More on the Hanno Wikipedia graph in the UN Climate Report

Guest post by Harold Ambler, TalkingAboutTheWeather.com

What started as a brouhaha in the blogosophere has turned into a minor embarrassment for the United Nations in the climate debates. As first reported on ClimateAudit.org, the origin of a graph used in last week’s UN climate report, published to coincide with the summit in New York attended by President Obama and other world leaders, was not an august team of scientists working around the clock, but rather Wikipedia.

The Hanno graph used by the United Nations Climate Change Science Compendium 2009, published last week to coincide with the summit attended by President Barack Obama and other world leaders.
The "Hanno" graph, from Wikipedia, used by the United Nations Climate Change Science Compendium 2009, published last week to coincide with the summit attended by President Barack Obama and other world leaders.

Perhaps equally surprising was the revelation that the graph’s author was not a climatologist, but rather an obscure Norwegian ecologist, Hanno Sandvik, who claimed no expertise regarding the data used in his graph. Misidentified in the UN report as “Hanno,” Sandvik politely distanced himself from the graph as the story unfolded. The UN report authors, meanwhile, had given a scientist they had never met or heard of the appearance of scientific legitimacy.

Was copying and pasting a Wikipedia graph drawn by a non-climatologist the best that the United Nations, with a staff of hundreds working on climate change using an annual budget in the hundreds of million dollars, could do? Evidently, it was. Sandvik himself appeared surprised.

‘My’ graph has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal since I am not a climatologist,” he wrote in an e-mail to TalkingAboutTheWeather.com. “The graph has been drawn using data that have undergone peer-review. That means that the graph is ‘mine’ only in a very restricted sense, viz. that I have drawn it – the underlying data [are] not mine, as the source provided clearly indicates. I have no qualification to judge whether the underlying data are correct or erroneous, and have never pretended to be able to do so.

This is not the first graph with a hockey-stick shape to gain notoriety. The most famous example is that of Penn State climatologist Michael Mann’s own hockey stick graph, prominently featured at the 2001 UN IPCC meeting and in its Third Assessment Report.

Michael Manns famous hockey stick graph used by the United Nations for its Third Assessment Report in 2001 but abandoned by the Fourth Assessment Report of 2007.
Michael Mann's famous hockey stick graph used by the United Nations for its Third Assessment Report in 2001 but abandoned by the Fourth Assessment Report of 2007.

That hockey stick has since been debunked by the United States Congress by the world-renowned statistics expert Edward Wegman. See the Wegman report here.

The Wegman Report was sufficiently damning that, until now, the United Nations has distanced itself from Mann’s graph, which did not appear in the Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007. From the Congressional report led by Wegman came the following conclusion:

“The [Mann] methodology puts undue emphasis on those proxies that do exhibit the hockey stick shape and this is the fundamental flaw.”

Mann has argued that it was never his intention for the flat part of the stick that he derived from proxies to be grafted onto the modern temperature record, providing the upturned blade, as though the two sets of data had the same origin. Writing on the website that he co-founded, realclimate.org, Mann wrote the following in response to earlier critiques of his methodology in 2004: “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.”

Such a graft is precisely what Sandvik’s graph does, however, leading to the inevitable question: Is the United Nations an “industry-funded climate disinformation website”? Unlike Mann’s graph, which, with the use of color and error bars, at least suggests both the level of uncertainty associated with temperature proxies and shows that the sources for the temperature data is not the same during the past 1,000 years, the “Hanno” graph used by the United Nations has neither error bars nor different colors for the differently derived data. By intent or no, it is inherently misleading.

The storm over “Hanno 2009” is very likely just beginning.

Harold Ambler is an avowed starving artist. His first book about climate, Don’t Sell Your Coat, is due to be published in November. In the meantime he’s living hand to mouth. If you liked this article consider helping him out by hitting his tip jar. – Anthony

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
65 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 27, 2009 10:27 am

This is very alarming stuff. It’s impressive what is being done by the UN nowadays. With Copenhagen getting pretty close, I bet the number of errors will soar. Stay tuned…
Ecotretas

SandyInDerby
September 27, 2009 10:27 am

It wasn’t me – bigger boys did it and ran away.

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
September 27, 2009 10:34 am

What’s all this about Soros-funded climate disinformation websites?

jack morrow
September 27, 2009 10:35 am

What a great site! No wonder it wins awards and gets so many hits.Thanks Mr. Watts, I am so glad to have found this site. It’s a shame that our Representatives in Congress don’t get to read this site. Maybe they would have an “eye opening experience” rather than a “leg tingle” or whatever.

Rhys Jaggar
September 27, 2009 10:53 am

The UN has indeed learned from the high priest of media shenanigans, President Silvio Berlusconi.
In case our non-european readers are not privileged with regular insight into the Italian President’s approach to marriage, one should limit the insight to this:
Mr President is a well-known womaniser.
Mr President has given more than one public apology to his wife about inappropriate commenting in public about other women.
Mr President has been known, after giving such apologies, to comment inappropriately about another woman a few weeks or months later.
Clearly the UN sees hockey stick graphs as akin to Mr Berlusconi’s ‘hot totty’…….inappropriate but irresistible.
For those who have been asleep through 2009, Mr President’s wife lost her patience this year and has initiated divorce proceedings……

Ingemar
September 27, 2009 11:32 am

Evidently, the Hockey Stick is like a drug to UN and IPCC-related researchers. They can’t let it be. But after all, Mann’s original papers WAS peer-rewieved in Nature, and that has to be counted as good as an OBSERVATION. Maybe even as a devine TRUTH.

