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.
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 The problem with the graph in the upper right of page 5 of the UNEP report is that it itself has not been peer reviewed nor has it originated from a peer reviewed publication, having its inception at Wikipedia.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:
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
The following 4 pages on Wikimedia Commons link to this file. UNEP likely got it from the first page during a Google search.
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:
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”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When is all of the credibility left in science going to be sacrificed at the alter of the AGW hoax? Credibility is not a renewable resource, regardless how much grant money they shovel your way.
Wiki truly is a place where the inmates run the asylum
Icarus (13:45:12) : that it’s not a scam, that AGW is very real?
You are just saying that for comic relief, aren’t you?
Icarus.
One thing needed for more than one degree heat from by human added CO2 is reinforcement, i.e. total positive feedback. Positive feedback would mean that climate is quite instable, which it isn’t. Also many measures of the response on Earth’s temperature from e.g. volcanoes and changes in clouds has showed negative feedback, which reduces impact from CO2.
The CO2 impact without feedbacks ,or we can say neutral feedback, is about +1 degree C when CO2 concentration is doubled year 2100. But a delay should be there, so we’ll have +1 C in 200-300 years. This is if we have neutral feedback (it should be negative and result in lower temperature rise), and if we are able to increase the CO2 concentration that much. (Less human contribution and negative feedback produce only single tenth of a degree.)
Note that IPCC says +1 degree C is the temperature change if no feedback affect the system.
The feedback representation of clouds in the models is just a guess and not based on empirical knowledge. This is also the case for H2O and water vapor content in the atmosphere. The models are tuned in to result in a quite strong positive feedback, and that in a quite limited range. Models which falls outside this feedback range are discarded as non-consensus. Science is settled…
The AGW/left alliance never won a “battle” however with leftist gov. around the western world they probably win the “war”
Common sens and science can not defeat where the will is to destroy and rule.
Greenorblue (13:44:51) :
Nasif Nahle (13:30:46) :
Why such a difference between the two graphs?
The proxies, number of proxies, locations and number of locations make the difference. If one examines all the databases on paleotemperatures, one would find they all look different.
It seems that Hanno took a database from treerings (any) and only added the historical temperatures, without proportion at the right end of the graph with respect to the proxies database, however.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (12:57:40) :
This abstract of one of Hannos papers speaks for itself
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l7201j54p1w10805/
“When communicating with the public, scientists ought to be aware of their responsibility to use a language that is understood by laypeople. ”
– Hanno –
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the
scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the
doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we
are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people
we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context
translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially
disastrous climatic change. To do that we need [Scientists should
consider stretching the truth] to get some broadbased support, to
capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting
loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts
we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves
in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the
right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that
means being both.”
– Stephen Schneider IPCC lead Author: Stanford University –
Icarus (13:45:12) :
And, Icarus, even if you, Hansen, Gore, Mann and Schmidt, the IPCC and the One himself are all right about AGW, the cost in human lives, freedom and dignity are too much to pay to make the futile attempt to keep the climate at some “optimum” agreed upon by a grasping, selfish, greedy elite. If this was ever about science, that is long past. The AGW theory and its promoters need to kicked to the kerb and consigned to the trash bin of history. Humanity deserves better.
We should ask them to keep their word; they always said “global warming caused by greenhouse gases”, we must always remember them that, specially in colder times ahead. BTW: Where is that warming?
I had an honest LOL at the title of this one.
Wikipedia itself, on the page that generates citations cautions that it is a tertiary source, and thus not usually acceptable as a reference.
In other words, the latest UN paper on climate change probably would not have received a passing grade as a undergrad-level assignment. Bravo. I’ve been thinking for a while now that there must be some in the AGW camp that know the theory is bogus, but are aware that when the theory dies, it will take reputations (not to mention careers) with it. Seems like some must be in a hurry to do away with their reputation sooner than later.
Interestingly, this character even has a publication: Sandvik, H. (2008) “Etiske dilemmaer og filosifiske feilslutninger i klimadebatten” (Ethical dilemmas and philosophical fallacies in the climate debate)
Abstract:
The climate debate that has raged in recent years, is a good illustration of what happens when participants in a debate mixes (1) science, (2) philosophy of science, (3) science ethics, and (4) environmental ethics. All four factors are important in the climate debate, but all on their own (and not on each others) terms.
http://www.evol.no/hanno/08/FilSuppl.htm
Pathetic AGW propaganda masquerading as a science article. Funny guy, Hanno.
Hey, if Tony Blair can use a student’s dissertation to justify attacking and invading Iraq, and convincing the USA to do likewise, then I am sure that the UN can borrow a few Wiki graphs to frighten and tax us more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
Hell, we may as well run the law courts this way too. Wiki laws? Wiki judgements? Wiki sentencing?
Reply: I’m allowing this comment, but no subsequent debate on the Iraq war will be allowed. None, nada. Also, this is not an endorsement of the views expressed above. ~ ctm
Anthony
I hate to see people being talked about behind their backs. Perhaps you could let Hr Sandvik know of our concerns (by our, I mean all contributors to this thread with the exception of Icarus – and we all know what happened to him) and give him the opportunity to clear up the confusion over his material and clarify his sources.
I was going to do it myself, but an invitation from you would have considerably more conviction.
Peter Plail
It is extremely likely that Hr Sandvik has been notified about this thread by someone he knows. I don’t think anyone is talking behind his back. He is welcome to comment here just as Dr. Lund did a few days ago.
