United Nations Environment Programme uses unreviewed graph from an anonymous Wikipedia author for official report.

CCEP_report_cover

United Nations Climate Change Science Compendium - click for PDF

We’ve been lectured time and again about the importance of having climate science work come from peer reviewed papers, saying that the work of dedicated amateurs has no place in climate science unless the work rises to publication/peer review level.

Yet that doesn’t seem to apply for United Nations science publications. Of course just one look at the front cover at left tells you its more about selling than science.

The cover image pulls at heartstrings, making the world appear as if it is running out of time before turning entirely into an inhospitable desert. That is an extreme view in my opinion.

Steve McIntyre’s blog discovery of  UNEP’s folly bears repeating, because it shows the sort of sloppy science that is going into “official” publications.

This is much like the NCDC CCSP report just over a year ago where they used a photoshopped image of a “flooded” house.

UNEP_report_page5

Click for larger image

In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia that supported the view they wanted to sell. The problem with the graph in the upper right of page 5 of the UNEP report is that it itself has not been peer reviewed nor has it originated from a peer reviewed publication, having its inception at Wikipedia.

And then there’s the problem of “Hanno” who is an anonymous contributor. This is simply his/her artwork and interpretation. We don’t have any idea who “Hanno” is, nor apparently does UNEP.

Yet UNEP cites the graph as if it was a published and peer reviewed work as “Hanno 2009”. Yet UNEP doesn’t even get the year right as the graph was created in 2005:

From Wikimedia - click for source

From Wikimedia - click for source

But as Steve McIntyre shows us, this graph from “Hanno” is just another variation of Mann’s discredited Hockey Stick based on questionable mathematics, outright errors such as data inversions, and dubious or excluded proxies that may not reflect temperature change at all.

From Climate Audit:

The UNEP CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE COMPENDIUM 2009 on page 5 uses the following graph from Wikipedia (not the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report):

CO2 concentration and mean global temperature during the past millennium. CO2 levels (blue line, lefthand axis) are given in parts per million, temperatures (red line, right-hand axis) in degrees Celsius. Source: Hanno 2009 Page 5

Hanno is the pseudonym for a Wikipedia contributor. The graphic itself compares CO2 levels from Mauna Loa and Law Dome ice core to a splice of the HAdCRU temperature index and the Jones and Mann 2004 reconstruction (dominated by Graybill bristlecone chronology).

The latter splice is, of course, the splice that Mann has informed us is never done by responsible climate scientists, further informing us that the allegation that such splices are done is disinformation by fossil fuel companies.

No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

========

I’ve done some additional review and here is what I’ve found about “Hanno”

First here is the Wikipedia source for the image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CO2-Temp.png

If you look at the other contributions from “Hanno” you’ll see that is specialty is history and maps, not science.
But apparently none of this matters, since the graph shows the desired result for the report.

UPDATE: From a Climate Audit commenter “Feedback”: Hanno is also the author of a non-hockey stick graph that can be found in the Norwegian Wikipedia article about the Migration Period (Norwegian: Folkevandringstiden) that shows a more Lamb-like relationship between the MWP and the current warm period:

Fil:NH temperature 2ka.png

Source is said to be:

Source: graph drawn by Hanno using data published by A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko, W. Karlén, and S.-E. Lauritzen (2005, Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature (London), 433, 613–617). Temperatures for the last three decades of the 20th Century were taken from P.D. Jones, D.E. Parker, T.J. Osborn & K.R. Briffa (2005, Global and hemispheric temperature anomalies – land and marine instrumental records. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S.

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:NH_temperature_2ka.png

So apparently “Hanno” contradicts himself with his own set of artwork.

UPDATE2: The Wiki “Hanno” user page is interesting. Thanks to commenter “Dr. Spock”.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fno.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBruker%3AHanno
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ron de Haan

It’s a disgrace to deceive the public like that.
Thanks for publishing this.
Deceiving the public has happened before and we can learn from our history.
http://www.ecofascism.com/article20.html

Ron de Haan
MattN

I’ll say here what I said at CA: that is the most rediculous temperature reconstruction I’ve ever seen. It is so absurd, it really is insulting.