Editor
September 27, 2009 11:50 am

Gee, maybe the IPCC will be citing Flanagan and Phil next.

Chris
September 27, 2009 11:53 am

‘It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.’ So says Michael Mann. I think these claims of industry sponsored misinformation, usually oil companies, are an indication of an ever increasing desperation by alarmists to keep their disintegrating agenda alive. but regardless of this thousands of supporters of the socio-political religion known as AGW will attend Copenhagen shortly and the most enthusiastic of these will be politicians who are eager to increase taxes and impose ever harsher conditions on the public. These are the enemy.

September 27, 2009 11:54 am

http://www.desoggybog.com/ for a laugh.
It makes me mad that well-heeled but ignorant (to give him the best option) professors can thus insult folk who pay the price of standing up for truth. Let them eat cake. Only I wouldn’t wish those (guillotine) kind of consequences on Mann either.

Harold Ambler
September 27, 2009 12:01 pm

I await comment from the outgoing head of UNEP, Achim Steiner, and will update the story if he surprises me by responding to my e-mail.

Editor
September 27, 2009 12:07 pm

Perhaps, given that the wikipedia page upon which the graph is found is under the iron control of a Team member, that the UN felt it was “peer reviewed” in some sense? Funny how most all university professors refuse to accept wikipedia articles as valid references in academic work, yet the UN’s standard is so much lower. Perhaps given so many of them live on the lying lies that is a diplomats stock in trade, they cannot tell the difference between shades of truth any longer.

Manuel
September 27, 2009 12:20 pm

They will resort time after time to a hockey-stick graph because it’s the only way to “show” that Global Warming is real and caused by Man.

rbateman
September 27, 2009 12:24 pm

Lucy Skywalker (11:54:00) :
They will throw him under the Bus faster than you can say ‘oops’, when things go awry.

Editor
September 27, 2009 12:24 pm

Manuel (12:20:56) :
They will resort time after time to a hockey-stick graph because it’s the only way to “show” that Global Warming is real and caused by Man.
Ahhhhh.. didn’t you really mean to write “…caused by Mann..”?

September 27, 2009 12:25 pm

The graph was supposed to be for Sen Boxer and her unveiling of the US version hoax on September 30.
What’s the odds Boxer still tries it on the media to see if they bite.
When will science say enough is enough.

Jerry Haney
September 27, 2009 12:29 pm

Speaking of “Hockey Sticks”, Steve McIntyre just posted the following on his Climate Audit web site: http://www.climateaudit.org/
This is a must read.
Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem
by Steve McIntyre on September 27th, 2009
The second image below is, in my opinion, one of the most disquieting images ever presented at Climate Audit.

Leon Brozyna
September 27, 2009 12:34 pm

Perhaps the UN should consider using Ms. Spears’ words, “Oops!…I Did It Again”

Tiles
September 27, 2009 12:35 pm

I know one shouldn’t enjoy schadenfreude, but – ha-ha-ha-ha ha!!!

Treeman
September 27, 2009 12:47 pm

The UN have been on the nose for a while now but this one takes the cake. UN “peer reviewed” papers should be printed on two ply tissue for ease of recycling!

MartinGAtkins
September 27, 2009 12:53 pm

From the UN report.
In the absence of oxygen, bacteria produce methane, the
second most common GHG.

Accuracy doesn’t seem in anyway important in this publication.

KW
September 27, 2009 1:07 pm

Wow. You wanna talk about burning up? Look at the AMSU Temperatures from today at noon (PDT)! We’re all gonna burn! (chuckle)
http://i35.tinypic.com/am6otw.jpg

stephen.richards
September 27, 2009 1:22 pm

Anthony
More embarrassment. Get over to SteveMc’s place.

Douglas DC
September 27, 2009 1:34 pm

Heard that Boxer has gotten delayed, and her lil’Frankenstien of a bill isn’t going to see
the light until after Christmas break-and Copenhagen…
Frankenstein,er sorry, too much Mel Brooks…

jorgekafkazar
September 27, 2009 1:42 pm

Rhys Jaggar (10:53:49) : “The UN has indeed learned from the high priest of media shenanigans, President Silvio Berlusconi…”
But, unlike Berlusconi, no one will ever hear of the UN’s gaffe. The MSM (Main Stream Mediocrities) won’t print a word of this. Ever.

Alexander Harvey
September 27, 2009 1:46 pm

Hi,
I took a look at the report, using the link you kindly provided, and I was immediately struck by how poor the graphics are from Fig 1.1 onwards with exceptions for Figs 4.7 & 5.4.
Some of them are truly dreadful. I know this is only a small thing but do they not have any standards. Take a look at Fig 1.3 (“HannoStick”) and compare it to the original wiki one at the top of this page.
Alex

1 2 3