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 The problem with the graph in the upper right of page 5 of the UNEP report is that it itself has not been peer reviewed nor has it originated from a peer reviewed publication, having its inception at Wikipedia.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″.
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.
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:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
BBC still features hockey stick prominently
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8285247.stm
what a bunch of dopies.
Alan the Brit,
I hate to be picky with what was otherwise a well thought out post, but in the case of our Bert, I don’t think there was ever any opposition to his theory of SR. Lorentz had already written an explanation for the unexpected Michelso-Morley experiment by calculating a contraction for length along the direction of motion, a transformation that Bert took further. Poincare was also working along the same lines.
Bert was indeed expecting a torrent of criticism after he published his special theory, but was met with only silence and disinterest, except for a letter from Max Planck asking for some further clarification.
One of my favourite examples of scientific paradigm shifts comes from the 1998 realisation that the expansion of the universe was speeding up. Imagine that! It was conventional wisdom up until then to say that gravity was slowing down the rate of expansion, and the only question was whether the universe would fall back in on itself, or continue to expand albeit at an ever decreasing rate. To suddenly rethink their whole theory of how the universe works, including introducing the concept of dark energy, was breathtaking. That is an example of how science should work. A lesson there for the warmists, methinks.
Don Keiller,
Thanks for the link.
“The UK Colonial Registers and Royal Navy Logbooks project, a partnership that includes the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of Sunderland, aims to make all the logs available online.”
I’m sure Steve McIntyre will be relieved, if not surprised, to hear this.
Here is a news flash…….
There is no such thing as “the greenhouse effect”.
The atmosphere has a cooling effect as well as a warming effect. The deceptive term “greenhouse effect” implies only a warming effect, yet gasses behave as a liquid to temperature and while they may warm, they also cool. If they did not then every thing living at equator would be cooked alive at noon on a daily basis. The surface of the moon (which of course has no atmosphere) reaches 123º C in the Sun.
CO2 absorbs heat but it cannot trap heat. When it has absorbed heat it expands as do the all the other gasses it is mixed with such as nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour. Do not be fooled by the false claims that CO2 is special or unique in the way it is effected by heat. All gasses absorb and re-emit heat. It does not matter that they do this at various frequencies, all that maters is that they all do it. If they did not they would not be gasses, they would be solid ice. Therefore all gasses absorb and re-emit heat and so must all be greenhouse gasses, if not then none at all.
These mixed gasses when warmed, then rise up through the atmosphere and exchange the heat with colder gasses higher up. The higher they rise the colder it gets. As space is 0º K or – 278º C there is only one possible outcome. All the heat energy received from the sun is re-emitted back into space. You do not need to be a scientist to understand this concept. It is more than attested to by 4, 500,000,000 years of relative temperature stability. If CO2 could trap heat and cause global warming it would have done so already. Perhaps when CO2 was @ur momisugly 1000 ppm or 2000 ppm or even when it was @ur momisugly 3000 ppm. Maybe runaway global warming should have occurred when CO2 was 4000, 5000, 6000, or 7000 ppm as it has been in the past. But it has never occurred at these levels so why should we be concerned about 100 ppm increase?
The answer of course, is that we shouldn’t.
Gasses in a greenhouse cannot convect but gasses in the atmosphere can convect. So in a greenhouse there is a “greenhouse effect” but in the atmosphere there is not.
A “greenhouse gas” is a gas inside a greenhouse.
The key is convection which is why you will never hear the topic of convection being properly discussed by proponents of AGW.
Like I said earlier, you do not need to be a scientist to work this out. The truth is hanging there like an over ripe apple waiting to be plucked. All you need to do is reason it through with logic and common sense and the AGW scam as it is will evaporate.
Remember, there is no substance known to man that can trap heat! Think about that for a moment.
For a more detailed look at the AGW deception download this free .pdf.
[snip – self promotion ]
I cited in a previous post the BSM has come of age. What’s the BSM, the Blog Stream Media.
Hanno’ 2009 ‘eh….. The perfect graph for the Mickey Mouse Climate Theory of everything.
….. I wonder if he has a graph for carbon futures????
Anyway for the real scientists working for the AGW Monkeys…. This guy might have some tips for you…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR71GnQ4CU4
Mike Jonas (06:09:18) :
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.
———————————————————-
Is that the same stick they use for Hokey pokey…..?
RSS MSU 9-2009: +0.48 °C
Rank 2/31
Woodfortrees,
First of all, we temperatire plotters love you!