I take your point, Jeez, but, call me old-fashioned, I like to see a bit of courtesy. It sets an example to the AGW sites.
Peter Plail,
I’m not sure what you would want the letter to say.
“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.”
They’ll plead the precautionary principle.
As the person who raised this with Steve/CA – I’m glad the majority of comments on both blogs share my concerns.
I found the UNEP document via an article in the Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6228179/Climate-change-accelerating—UNEP.html
and this clearly suggests that the report is authoritative stuff (“400 scientific reports released through peer-reviewed literature, or from research institutions”) so I was just curious when I saw a reference to a 2009 hockeystick.
In fact I got completely sidetracked from my initial thought that there I’d spotted an anomaly between the DT headline:
“Climate change is happening faster than previously thought”
and the actual reporting:
“made a rise of between 1.4 and 4.3 degrees Celsius (2.5 to 7.75 F) above pre-industrial temperatures more likely”
I had thought this could be a case of the ‘future-present imperfect imperative” (courtesy of climate-resistance):
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/08/future-present-imperfect-imperative.html
always the same, how can we handle against it ?
go on street? damishe someone? how can we realy do something against al gore and friends bullshit propaganda?
i dont know, do you know ist better?
tarpon (14:21:11) :
When is all of the credibility left in science going to be sacrificed at the alter of the AGW hoax? Credibility is not a renewable resource, regardless how much grant money they shovel your way.
I fear that time is past (or at least fast approaching). It may take decades before the public regains its trust in science. And particularly so if whole nations are sacrificed in the name of AGW as the UNEP, IPCC and certain “progressive” politicians are demanding.
P R O V E . . I T . . ! ! !
No one has so far commented on the front page of the report, which is loaded with powerful metaphorics: The time is running out, our beautiful earth is going down the drain and will come out as a desert. The message here is clear and synthesized: We are destroying the planet, turning it into a desert. The desert sand in the bottom contrasts with the beautiful planet as we learned to see it from space, from the Apollon (though it’s true that we see large areas already consisting of desert, like the Sahara), and evokes old biblical wisdom like not to build your house on sand; in Norwegian we say “run out in the sand” (come to nothing), and also the expression “bury one’s head in the sand” comes to mind.
This is very professionally done, as opposed to the not-so-very-professional inclusion of the not-peer-reviewed hockey-stickish graph. They must have used true craftsmen in the field of advertising here, there is not much amateurish about this.
It reminds me of a comment from Green and Armstrong’s “forecasting audit” of the AR4:
“(…) the Chapter [8 of the IPCC report] reads in places like a sales brochure.”
I notice
Joel ShorePhil. hasn’t commented on the slickness of the report vs. the quality of the content.Great, jeez:
“For your editorial and marketing projects, turn to a pro. Joel Shore has the experience to create content that meets your needs ….”
http://www.joelshore.com/
That’s a different Joel Shore, but aside from that I erred, my post should have been as follows:
Jeez,
Phil… Jones?
Phil…Collns?
Phil…ippi?
Phil…Spector?
The truth in advertising: 4 out of 5 scientists recommend AGW gum for thier politicians who chew gum.
1 hated AGW gum.
3 weren’t totally convinced with the 1st serving.
1 liked the AGW gum.
So, since 3 of them didn’t say they hated AGW gum when it was tried out, then 4 out of 5 would probably say yes.
Warning: AGW gum is being recalled due to ABC contamination.
“Already Been Cooling”.
No problem, just repackage AGW gum and continue to peddle it.
Hanno: Watts in a name?
Stuart Huggett (14:08:11) : “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.”
Saying “…the whole AGW scam” isn’t just asking questions or saying that the issue is ‘debatable’ – it’s flat-out denial. Are you so sure that it’s a scam? Have you spent years studying the physics involved? Are you certain that a dramatic increase in greenhouse gases is going to make no difference at all to the Earth’s climate? It’s not like this is just an experiment in a lab – we’re messing about with the planet we live on.
As far as I can tell, getting any country to spend any money at all on mitigation is like pulling teeth, but if there is money spent on switching to clean and renewable energy, reducing deforestation, averting ocean acidification etc., then surely these are good things anyway. Those ‘tens of billions of dollars of other people’s money’ won’t be entirely wasted… and it must surely be a drop in the ocean compared to the cost to us of dealing with dramatic changes in the Earth’s climate.
Icarus, your list:
is fraught with hidden assumptions, uncertainties, and unsupportable suppositions.
1. If CO2 is not a pollutant there is little unclean about a modern coal or natural gas power plant.
2. Renewable needs to be defined as something economically practical, not just cool and hip. Windmills and solar plants at this time, while they may improve in the future, do not compete in any economical way with fossil fuel energy production, nuclear, or hydroelectric. Should this change sometime in the future the switch will occur without the need for government mandate.
3. Massive amounts of deforestation are occurring now specifically to meet government mandates and artificial markets for biofuels.
4. Ocean acidification is a boogie man which will likely turn out to be nothing.
Those tens of billions of other money could be spent saving lives from inadequate water sanitation, building infrastructure, or developing agricultural technology instead of throwing it away down a government mandated rathole where any benefits are unlikely to be more than a small percentage of the costs. When you commit resources to be wasted you are just as likely condemning to death millions who could have had their cholera or starvation prevented as you think you are saving from your ill justified desire to save the planet.