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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
65 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave Wendt
September 28, 2009 1:02 am

Gene Nemetz (17:20:17) :
Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (10:34:16) : What’s all this about Soros-funded climate disinformation websites?
Apparently George Soros likes politics, and/or power, and likes to spend a part of his billions on it.
Soros doesn’t see it as spending, but as investment. The millions he put into leftists organizations allowed him to come out of retirement for a couple of weeks last Summer and net a cool couple of billion off the financial crisis they helped create for him, with the added side benefit of assuring the election of the One which is almost certain to create numerous similar future opportunities for profit from the chaos his policy goals will guarantee.

September 28, 2009 4:39 am

Quick question… Where would we find a “real” graph and raw data to compare to those “fake” ones.
If they use those graph to prove their theory, is there another one to prove something else?

JC
September 28, 2009 4:55 am

Is this the same Hanno who produced this?:
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:NH_temperature_2ka.png

September 28, 2009 5:27 am

Ron de Haan (16:32:08) :
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/global_warming_science.html
An excellent article. It could have been written for Climate Audit’s post yesterday on Briffa’s tree study.
As you say, the genie is out of the bottle. The guy who had his finger stuck in the hole in that dam has upped and legged it too!

September 28, 2009 6:54 am

Ron de Haan,
I second Jimmy Haigh’s kudos for that link. Unemotional and straightforward, it gives a great overview of the Hokey Stick controversy.

Beth Cooper
September 28, 2009 7:01 am

We understand that words may change meaning over time. But “peer reviewed” becoming “wikipedia reviewed” is a change that is sudden indeed!
Beth down under.

September 28, 2009 7:24 am

Bob Tisdale (18:41:50),
If you look closely, figure 6.10 actually seems to show the MWP as being warmer than today. And as you say, AR-4 is chock full of hokey sticks.
But there is one glaring omission: the original Mann hokey stick is completely missing! Why? Because McKitrick and McIntyre, supported by the Wegman Report, literally forced the UN to delete it from AR-4.
The IPCC loved Michael Mann’s scary chart. They certainly would still be using it today if it had not been so thoroughly debunked. So they must resort to imitations of the original fake.

Mr. Alex
September 28, 2009 9:07 am

“AnonyMoose (15:35:41) :
Mr. Alex (13:58:40), there is no title on the graphic so it can be used on Wikipedia articles written in several languages.”
I doubt this because some graphics have their original English title, for example searching in the Polish wiki (my ancestral language):
http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plik:Sunspot_Numbers.png&filetimestamp=20060720201649
The title is in English but the explanation on the main page is in Polish, (Eng title retained), Other graphics have had their original language titles erased and translated, some retain the original source language and some have no title; so there is probably no set method here, just carelessness.

Thor
September 28, 2009 9:57 am

JC :”Is this the same Hanno who produced this?:
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:NH_temperature_2ka.png
Yes it was made by the same Hanno. It seems that graph was made in late 2006. I guess the migration topic called for some cold and warm periods which the other graph couldn’t provide.

George E. Smith
September 28, 2009 1:22 pm

And don’t forget those two damning words on Michael Mann’s 2001 infamous graph; “NORTHERN HEMISPHERE”.
In other words; just a local anomaly, and not a global climate record at all.
George

Bulldust
September 28, 2009 8:51 pm

So many hockey sticks… so little fighting… something’s wrong with this picture.
BTW I see that this graph:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/NH_temperature_2ka.png
starts at 0 AD/BC… should I read anything into that specific start date?

Chris V.
September 28, 2009 9:16 pm

If you look closely, figure 6.10 actually seems to show the MWP as being warmer than today. And as you say, AR-4 is chock full of hokey sticks.
But there is one glaring omission: the original Mann hokey stick is completely missing! Why? Because McKitrick and McIntyre, supported by the Wegman Report, literally forced the UN to delete it from AR-4.

Where does this bizarre claim come from? Mann et al’s hockey stick (MBH 1999) is right there in figure 6.10.
see page 467:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf

DJ Meredith
September 29, 2009 12:06 pm

Here’s an actual graph of the NSF porn access. The labels are incorrect, but the data is from leer-reviewed papers.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CO2-Temp.png

DJ Meredith
September 29, 2009 12:10 pm

whoops….scratch that…wrong article!!

maddie and dad
November 15, 2009 10:13 am

well because of the industrial revolution i think that it has an impact on the hockey stick plot and that the temperature gose way up as it gets to the 1900s
and by then all of the inventions of the industrial revolution are used almost daily. That is what i think when i look at this plot.