Secondly, RC has a new (old) thread on how to interpret trends:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Sophistry in politics (07:13:43) Well put. For those living in a dry climate, where 30-50°F are gained and lost most everyday, you know the only thing that diminishes this range is temporarily higher humidity. The AIRS satellite shows CO2 concentrations in the western hemisphere highest in April annually, and highest in Alaska and Canada where there is virtually no human cause for CO2 at that time. Anthro-CO2 is begging for a death certificate as a source of alarm.
Now moving on to the next fake graph, the carefully prepared backup plan …. It’s all about the taxes, the AGW is just the guilt trip mechanism to make you pay.
It never was about science, facts or truth.
Alan the Brit
The Earth being flat part was not a part of that consensus. Since Aristothenes had measured the circumference prior to 200 BC. The whole flat earth thing is a myth though not as hamful a one as the hockey stick.
The Aristotelian model the church used considered the Earth to be a ball about 4000 miles in radius. The Earth centered idea is one that made sense based on observations. When new data came in the model had to change. Unlike CAGW to date; the Earth centered model was eventually tossed out when a better explanation became available.
Has anyone taken the trouble to actually read this report? It makes horrifying reading, enough to convince any of our policymakers to immediately batten down the hatches and say goodbye to civilization.
The Hanno diagram is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to disinformation contained in the report. There are many instances of pure distortion, such as citing a 23% reduction in Arctic sea ice extent between 2005 and 2007 whilst failing to acknowledge a 23% increase between 2007 and 2009 and stating that the Arctic was well on the way to open water during summer. It makes massive statements of fact on issues that are only presented in terms of probabilities in the IPCC report and the Secretary General is perhaps the worst in this respect and he has been to the Arctic to know the true story. The whole report needs thoroughly debunking by respected professional climatologists before the time of the Copenhagen circus.
Par for the course at the UN! So appreciate this blog.
Its getting embarrassing in Britain – the whole Yamal story has yet to appear anywhere in the mainstream media – and the left-liberal press has totally betrayed its origins, arguing entirely ‘from authority’ with the UN at the top. The green movement has abandoned history – as to who led on the main issues in the 80s and 90s – it was not the UN, or the Royal Society, or the Government’s chief scientific advisors.
Well with the UN ou(s)ting of the hockey stick(s); there’s not much to talk about any more.
So what better place to report some good news for a change.
Today it is announced that three Americans have won the Nobel Physics Prize; and one of those three is none other than George E. Smith; the inventor of the CCD, that launched modern digital photography.
So since my telephone did NOT ring in the wee hours of the morning, I can say again categorically, that I am not that fellow, who just received the Nobel Physics Prize. Besides he’s a much more handsome chap than I am; but he certainly is well deserving of the prize. It is not too often that the Physics prize is awarded for other than deep blue sky lunatic fringe stuff; but recognizes technology instead.
Well the Charged Coupled Device that my famous namesake invented, is a new Semiconductor Physics phenomenon; and not just another “transistor design” , so it really is Basic Physics.
Congratulations George; you deserve it.
GES
oakwood (00:00:33) : “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.”
I met with my representative a few nights ago. He told me the best policy is to write all your reps, even if they don’t seem to be listening. They do add up the numbers of letters they get, pro and con, on all the issues. If the numbers go strongly in one direction, they’ll alter course at least to some degree. Write.
In the Colonies, see http://www.congress.org/
The problem with recording a temperature trend for the last 150 years is that of interpolating the odd records that were available before satellites, which are more systematic, with ground based, which can be/were sparse and non existent in places..
Since different data sources and data sets, are used they should be taken as different data. Like Arctic ice, before 1979 no-one knew its extent, although we know that the warming was greater in the 1930’s than today, so as far as we know, the Arctic was smaller than the 1979-2009 average.
Going by proxies however, nothing in th elast 40 years proves itself to be exceptional. Even 10 year abrupt climatic changes are well recorded in ancient ice, over the holocene period
I quote:
The IPCC first projected a global warming rate of 0.03°C per year in 1992. The errors of the IPCC projection over the years 1992 to 2008 were little different from the errors from the no-change model, when compared to actual measured temperature changes. When the IPCC’s warming rate is applied to a historical period of exponential CO2 growth, from 1851 to 1975, the errors are more than seven times greater than errors from the no-change model.
