United Nations Pulls Hockey Stick from Climate Report

CCEP_report_cover

United Nations Climate Change Science Compendium - click for PDF

WUWT readers may recall that Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog discovery of  UNEP’s use of a Wikipedia “hockey Stick” graphic by “Hanno”, was the subject of last week’s blog postings.

The Yamal data hockey stick  controversy overshadowed it, and much of the focus has been there recently.

The discovery of a Wikipedia graphic in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium must have been embarrassing as  it shows the sort of sloppy science that is going into “official” publications.

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 The problem with the graph in the upper right of page 5 of the UNEP report is that it itself has not been peer reviewed nor has it originated from a peer reviewed publication, having its inception at Wikipedia.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 the citation as  “Hanno 2009” who (up until this story broke) was an anonymous Wikipedia contributor.

Yet UNEP cited the graph as if it was a published and peer reviewed work as “Hanno 2009″.

UNEP_report_page5

UNEP report original page5 - click for larger image

Here’s my screencap of the page from the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium report from last week

In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia that supported the view they wanted to sell.

The hockey stick, based on tree ring proxies has met an inconveniently timed death it seems.

It appears now that somebody at the United Nations must have gotten the message from blogland, becuase there has been a change in the graphics on page 5.

Below is page 5 as it appears in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium today:

It’s gone. It has been replaced with the familiar GISS land-ocean record, not quite a hockey stick, but close enough.

UNEP report page5 Revision 2 - click for larger image

UNEP report page5 Revision 2 - click for larger image

You can see the GISS graph from the GISTEMP web page right here, oddly the UN used the 2005 version (citing Hansen et al 2005)  rather than the 2009 version of the graph, seen below. Might it be that pesky downturn at the end of the graph? Or maybe they are just Google challenged?

It sure would be nice if such publications could display animated GIFS, for example this one showing two different vintages of GISS data:

Click if not blinking

Click if not blinking

Maybe climate blogs can convince the UN to change their graph yet again.

Thanks to sharp eyed WUWT reader Lawrie (of Sydney Australia) for pointing out the change made to the UNEP document.


Sponsored IT training links:

Testking offers up to date LX0-102 exam dumps and HP0-J27 practice test with 100% success guarantee for HP0-S25 exams.


Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

“It sure would be nice if such publications could display animated GIFS, for example this one showing two different vintages of GISS data”
That would be Harry Potter material, for dead-tree journals!
I think that the Interbebby thingy has surpassed even Harry……

Paul Vaughan

For comparison with the new UN graph:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/aa_yoy_diff_sq.png

The real fun will start, when McIntyre digs into raw data of modern HadCRUT dataset. Should not be raw data for GISTEM and HadCRUT + methodology available just as tree ring proxies?

Christopher Hanley

This is a shame.
The hockey stick, already an established cultural icon, is now entering folklore:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/warming_tanked/#commentsmore
But why stop at 1000 years?
There’s plenty more tidying up for ‘the team’ to get on with:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_images/newspost_images/dnc49xz_66cjkz54fh_b.png

It’s silently gone. Those who were able to separate justified results from nonsense aren’t credited with their contributions. But thank God, at least one wrong graph is gone.
Thousands of them are still waiting. And when thousands of wrong graphs are also removed, it will still not be the end of the movement because the movement is not really about any graphs, neither correct nor fake ones.

oakwood

Very typical. IPCC represents THE scientific concensus – except for the intrumental temperature graph. IPCC uses CRU, but most AGW-faithful (including Gore) prefer GISS, showing 2005 as the warmest year instead of 1998. And yes, the graph always stops at the peak, ignoring the politically incorrect downturn.
As always, this website always brightens the start of my day.

Warren Z

The IPCC and Gore should give back their peace prize.

Bill Hunter

oakwood (00:00:33) : As always, this website always brightens the start of my day.
hear hear!

P Gosselin

Why don’t they show a graph of the last 1000 years? It would be really interesting to know what their view of the last millenium really is. And why don’t they show a graph of the last 250 years? Why not the last 5000 years? Or 20,000 years?
Obviously it is very important for them to select a convenient start date for their graphs.
Their case is extremely precarious just on that point alone.

MarcH

Imagine how much would pass under the bridge if it wasn’t for the efforts of the likes of a certain A Watts and S McIntyre. Alarmists down-under frequently posit that a nobel prize awaits those who disprove the current consensus. By my reckoning both you guys are winners, several time over. KUTGW!

Thomas J. Arnold.

