“The trick was to find the anomalies first and then compute the absolute values from the anomalies: Whereas the absolute monthly and seasonal temperatures may have a definite seasonal cycle, the monthly and seasonal anomalies do not; hence whereas a seasonal mean may be totally distorted if we leave out the warmest or coldest month, seasonal anomalies are less impacted by dropping any monthly anomaly.”

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/seas_ann_means.html

Steve

I don’t know if it’s been made clear to you that the “trick” SteveM is pointing out is that the blow-up shows the green ‘proxy’ curve ending significanly prior to where the other curves end, while in the graph just a little below it’s hard to see the green curve ending where it really ends. It instead look like it goes on to ascend, because it merges with another strand of spagetti curve which is actually what is going up and leaving the green curve behind. To me it even looks a little green, probably due to some feature of our/my sight apparatus.

I think the “padding” of the green tree ring proxy curve data with “real”, instrumental data only made the end of the green curve flatten around 1960, whereas in the lowest graph shown the curve is still heading downward in 1960, as it continues to “diverge” from the temperature curve.

One last thing,

anyone can go to this link and get a beginners handle on things :

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-men-bahaving-badly-a-short-summary-for-laymen/

If you have any friends that know computer code, even if just a little, you might get a lot out of going to this link with them and reading.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/

What was done by the scientists is revealed in the computer code. The computer code verifies that what was communicated between the scientists in their emails was the reality of what they did and not, as they are now claiming, ‘robust discussion’ between scientists that is now being ‘taken out of context’.

more on “proxies” at this link, not perfect but you’ll get the idea

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/paleoclimate.html

A definition of ‘proxy’ found online from The Exploratorium

Proxy Data.—Because climate involves long-term patterns, climate researchers often seek data about what the climate was like thousands or millions of years ago. But such data are difficult to find (ice cores provide one source of actual prehistoric climate data). Researchers may therefore use other kinds of data that tell them about something related to climate. Non-climate data analyzed for clues to climate is called proxy data. For example, information about the past strength of ocean currents might be gained by studying fossil microorganisms deposited in sediments—the ages, types, and distributions of these organisms could reflect the nature of the currents that existed at the time they were deposited.

Here’s the Briffa graph with the red showing when the decline that was hidden began. The red is the part what was taken out and replaced with cherry picked temperature data.

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/briffa_recon.gif

Here’s a quote from the emails that shows what they used :

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.”

You might not understand what they are saying. But, simply put, they took portions of actual thermometer readings (not proxies, ‘the real temps’), portions that would show continued warming. They were careful to use the portions of the temperature data set that would work for them—i.e., they cherry picked—to show continued warming.

————————–

the quote from the email is from here :

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/

—————-

p.s. I hope I don’t sound redundant. I’m a bit punchy from all the long days of reading since this story broke.

http://codeincontext.blogspot.com/

She was under court order not to destroy data as she left the EPA as director. The EPA was caught funneling money to non-profits for obvious political gain. She ordered all the hard drives be reformatted. Their is no way she was going to be appointed to something needing congressional approval. So now she is a bama CZAR

This sort of thing is not mentioned by indignant warmists in their moralistic frenzies. Why not? They’re hypocrites. And it doesn’t appear in MSM articles in which it is OK to quote alarmists impugning the bona fides of critical scientists. Why not?