Witam wszystkich,

W związku z tym, że zmarła moja mama nie mam narazie ani czasu ani nastroju do dłuższych publikacji. Z obowiązku publikuję zatem “surówkę” mojej korespondencji ze znanym rosyjskim ekspertem w zakresie paleoklimatologii, prof. Rashidem Hantemirovem z Uniwersytetu Jekaterynburskiego.

Szybko podsumowując dla osób nie znających angielskiego:

1) Prof. Hantemirov wyraża nizadowolenie z powodu medialnego szumu, jaki powstał na skutek afery “Climategate” i uważa, że “stado szakali oddaje się orgii grzebania w czyiś papierach”.

2) Prof. Hantemirov przyznaje, że jego poglądy ewoluowały i obecnie sądzi, że stosowana przez niego metoda badania starożytnego klimatu za pomocą pomiaru zmian szerokości geograficznej północnej ściany lasu jest mniej adekwatna niż metoda wyznaczania zmian granicznej wysokości zalesienia oraz – w szczególności – pomiarów rocznych przyrostów drzew za pomocą badania struktury słojów. W ten sposób prof. Hantemirov przyznaje naukową rację prof. Briffie.

3) Podobnie, Hantemirov przyznaje, że ze względu na przyjętą metodykę tzw. standardyzacji metoda Briffy lepiej oddaje trendy długookresowe niż metoda badania słojów, którą zastosował Hantemirov w pracy z 2002r.

4) W dalszej korespondencji prof. Hantemirov wyjaśnia, że prof. Shiyatov nie może mi odpowiedzieć ze względu na nieobecność i brak czasu.

5) Stwierdza też, lecz nie rozwija tematu, że wypowiadam się zbyt kategorycznie, kiedy zauważam, że duża część poglądów na temat zmian klimatycznych opiera się na mocno niepewnych danych, wątpliwych modelach i jeszcze bardziej niepewnej interpretacji.

6) Uważa też, że IPCC nie ogranicza się do wykazywania znaczenia gazów cieplarnianych dla ocieplania klimatu i kwestia np. wylesiania planety i wpływu tego procesu na klimat jest przez Panel traktowana równie poważnie (ja jednak nadal tak nie uważam).

7) Prof. Hantemirov uważa ponaddto – i to sądzę jest bardzo ważne, gdyż moim zdaniem mamy tu do czynienia z pewnym paradygmatem wśród naukowców zajmujących się ekologią – że obniżanie emisji CO2 (oraz stosowanie się do pozostałych rekomendacji IPCC) jest właściwą strategią rozwoju bez względu na to, czy znajduje to wsparcie w danych naukowych czy nie. Imperatyw “sustainable growth” jest zatem dla ekologów, a przynajmniej dla prof. Hantemirova, czymś immanentnym, niezależnym od realiów klimatu czy gospodarki. Jest wyborem drogi życia i rozwoju, który uważa się za właściwy bez względu na inne okoliczności.

Pozdrawiam,
ZS

============================================

> > Dear Sir,
> > Enormous mediatic noise have risen after unknown hacker has stolen and
> > published internal communication of East England University scientists,
> > including your correspondence with prof. Keith Briffa.

Especially unexpected and abominable for me is the fact that some
people like a pack of jackals gone into undisguised raptures burrowing
into letters of other’s.

> > I represent the independent public commentary portal in Poland “TXT”
> > (http://tekstowisko.com) and I am investigating the impact of the
> > released papers on the public perception of the climate change.
> > I kindly ask you then – if feasible – to comment on the following:
> > *1) What is your position about visible differences between conclusions
> > presented in multiple prof. Briffa’s publications and your solid results
> > what were summarized as follow?:*
> > /From 1800 BC to 1300 BC, a continuous deterioration of climate
> > conditions was underway. Then warming followed that lasted for the next
> > four centuries. A further onset of worsening conditions began at 900 BC
> > and continued to 100 BC, with the least favourable period occurring in
> > the period 400-300. From the second half of the first century BC to the
> > end of that millennium, generally warm conditions prevailed. The most
> > favourable punctuated by conditions during the last two millennia
> > apparently occurred between about AD 500 and 1400, though punctuated by
> > cooler summers in 600-700 and at about 1000. Following the second half
> > of the 15th century, climatic conditions again became worse, though the
> > second half of the 16th marked the next period of warming, which then
> > changed to cooling in the 19th century, culminating in the present
> > period of relative warmth./

I suppose it is your summary of some final sentences from our paper
published in Holocene (2002). This is the description of our earliest
version of northern tree-line reconstruction in Yamal peninsula stated
in terms of temperature changes (lacking something better). Treeline
is another proxy and has some disadvantages. I incline now to opinion
that shifts of latitudinal tree-line is not good indicator of summer
temperature changes in centennial scale. Shifts of larch treeline can
have a lag in moving to the north because of low rate of seeds
distribution, and lag in moving to the south because of surviving some
trees in especially favourable microsites, for instance; rate of
treeline shifts depends on mosaicity of growth condition within
region; etc. This is especially appreciable for latitudinal tree-line
in comparison with altitudinal one.
Moreover, after considerable updating of reconstructions in Yamal
using a quantity of samples collected and dated during last decade we
got timberline reconstruction that differs from earliest version by
shorter periods of southward position, or even absence of shifts to
the south during some periods. So, I’m of opinion that for this region
ring-width is more appropriate proxy for temperature reconstruction in
decadal and centennial scale in comparison with timberline.