How refreshing! A little UN honesty, there is a long way to go, say to providing total objectivity and the conflicting evidence side by side in the their ‘compendiums’/ propaganda sheets.

Chris Schoneveld

oakwood (00:00:33) : “As always, this website always brightens the start of my day.”
I also start the day with WUWT, but, unlike you, I always get depressed with the realisation that its impact on AGW proponents and, in particular, politicians is absolutely zilch.

Richard

The timeline in the first two graphs is different. The first spans a 1,010 years and the other just 130 years.
The “Hanno” graph clearly shows that, except for the past 50 to 100 years, the temperatures are more or less stable. This is clearly in line with the IPCC message that CO2 has upset things and things are not “normal” today.
When we look at the 10,000 year history of temperatures, reconstructed from the very reliable GISP2 ice core data however, the current warm period seems very normal, though a little cooler than, most of the past 10,000 years.
Maybe you should post this graph also to put todays temperatures in context. (preferably if you can get a larger version of it)

redneck

“It’s gone. It has been replaced with the familiar GISS land-ocean record, not quite a hickey stick, but close enough.”
I’m not really familiar with a “hickey stick”

Phillip Bratby

The original Hanno graph was not peer reviewed. Can it be claimed that the GISS graph has been peer reviewed? It seems to me that both the GISS and HADCRU graphs have not gone through an independent review process of any kind. Has anybody done any replication of the graphs (I know the CRU data is top secret, or was before it was lost)?

Patrick Davis

“Chris Schoneveld (01:49:09) :
oakwood (00:00:33) : “As always, this website always brightens the start of my day.”
I also start the day with WUWT, but, unlike you, I always get depressed with the realisation that its impact on AGW proponents and, in particular, politicians is absolutely zilch.”
My centiments exactly. And I don’t see “voter power” working to correct this situation, only civil unrest.

RR Kampen

Re: Richard (01:50:30) :
“When we look at the 10,000 year history of temperatures, reconstructed from the very reliable GISP2 ice core data however, the current warm period seems very normal, though a little cooler than, most of the past 10,000 years.”
At that station, maybe. How can this graph represent global temperature?

“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. He can go about his business. Move along.”

Barry Foster

I echo MarcH. What people like McIntyre and Watts do is to inform people of the downright lies that are going on. I emailed D’Aleo at Icecap the other day to keep up the good work. Imagine what realclimate would get away with if it weren’t for these good people! I’ve managed to educate some people myself on what realclimate actually is and who is backing it.

AnonyMoose

They also altered the graph in the lower left, removing the Wikipedia credit to Rhode 2009.

Mike M
Alan the Brit

At least it’s something although I suspect it is merely more slight of hand to avoid embarrassing claims against their report. Have they apologised for the apparent “error”, have they even acknowledged it, I think not.
As to consensus, slightly OT but related to the alleged “scientific consensus” & how 2,500 scientists cannot be wrong. I was putting somebody right a little while ago, & I pointed out that apart from some musings from ancient Greece, until the 16th C with Copernicus, & the 17th C with Galileo, the general scientific consensus of the IPCC equivalent world leading scientific authority (the Holy Roman Catholic Church), was that the Earth was flat & that the sun, stars & planets revolved around us. We now know this to be untrue. Up until the late 18th C & early to mid 19th C, the general scientific & medical consensus, was that blood letting was the order of the day in curing all manner of ailments, & that this blood letting ranged from applying leeches to various parts of the body, to cutting across main arteries, resulting in frequent deaths! We now know this to be untrue. Towards the end of the 19th C, Lord Kelvin (Britian’s leading scientist) pronounced that there was nothing left to discover in science any more, only greater & more accurate measurement. We now know this to be untrue. For almost 350 years, science was dominated by Newtonian physics, until a young smart alec German upstart scientist called Bert Onestone, announced his theory of relativity to great outcry & synicism & disbelief from the scientific consensus, turning Newtonian physics on its head & inside out. It was claimed he was wrong, we now know this theory to be true – probably! In the early 20th C, Alfred Wegener announced his theory of continental drift, evetually leading to plate tectonic theory later that century, he was ridiculed & insulted for his “ridculous” & “fanciful” opinions by the scientific consensus, & his theory dismissed. We now know this to be true! I think he got the point I was making about “scientific consensus” & its uttter meaningless relevance!

Steve M.

It’s gone. It has been replaced with the familiar GISS land-ocean record, not quite a hickey stick, but close enough.
A hickey stick? 🙂 I’m getting a 404 http error for the blink graph.