Vukcevic

These are temperature graphs, in wide use until mid 1990s, also quoted by IPCC in their early publications.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GraphA-B.jpg
Graph A was created by climatologist Hubert Lamb to represent the temperature variation of Central England over the last 1100 years. Graph B shows changes in regional temperature (Europe and eastern North America), compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy.
Graph A uses combination of thermometer readings for the last 300 or so years, and records of growing seasons before then to infer temperature. It was first published in 1965 and has been updated several times since.
Graph B published in Earth Quest in 1991 is heavily biased towards the North American temperatures.

tarpon

It’s pound the table, argue the law time with these alarmists. They have to save their tax scam, now that Obama has signed on, one way or the other.
The ‘lies’ have it.

Gerry

Comment 26 to Steve McIntyre’s discovery shows a much more accurate graph by the same Hanno. It’s interesting that the IPCC chose to use Hanno’s absurd hockeystick misrepresentation instead of this one.
“September 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Interestingly (?), Hanno is also the author of a non-hockey stick graph that can be found in the Norwegian Wikipedia article about the Migration Period (Norwegian: Folkevandringstiden) that shows a more Lamb-like relationship between the MWP and the current warm period:”
REPLY: I had added that graph to the post about the same time you were typing. – A

Pierre Gosselin

At this point, with Copenhagen coming up and all, they’re more focussed on dramatizing. This though will only undermine their credibiliity.

GaryB

Well..the silver lining is it was Hanno and not Hannibal!
Here’s more on Hanno
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fno.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBruker%3AHanno

Ack

The scary part is, that this “data” will be accepted by the masses.

PaulS

Once again, this shows that wiki is baseless as a place of factual reference. If any article has reference to wiki then it is safe to assume it is not reliable and should be dismissed as such.

LiamW

Another reason that I object to this figure, aside from the splicing data/hockey sticks, is that it displays CO2 concentration and not rate of CO2 accumulation. The rate is dependent upon many different factors, both geophysical and biological. One interesting correlation is that the year to year change in CO2 concentration varies with the ENSO and tropical lower troposphere temperature. Several reports have pointed this out, and IIRC has been discussed here.
The paragraph in the UNEP report describing of the flux of CO2 in and out of the atmosphere is so simplistic and incomplete to be laughable.
Gotta run to work……….

Jordan

Hanno’s probably a german national. At a guess, “Hanno” might even be short for Hannover.
Looking at DrSpock’s link, there are quite a number of references to Germany and North Germany in particular. But the giveaway is Hanno’s phrase ” It can namely be some time between each time I visit “. A common error by german speakers to adopt “namely” where they would use “naemlich” in German. As they don’t transalate, the sentence looks fine to Germans, but odd to native english speakers.

Urederra

OT. Is it anything wrong with the DMI polar temperature site at the right column? (just below the sea ice graph) it gives me a 404 not found error every time I click.

tallbloke

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:NH_temperature_2ka.png
So apparently “Hanno” contradicts himself with his own set of artwork.

Well, almost. The clue is in the filename: NH_temperature
I agree that the MWP is more global than Mann’s graph indicates, but strictly speaking, Hanno isn’t ‘contradicting himself’, as the Mann style graph is global temperature, and the other is Northern Hemisphere.
Either way, the UN has it’s trousers round it’s ankles.
Again.

ChrisM

My son has been told he must not use wikipedia for school work as it is unreliable.

tty

Jordan (11:16:28)
Not a bad guess, he is german/norwegian Hanno Sandvik formerly Pichl.
He is a biologist and specialises in seabird ecology,
http://www.bio.ntnu.no/users/hannos/engelsk.htm

Steinar

Jordan: “But the giveaway is Hanno’s phrase ‘It can namely be some time between each time I visit’. A common error by german speakers to adopt “namely” where they would use “naemlich” in German.”
The error is Google’s, and the original text was in Norwegian. The link is a machine translation.

crosspatch

If it supports “the agenda”, then it must be “truth” or at least “truthy”. If it is counter to “the agenda”, then it is the stuff of knuckle-dragging neanderthal “skeptics”. See how easy that is? The “fake but true” stuff is vital to “the agenda” and will be supported to the very end.