However, here is the more interesting question: The IPCC bases much of its revision and methodology on the Hadley Centre which in turn provides the MET office with its forecasts. On this basis, the Met office have made 8 consecutive seasonal forecast failures, and numerous short term failures. Years ago they were excellent as a weather forecaster. Now they can’t predict El Nino or El Nina. What has turned the MET office into a one time reliable forecaster, but nowadays scientifically mediocre institution?
secondly, perhaps more importantly, even if the unbiased temperature data showed a slight warming trend from 1999-2009 (whether it does or not is open to dispute), then the causes are the subject of interest.
Sophistry in politics (07:13:43)
You nutcase.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
It’s not really a “Greenhouse” effect, that’s just the tag it got given so that the scientifically illiterate (Like you!) can understand it.
Read and learn.
Read the rest of Dr Spencer’s work too.
Paul Clark:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007/offset:-0.14/plot/gistemp/from:2007/offset:-0.25/plot/uah/from:2007/plot/rss/from:2007
up until 2008, the different temperature readings followed each other pretty closely. Since then, it’s gotten pretty wild. Anyone have an explanation?
I was wondering what the lefties have been up to. Getting ready for some plausible denyability it seems.
‘No compromise’ faction attacks climate bill
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-01-climate-bill-attacked-from-the-far-left
Scott, in reference to the above, it is fascinating to see that RC say that a number of warming records have been broken during the last 3 years. I notice they don’t bring attention to cold or snow records broken during this three year period. Might not that indicate a lack of impartiality at RC?
For the record here are a list of climatic related records.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records
Wikipedia it might be, so correct any biases if they’re noticed
Re: P Wilson (08:37:13) :
“Scott, in reference to the above, it is fascinating to see that RC say that a number of warming records have been broken during the last 3 years. I notice they don’t bring attention to cold or snow records broken during this three year period. Might not that indicate a lack of impartiality at RC?”
—
On the other hand, there might be no such records.
ok, so plotting a ten year period from 2000-2010
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:111/plot/uah/last:111/plot/rss/last:111/plot/gistemp/last:111/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:111/trend/plot/uah/last:111/trend/plot/rss/last:111/trend/plot/gistemp/last:111/trend
shows that temperatures haven’t been flat for the last 10 years
typos woops. *have* been flat for the last 10 years
“”” Sophistry in politics (07:13:43) :
Here is a news flash…….
There is no such thing as “the greenhouse effect”.
The atmosphere has a cooling effect as well as a warming effect. The deceptive term “greenhouse effect” implies only a warming effect, yet gasses behave as a liquid to temperature and while they may warm, they also cool. If they did not then every thing living at equator would be cooked alive at noon on a daily basis. The surface of the moon (which of course has no atmosphere) reaches 123º C in the Sun.
CO2 absorbs heat but it cannot trap heat. When it has absorbed heat it expands as do the all the other gasses it is mixed with such as nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour. “””
CO2 is about one molecule in 2597.4 molecules of the atmosphere, so that means that CO2 molecules on average are separated by about 13.75 molecular spacings. That means that any particular CO2 molecule that has absorbed a long wave IR photon, is not even aware that there are any like molecules anywhere. Just imagine a packed cocktail party, and there are 13 other people between you and the pretty girl you would like to meet. Fat chance of meeting her.
Consequently a GHG molecule like CO2 interracts only with the ordinary atmospheric molecules of N2, O2, and occasionally an Ar atom. in an average atmosphere, the CO2 is about as likely to encounter an H2O molecule about as often as it does an Ar atom.
So the energy captured by the CO2 is quickly shared with the ordinary atmospheric gases; and it is they that expand because of the increased mean particle kinetic energy. So it is not as if somwhow the CO2 expands and thereby “floats up” in the atmosphere. The whole atmosphere expands, and there is no net diffusive gradient that would greatly disturb the GHG molecule’sposition in the air mass, which simply carries it along in the general convective flow.
For the same reason; any re-radiated thermal radiation which might progress either to outer space, or towards the surface, is a function only, of the ordinary atmosphere and its temperature.
So there really wouldn’t be any GHG signature in the atmospheric radiation.
Now I know there are some nitpickers out there so let me add, that at very high altitudes, where the mean time between collisions becomes longer than the lifetime of the CO2 excited state, there will be spontaneous emissions from the CO2 moelcule, and that could have a characteristic spectrum; but by that time the number of molecules is way down, so any such signals would be expected to be weak, and not have a significant influence on the total atmospheric radiation spectrum.