I worked for the UN for about 16 months as a translator. Their pay was good (it amounted to about 10 times the average rate in my industry), and it was exempt from taxation!
Nevertheless, I quit in disgust. The language they use in the UN is inhumanly perverse; it’s not even “bureaucratic” — it’s something indescribable. And the people you have to work with… “corrupt” and “illiterate” don’t cut it. “Reptile scum of the Earth” would do better.
To expect any kind of factual truth to come out from the United Nations is as naive as reading some uncharted depths of integrity and nobility in Putin’s eyes. They understand only two things, money and power. What do they care about science that doesn’t pay under the table?

DaveF

Chris Schoneveld 01:49:09:
“I also start the day with WUWT, but, unlike you, I always get depressed with the realisation that its impact….is absolutely zilch.”
Patience, Chris, it’s coming, it’s coming.

Philip_B

The UN’s IPCC process was hijacked right at the beginning by political activists, some of whom happened to be climate scientists. Since then the science (genuine and invented by anonymous wiki contributors) is mere decoration to a sociopolitical agenda.

Pearland Aggie

Recession good news for polar bears, says IEA
The recession is ‘a window of opportunity to curb climate change and build a low-carbon future’, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/44207/178/
The future is bright with equality….we will ALL be miserable!

OceanTwo

Thomas J. Arnold. (01:28:34) :
How refreshing! A little UN honesty, there is a long way to go, say to providing total objectivity and the conflicting evidence side by side in the their ‘compendiums’/ propaganda sheets.
—————————————-
Honest as in “yes, I had my hand in the cookie jar – but see! I’m honest about it!”
Wikipedia is, by its very nature, a ‘less than honest’ source of information – put up 2+2=4 and you’d get various edits and discussions about such ‘opinions’.
But it does make one wonder who is actually compiling, editing and checking these documents. More effort was put into creating the logo on the front cover than the actual content.

Don Keiller

In “The Times” today and online at;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6862384.ece
“Explorer’s logbooks prove a welcome bounty for climate change doubters”
Read and enjoy.

P Gosselin

Thank the UN for a lesson in Latin…
A corrigendium for the compendium.
(Did I spell that right?)

Richard

RR Kampen (03:35:24) :
Re: Richard (01:50:30) : “When we look at the 10,000 year history of temperatures, reconstructed from the very reliable GISP2 ice core data however, the current warm period seems very normal, though a little cooler than, most of the past 10,000 years.”
At that station, maybe. How can this graph represent global temperature?

At that station? For heavens sake when the temperature remains high for centuries on end – is it happening just at that station?? This has been reflected at other stations in Greenland.
The temperature is measured with great accuracy in intervals of about a decade.
Dont you think this is far better representation of Global Temperatures or at least NH temperatures than Briffa’s one tree somewhere in Siberia, which has been depended on by the IPCC?
You are quite happy to accept that BS are you?

Yep, they screwed up the first time and they did it agin this time. Why would they use a shorter GISS plot when they could easily have placed the Mann et al. (2008) plot?
Whomever is responsible for this needs a science spanking. 🙂

maz2

“Respecting Religious Belief
Friday, October 2, 2009
By Thomas Brewton
The belief in man-made global warming is a secular religious dogma, one which the rest of us should be allowed to respect without being compelled by the secular political state to suffer its disastrous consequences.”
>>> “In the classic gnostic pattern, liberal-progressives see political society as badly aligned, causing all sorts of human misery.”
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/10/02/respecting-religious-belief/comment-page-1/
…-
Eric Voegelin:
““The revolution of the Gnostics,” writes Voegelin, “has for its aim,” one at least among others, “the monopoly of existential representation.” It cannot abide challenges or alternatives to itself. In addition to this, the Gnostic assault on reality seeks “a change in the nature of man and the establishment of a transfigured society.”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3966

AdrianS

Trouble is , its only one graph, and with the weight of the media, sifs, polictians, financiers etc all pushing it, I fear it will be many years before rational science and proper debate takes place.
Its interesting that WUWT is a number one science blog which suggests to me that a lot of people with an interest in science quietly question the AGW doom and gloom we are constantly fed, but are, quite rightly, fearful of nailing their colours to the mast.

UK Sceptic

Ding dong, the stick is dead. 😀

Layne Blanchard

Still a broken link on the blink comparator….