> > It seems that while your results are consitent with historical data,
> > medieval iconography and archeological artifacts of relatively WARM
> > medieval Eurasia, prof. Briffa used to picture a completely different
> > view of COLD medieval Eurasia and show current warm period as
> > exceptional and most probably – of anthropogenic origin.
> > *2) How do you find that results delivered by prof. Briffa in the form
> > of famous “hockey stick” have found tremendous political reception while
> > your results seem to remain neglected by the mainstream media?*

It was clarified already many times that our ring-width
reconstruction, published in 2002, in contrast to Briffa
reconstruction, doesn’t reflect long-term fluctuations because of
standardization method used for eliminating of age-depended trends.

> > I would sincerely appreciate your prompt and comprehensive feedback on
> > the subject as I believe the critical part of the public is really
> > interested in authoritative scientific commentary on these important
> > issues. Your answer will be particulary interesting as you were closely
> > collaborating with prof. Briffa, so it is worth to understand what is
> > the actual nature of so dramatically different views of past climate
> > while you all used to rely on similar, partly overlapping data record.
> > I would like you to understand your answer will be published on TXT,
> > possibly as a consecutive uncensored text.
> > Best regards

Best regards

Rashit Hantemirov

Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144
Russia

============================================

Dear Zbigniew Szczesny,

Stepan Shiyatov was out of his office last days. Today he is on-site.
However he said that he has a lot of urgent work and unfortunately
couldn’t find time to answer you during nearest weeks.

Thank you

Best regards

Rashit Hantemirov

Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144
Russia

============================================

Dear Zbigniew Szczesny,

your second portion of questions is rather far from my scientific
interests. Therefore answers would reflect my personal, not
professional, point of view, i.e. it will be just twaddle. Therefore I
add only short comments.

> > Sir,
> > Thank You vary much for this update and information on Mr. Shiyatov’s
> > unavailability.
> > Of course – I will only publish correct version of your feedback.
> > Sir – I have only one polite request – if feasible. Would You be so kind
> > and give our TXT readers a short impression of Your current point of
> > view on so called Medieval Warm Period?
> > I believe this is of critical importance for the overall attitude of the
> > public towards global warming issue. I strongly believe most of the
> > people neither deny global warming phenomenon nor doubt it may have
> > serious consequences. But the people are often left with no clue about
> > the following important points:
> > 1) Our understanding of climate changes is based on highly uncertain
> > sources:
> > – climate models are extremaly non-linear and used to produce completely
> > different results on slightes change of their parametrisation or change
> > of the model itself.
> > – denrological analysis or alluvial studies are both highly dependent on
> > even slightest change of raw data or/and statistical interpretation of
> > these data.

I wouldn’t be so categorical

> > So, if it even looks like the margin of error we used to apply to these
> > results seems to be more than uncertain – should we really take these
> > results seriously or sould we rather treat them as yet another
> > “interesting hypothesis”.
> > 2) Presuming there were similary warm periods in the past (like The
> > Holocene Climate Optimum or The Medieval Warm Period)
> > – should we really read current warm period “of sole anthropogenic origin”?
> > 3) If we decided to read current climate warming “of anthropogenic origin”
> > – is greenhouse gasses emission a sole reason of it or are there some
> > other important factors affecting global climate, e.g. global
> > deforestration?

As far as I know deforestation is considered in official reports and
makes, according them, an important contribution to warming

> > – if so – why all means and measures seem to be limited to CO2 emission
> > and nobody seems to care about these other factors?

It seems you distort a little the IPCC recommendations

> > – consequently – is costly CO2 emission reduction really the right
> > stategy of global warming counterfight?

I think the emission reduction (as far as many other IPCC
recommendations, like reforestation, reduced deforestation, water-use
efficiency, energy efficiency, more fuel efficient vehicles, shifts to
public transport systems, non-motorised transport (cycling, walking),
etc.) is the right strategy, irrespective of reality and reasons of
global warming

> > 4) If we already found past warm climate periods “optimal” (like The
> > Holocene Climate Optimum)
> > – should we really counterfight global warming?
> > – perhaps gross global warming impact on the Earth and mankind would be
> > positive, (e.g. opening vast areas of Siberia for agriculture) and
> > actually it would be better not try to prevent global warming occurence
> > only to save the coast of Bangladesh and prevent yet another hurricaine
> > in the Mexican gulf?
> > I know these are complicated issues and a lot of them, but perhaps You
> > would like to comment as a renown scientist deeply involved in the
> > subject of climate sciences? I strongly believe there were not so many
> > cases the people could actually read or listen discussion on these
> > problems as it seems the media prefer more easy and mediatic Denialist
> > vs. Advocats quarrel.
> > Best regards,
> > Zbigniew P. Szczesny

Best regards

Rashit Hantemirov

Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144
Russia