FWIW, I’ll send her a polite email with the address of this thread, as I have connections to both UA and W&M.

Cheers — Pete Tillman

Ms. Ababneh received Steve McIntyre’s original e-mail/s, knows about Climate Audit and the thread/s concerning her thesis, and indicated she does not want to be contacted about it. Sorry, but she has made it very clear that she is not receptive to inquiries from the CA community about her thesis.

Yes, to put it mildly, the waters of the Colorado River have been grossly overallocated because the original streamflow estimates failed to recognize that the Colorado River was experiencing its largest streamflows in centuries at the time it was initially measured. The Colorado River Compact of 1922 and some later treaties allocated 16.5 MAF or 17.5 MAF (million acre feet) of water between the upper river basin and the lower river basin, depending upon how the treaties are interpreted. Each river basin, upper and lower was to receive half of the 16.5 MAF, and the other 1 MAF was in dispute. These allocations were made based upon the 20 year average of 16.4 MAF of streamflow at Lee’s Ferry, Arizona in 1922. Subsequent measurements have averaged around 15.1 MAF, which meant the Compact of 1922 had seriously overallocated the water when compared to subsequent streamflow experience.

Later dendrochronological studies and reconstructions have reported much lower average streamflows ranging from as little as 13.0 MAF to as high as 14.7 MAF over time periods of 500 years to more than 1,200 years. These reports also describe low streamflows during the late 16th Century mega-drought resulting in as little as 9.1 to 12.9 MAF of water. To say the least, the initial failure to recognize the exceptional streamflows existing at the beginning of the 20th Century resulted in an entirely unrealistic and unreasonable treaty allocation of the water.

One source for this information is from the Website for the Colorado River Streamflow: A Paleo Perspective; Western Water Assessment, NOAA. This source describes the advent of dendrochronology, and it describes a number of related publications.

Thank you for the honest reply.

I’ll deal with doomsday scenarios separately. I”m just here for the science.

I will say that the belief that a piece of evidence somehow supports something that it does not, simply so one can sleep better, sounds a bit like hysteria.

Maybe a balanced series is a more appropriate choice for a reconstruction than a supervariance series, but that’s a different question.

Sorry if the story is equally clear in the A. sb to Graybill comparisons. Those are not presented here and I haven’t built those. But the top article is apples to oranges. There is something really interesting going on, but nothing that can be shown to be wrong n one step.

Why are some people so desperate for each new finding to be the “death knell” for this or that AGW theory?

Because too many manifestations of the AGW theory predict a “death knell” for civilization if their demands for radical societal change are not met.

Why shouldn’t skeptics celebrate if the science that predicts imminent catastrophe caused by everyday human activity is found wanting?

How about a script?
For the anti – AIT movie I am planning featuring Fred Thompson.

Sorry – no can do. The WGA and writers are on strike!!!

PS. Almost typed in “AGW” out of habit