A couple of Google searches points this way:
http://www.bio.ntnu.no/users/hannos/engelsk.htm
Apologies if it is not the correct Hanno.

RhudsonL

Wikipedia sales have become flat are need to boost numbers.

Remember this quote from Michael Coulter in Australian newpaper The Age?
“There is not, now, much value in arguing about the science of climate change. Even if it’s wrong, enough people now believe it that it may as well be right.”
Someone at UNEP must have read this, taken it to heart and then tried to demonstrate that even if a graph is purely made up, enough people now believe in man-made climate change that it may as well be published, peer-reviewed science.

The Norwegian http://www.forskning.no/ (=”reasearch.no”) has an article in 2005 called “Kan du stole på Wikipedia?” (“Can you trust Wikipedia?”)
http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2005/desember/1133429879.66
In the article, Hanno is mentioned as “Dyktig Wikipedia-forfatter” (“skillful Wikipedia author”)

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

LOL HANNO 2009! This will be cited as scientific evidence in the future alongside youtube and wikipedia users girlpowerfan1987, greenman9610, mymomrules696969, downwithcapitalism and bleedingheartliberalheartsblackbabies. The new phase of the Enlightenment will be anonymously social generated content! 15 year olds of the world unite!

Hanno (Sandvik) has a web page here (in Norwegian):
http://www.bio.ntnu.no/users/hannos/index.html
He apparently is a scientist at the Institute of Biology at the Technical-Natural Science University in Trondheim, Norway, and there is even a picture of him. He is not as anonymous, after all.
For those who don’t understand Norwegian: Forskning means Research, Publikasjoner mean Publications (most of them with English titles), Vita means CV, and Medlemskap means Membership(s).

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

Ah Hanno has a face now. Well, at least that is sorted out but the UN certainly did not know his name or anything beyond the Wikipedia username.

Richard deSousa

We should know by now anything associated with the UN and IPCC is not to be believed so no surprises here.

Stuart Huggett

At.what point do the people responsible for [snip] such as this get called to account? I can imagine that after the whole AGW scam has died this will simply be forgotten and the authors move on to some other ’cause’. But in perpetrating these fictions in an attempt to persuade governments to spend billions of our money they are behaving in a fraudulent manner. Is a defence of this such as ‘I believe in this cause’ enough? It smacks of religion but is dressed up as science and is therefore rather more deceitful.

http://www.bio.ntnu.no/users/hannos/engelsk.htm
wasn’t to hard to find him. here is a picture.

oops already posted sorry.

‘The content and views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of . . . the United Nations Environment Programme.’

Ron de Haan

Similar deceit on residence time of Atmospheric CO2 by the IPCC.
Complete denial of all the scientific studies that have been performed.
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/09/ipcc-outlier-as-usual.html

TerryBixler

The IPCC says its so, congress says its so, Obama says its so, Lisa Jackson says its so, NOAA says its so, GISS (James the statistician) says its so, Al Gore says its so, Kerry, Pelosi , Waxman …… common thread they want something from you, facts must be ignored.

This abstract of one of Hannos papers speaks for itself
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l7201j54p1w10805/

Magnus A

Another link, “Framtiden i våre hender” (The Future in our hands) is an environmental organization. A google translation of http://www.framtiden.no :
http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=sv&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.framtiden.no%2F&sl=no&tl=en&history_state0=
A headline “People’s Board, a climate threat?” suggest that democracy is a threat. (There was an election in Norway last week, and it become a close race between the left and the rigth; the right was supposed to win but didn’t.)
Another banner says “We’re seeing the connections – between economic growth and global differences [/injustice] and the environmental crisis.”
A kind of funny — or probably scary — article they link is “The unproductive gonna save us”, which says that those whi’s not study and doesn’t contribute to growth shall are the heroes that shall save our society (I havn’t read it all yet, but…) :
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=sv&sl=no&tl=en&u=http://www.folkevett.no/artikler/steinar-lem-i-utvalg/de-uproduktive-skal-redde-oss/&prev=hp&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhjZTvnH_15oGFVwhnt0YU1xNTzZgg
Also “Fair trade”, agriculture without fertilizers etc. the environmentalism of today. Do we have …a moonbat tsunami, or?

