he used to come up with this "icon" and big part of Al Gore's argument regarding global warming...
.
In fact it is Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli who has been trying to get the data regarding the Hockey Stick model but the University of Virginia now refuses to release the data, which came as the result of numerous TAXPAYER FUNDED grants that Mann , to the Attorney General...
.
But the graph was questioned by sceptics who pointed out that is it impossible to know for certain the global temperature going back beyond modern times because there were no accurate readings.
The issue became a central argument in the climate change debate and was dragged into the 'climategate' scandal, as the sceptics accused Prof Mann and his supporters of exaggerating the extent of global warming.
.
So where was the Professor Mann when his Hockey Stick model was being used without question or allowed "peer" review???...
.
The graph was used by Al Gore in his film 'An Inconvenient Truth' and was cited by the United Nations body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as evidence of the link between fossil fuel use and global warming.
.
If there is no doubt to the data and it's conclusion, Turn over the data?
And ask Gore about that @2 million he was worth once he left the VP spot to the $100 million he is worth now...
3 comments:
Think of it as the Rats jumping off the "Gore-Global-Warm" ship as it sinks!!!!
I currently reside in Vermont where they say it has gotten much more warm and humid. My theory is that temp rise may correlate to the increased reforestation of the state and the entire eastern third of the U.S. We went from burning wood 24/7 to coal and then to oil. Large areas were clear-cut or wiped out by disease ie; American Chestnut. Where one of these large trees died it was probably replaced by several trees. Vermont was only 20 percent forest at the turn of the century, now it is 75-80 percent forested. Forested areas give off 1&1/2 times more water vapor than open fields. Figures, since you could still have under-growth making the entire tree additional surface area to give off water vapor through transperation. Think of a rain shower, in the fields, the soil will capture much of the water. Unless it is a heavy rain, much of the rain will remain on the tree and quickly evaporate when the shower passes and the sun returns. That is when I say " the rain didn't even get through the trees", thus leaving the ground dry under the trees. WATER VAPOR IS THE #1 GREENHOUSE GAS. It would then makes total sense then that as we now only thin forests and put out forest fires that there would be a huge increase in water-vapor and thus facilitating warming. In addition, trees absorb the suns heat during the day and release it during the night. I have taken temp. readings in an open field and the side of a Maple tree that gets some sun. The tree was typically 5 degrees warmer than ambient temp. in the evening and close to the ambient temp in the A.M. The open field was approx. 100-120 degrrees in mid-afternoon, however, by early evening, once the field was shaded, it rapidly cools to below the ambient temp. and in the A.M. was approx. 5 degrees less than the ambient temp. The grass doesn't allow the suns heat to penetrate far so there isn't the heat absorption as there is by the trees. In Winter it is always warmer in the forests at night than in the open. Ask the deer who hold-up in the thicker areas. In addition, the first and last frost is in the open areas, not under trees, that is where you find dew. Regardless of being in the sun all day, the cut hay-field looses the heat to the atmosphere quickly and the dew becomes frost. Trees also slow the progression of cold air at the surface due to the ground-clutter that trees become at ground-level. Trees hold snow in their limbs which quickly melts and prevents the accumulation of snow in a blanket which reflects the sun, bare soil warms quickly. I'm not saying we have to cut down the trees, they absorb CO2 and produce oxygen. It also has to be remembered that in the night-cycle they can also give off CO2. In conclusion, the reforestation of the U.S. has to be considered. Vermonts climate scientist Allen Betts recently stated that the higher temps are causing the trees to transpire more, causing more water-vapor, thus more warming. Mr. Betts may have it backwards. If the open fields still existed as they were 100 years ago, the trees would not be there to give off more vapor and cause more warming. In another article he admits that as the trees leaf-out they give off more vapor and the ensuing clouds created prevent frost. This statement is then admitting that trees cause warming. Hope this makes people think about what is attributed to man or nature. H.J.Ziegler,Jr.,Poultney,Vt.
Outstanding and very well said...
There are MANY aspects to why the recent temps have risen at times and factors to consider. Water vapor, water temp, el nino, solar flares, cycles, increased urban areas, etc but many from the Gore-camp have ignored...
Thanks again for your thoughts...
Post a Comment