Adolfo Giurfa

How does anybody feels 0.4°C temperature difference?. Nevertheless it works the same as a 40°C increase, nobody cares about such tiny details. It´s Global Warming anyway, take it or leave it!, anyway they will proceed as planned.

pyromancer76

March writes, “Imagine how much would pass under the bridge if it wasn’t for te efforts of the likes of a certain A Watts and S McIntyre. Alarmists down-under frequently posit that a nobel prize awaits those who disprove the current consensus. By my reckoning both you guys are winners, several time over. KUTGW”
From Japan, awaiting a super typhoon, without the ability to think and/or comment except in the most cursory way, I am so much in agreement with March that I had to chime in. There are many others who also have been making the herculean efforts to restore the integrity of the scientific method, but I agree that Watts and McIntyre, Anthony and Steve, have been exceptional leaders and researchers. If the Nobel recognized truth, science, and cutting edge research, these two deserve awards. The efforts and results are magnificent. I am more grateful than I can express.

stephen.richards

Its interesting isn’t it. For the UN to pull this graph someone must be reading the realist blogs and in particular Anthony’s.
I wonder what they are making of the Briffa problem and the team response.

redneck (02:11:46) : I’m not really familiar with a “hickey stick”
It was a misprint. It should read “hokey stick”.
hokey – dictionary definitions –
Merriam-Webster : obviously contrived, phoney.
Cambridge : too emotional or artificial and therefore difficult to believe.

I learned many years ago that there are, amongst many others, two honorable professions; being an advocate and being an analyst. The job of the advocate, as, for example, the defence attorney at a murder trial, is to convince the jury that his client is innocent; he/she is not looking for the truth. By contrast, the analyst is always looking for the truth, and must present ALL the evidence; that which supports his/her idea, and that which does not.
What is highly immoral and reprehensible, is for an advocate to pretend he/she is behaving as an analyst. It is here that the IPCC fails; miserably.

stephen.richards

The explorers logbooks are almost useless. They give a snapshot in time and place. As was reported by a ship docking on the west coast of canada in the 17th century where it recorded a temperature of 133°F.
You can contruct nothing with this anecdotal evidence. However, other evidence indicates that the planet has warmed and cooled several times since some of those logs were written. So, yes, climate changes.
It is also worth noting that wood is a great insulator and also a good storer of heat. Try going into your wooden shed in the middle of summer with the windows shut and see how hot you get!!

A hickey stick is a scientific name for an object that when used to strike a person leaves a mark where the stick strikes. My girlfriend used to “give” me hickies on my neck but she did not use the more scientific hickey stick which seems to be getting popular these days with the IPPC.

OOPS –IPCC

Pamela Gray

“By a register of the temperature of the atmosphere . . . it was found that the thermometer invariably stood at least from two to five degrees Fahrenheit, and on one or two occasions, seven degrees higher on the outside of the ships than it did on the shore, owing probably to a warm atmosphere created around the former by the constant fires on board”
They had BBQ’S!!!!!! Some things never change.

Back in the world of the short-term, RSS for September is in, the first to report this month: 0.467. That’s quite high for recent history, it looks as if it’s returning to trend:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss
Compared with other sources and average of all four, for the past 12 months:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/last:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:12/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/last:12/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/last:12/plot/rss/last:12

Henry chance

Algore’s peace prize is not so Noble.

rb Wright

The use of old data in charts is not restricted to the IPCC. In the state of California’s new draft climate adaptation report, there is a sea level chart, on Page 19, that ends in 2000, with projected increases extending beyond that date.
Inconveniently, actual tide station data indicates the mean sea levels peaked in 1998 and have been lower since.

Jimmy Haigh

stephen.richards (06:16:29) :
“It is also worth noting that wood is a great insulator and also a good storer of heat.
It appears to be so – ask Briffa, Mann et al.

RR Kampen

Re: Richard (05:32:39) :
“At that station? For heavens sake when the temperature remains high for centuries on end – is it happening just at that station?? This has been reflected at other stations in Greenland.”

Good. Now, is the globe covered with ice up to a height of some 2 to 4 kilometres? In other words, are stations on top of ice caps representative for the whole world? Does the South Pole exhibit the same warming over the past couple of decennia als, say, Holland?
“Dont you think this is far better representation of Global Temperatures or at least NH temperatures than Briffa’s one tree somewhere in Siberia, which has been depended on by the IPCC?”
Yes. Fortunately that tree showed the same sort of figure as a host of different proxy or non-proxy data, which is where the IPCC depends on also.
“You are quite happy to accept that BS are you?”
No, I’d have preferred an ice age. Unfortunately I lost one of my main hobbies in Holland due to Dutch Warming: skating. I depend on observations like this, among others of course, to accept ‘that BS’.