Carsten Arnholm, Norway (12:57:40) :
fascinating. Some branches of sociology try to emulate the “hard” sciences. Here we have a “hard”scientist trying to emulate the softer branches of sociology. If anyone can send me the full copy of Hanno’s article I’d be delighted to have a go at it. The guy’s out of his league.

Hanno’s graph is a complete hoax. Here the graphs from Möeberg’s database (red line) and Yang’s database (blue line):
http://www.biocab.org/Medieval_Global_Warming_Yang-Moeberg.jpg

AnonyMoose

Anthony, you probably did the wrong search for where the image is used. The “What links here” search only looks in the current site. Up at the top of the commons page is a tab which searches all Wikipedia sites. That search shows the graph is used on the “Global Warming” page of Wikipedia in several languages (but not the English version).
http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=CO2-Temp.png&w=_100000#end
REPLY: Good find, Wikipedia editors reading WUWT should probably work then to get this graph corrected. – A

DB2

Did anybody notice the UNEP document also had a full two-page spread where they confused weather and climate? It was titled “Significant climate anomalies from 2008 / 2009”

NickB

Hanno certainly is a most peculiar person. He has also written in Wikipedia about “motoring”, which he calls “a mental disorder which constitutes a special case of autism.”
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fno.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBruker%3AHanno
He really does live in his own little world.

Greenorblue

Nasif Nahle (13:30:46) :
Why such a difference between the two graphs?

Icarus

Stuart Huggett (12:26:47): “At what point do the people responsible for [snip] such as this get called to account? I can imagine that after the whole AGW scam has died this will simply be forgotten and the authors move on to some other ’cause’.”
At what point will you get called to account when it becomes painfully obvious that you’re wrong, that it’s not a scam, that AGW is very real?

Feedback

There are other issues with the UNEP report.
It the world map at the beginning of the report, “Significant Climate Anomalies from 2008/2009”, a small paragraph says that
“Artic Sea Ice (Sep 09)
Second lowest extent on record behind Sept. 07”.
Maybe they finished the report before they could know, and based this on a guess.
Or maybe it’s just a “scenario”.

Gene Nemetz

Ack (11:03:32) : The scary part is, that this “data” will be accepted by the masses.
Don’t be so sure Ack. It seems the general population would believe the harsher winters are saying global warming isn’t happening before a scientist who says global warming is happening.

Gene Nemetz

ChrisM (11:30:31) : My son has been told he must not use wikipedia for school work as it is unreliable.
It’s a good reassurance that it’s generally understand that Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source!
But some have spent many, many hours of their lives over the past few years entering biased information at Wiki thinking that it will somehow change the public’s view of global warming. Sucks to be them.

Icarus (13:45:12) :
If you’re so sure of your position, why are you hiding behind a pseudonym?

Stuart Huggett

Icarus.
I am not proposing to spend tens of billions of dollars of other people’s money on the basis of highly debatable climate ‘predictions’. Niether am I fabricating data to ‘prove’ those predictions. I am therefore very willing to be called to account for having asked questions – even if I am wrong.

This was noticed by one of my readers, not me.

Gene Nemetz

Stuart Huggett (12:26:47) : At.what point do the people responsible for [snip] such as this get called to account? I can imagine that after the whole AGW scam has died this will simply be forgotten and the authors move on to some other ’cause’
History didn’t keep track of the names of people who said man was responsible for eclipses of the sun. So I agree with you, they will be forgotten.
Heck, people don’t even know who Michael Mann, Steven Schneider, William Connolley, and James Hansen (et al) are now, let alone in the future.
And you’re right about moving on to another cause—people don’t remember that Steven Schneider was part of the coming ice age scare.
I think the only name that will be remembered for global warming will be Al Gore.