This is a mirrored post from ClimateAudit.org which is terribly overloaded.
So far one of the most circulated e-mails from the CRU hack is the following from Phil Jones to the original hockey stick authors – Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes.
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
The e-mail is about WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 -report, or more specifically, about its cover image.
Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about “the divergence” in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” -thread of RealClimate.org.
Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.
mike’s response speaks for itself.
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.
But there is an interesting twist here: grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually the original “Mike’s Nature trick”! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC over here. (Note: Try not to click this link now, CA is overloaded. Can’t even get to it myself to mirror it. -A)
When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).
TGIF-magazine has already asked Jones about the e-mail, and he denied misleading anyone but did remember grafting.
“No, that’s completely wrong. In the sense that they’re talking about two different things here. They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”
Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”.
“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”
Maybe it helps Dr. Jones’s recollection of the exact context, if he inspects UC’s figure carefully. We here at CA are more than pleased to be able to help such nice persons in these matters.
Sponsored IT training links:
Learn all that you need to pass 220-701 exam. Complete your certification in days using 70-642 dumps and 220-702 study guide.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Those who received public grants and have fudged ( that is a term we BS detectors use all the time ) the results should be prosecuted (if there are still any honest prosecutors and judges) and put in prison. Let them sell fake herbal remedies and other snake oil medicines when they get out. How’s Obama and Gore reacting to the recent news?
Dave – “It is scientifically invalid to append a data set to another data set if the 2 sets are not consistent.”
The problem is that the two (actually four) data sets *are* consistent, up to the mid-20th century, where a proxy measure (derived from tree ring data) departs from *observed* data. So while you are right that you have to be careful in merging sets of data gathered under different circumstances, this is not the problem here.
The problem is that there’s something strange happening in the trees: perhaps they are actually *responding* to the warming climate by changing their growth patterns in a way that looks like they think the earth is cooler. Perhaps like a dog panting in the heat. That’s a pretty frightening thought: that the very thing that many people are today taking to be evidence that there is no warming climate could in fact be the trees’ way of saying “So long, and thanks for all the fish.”
The divergence of proxy from temperature that they were hiding was a real problem for them. They avoided by ignoring it. When they are trying to validate their tree ring proxies against real temperatures it is ludicrous to trunicate and substitute real temps.
The whole reason the need to “hide the decline” is because if you include the decline then the supposed temperature proxies, tree ring data, don’t correlate to measured temperatures. No correlation means that the data is not a valid proxy. So the whole point of the “trick” is to manufacture a spurious correlation, aka false correlation, and thus false proxy. One can then use the false proxy to generate false historical predictions of temperature.
Michael Mann is incompetent, or dishonest for using such a method.
In addition, the whole idea of trying to correlate physical proxies from Siberia with global temperatures is also idiotic. There is no possible physical mechanism by which a tree (or trees) in Siberia could measure global average temperatures. So even without the truncation to produce a spurious correlation we know that any correlation against global temperature is spurious in the first place.
This ludicrous belief that trees sense global average temperatures is called teleconnect. What’s worse for climatalogists is that they belittle the Medieval Warming Period as being a local phenomena, and therefore not representative of global temps. Talk about having contradictory beliefs.
Tell you what. Since so many climatologists claim to agree with IPCC based on their peer review, and that is based in large part on this nonsense then I have a challenge.
I challenge climatologists to produce an instrument that, had it been placed in a single locale anywhere on earth, will produced measurements that correlate to global average temperature but not to local temperature conditions. Your instrument can use whatever input it wants, rainfall, sunshine, mercury expansion, air pressure, whatever. Hell, even temperature.
You couldn’t design that if you wanted and certainly there is no selective pressure on trees to measure global temperatures, so evolution isn’t going to design one either.
What ever the methods used to measure it seems clear that they are all pointing to a serious problem for mankind.
Did I put you all to sleep?
So this is the “trick” hubbub? Sadly, the hubbub probably won’t die, as It is quite obvious that many, actually most, people have no idea how a computer creates a polynomial average curve from a data set. When a curve is created of a set of data points from an algorithm, the very ends of the trend line can be inaccurate as the end data points may be inappropriately amplified or incomplete….. especially in polynomials of multiple orders. In the above chart, the downward projection of the end of the green trend is caused by the premature end of the proxy data. In fact, it can be easily proved that the green curve is incorrect, as it differs from the actual recorded instrumental temperatures in the end. Anybody with more than even a limited knowledge of mathematics can see that the green line is an inaccurate depiction of the trending temperatures. As a result, any scientist would have to change their algorithms to CORRECT THIS MATHEMATICAL ERROR, which is what is seen in the purple trend. Any climate change skeptic that would look at the green trend, which is a fabricated guess, (as is the purple trend line, after all) and conclude that the trend shows cooling, when the ACTUAL recorded temperatures are going up, is showing what a laughable lack they have of mathematical knowledge in general. As for grafting instrumental data onto the end of the proxy series…. how else are you going to do it? Need I remind people that tree rings and ice cores, ahem, are not as accurate as instrumental readings. And you just don’t have instrumental readings from 50,000 BC through 1700. Sorry.
My goodness, JT,
Clever as you might be with mathematics, your English comprehension skills are in doubt. Just take a little look at Brian Macker’s post above yours.
Adding oranges to apples doesn’t inavalidate those fruits, it just makes lousy marmalade.
“How else are you going to do it?” you ask. Do what? Convince people that you know exactly what’s going on?
Another disgusting event.
But it´s great to read more than a thousand comments in just one entry.
Let´s spread the data and let each one make their own mind.
Peace to all
Here’s a great video.
The decline….. What decline are we talking about? Temperature, or the divergence in tree ring data? The video explains this comment IN CONTEXT. They’re talking about tree rings. See links below.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-divergence-problem.html
http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Briffa_et_al_PTRS_98.pdf
I’ve read a bunch of stuff here today and it really doesn’t change my view on the subject. In essence one side was able to come out on top and the others are just mad you weren’t on top.
Global warming, I don’t know, sure seems like it to me. The weather here is warmer than it was 30 yrs ago when I was a child. Are humans “The cause?” No, just like cigarettes aren’t “The cause cancer.” But don’t tell me cigarettes aren’t a contributing factor or bad for you!! As a former smoker I can say that I don’t get as many colds as before and I sure breath a lot easier now. Likewise don’t tell me that humans aren’t a contributing factor to the enviornment, we are! Look at LA, they have bad air day advisories. That IS from too much crap put into the air by humans!!
Also what is lost on all of you is the absolute fact that fossil fuels are finite. Which means sooner or later we have to find other sources of energy, which will take time to perfect, so why not sooner. Another fact lost on most of you is the 1000’s of products that use oil products; that’s right 1000’s. All those products go away when the finite amt of oil is used up. So let’s stop being wasteful, recycle and push for green energy.
Doug W. – every generation claims that they had it tougher than the subsequent generation (when I was a lad we walked barefoot to school through snow uphill both ways) and you prove your generation is no different. I have a picture of my father plowing fields in January in the early 1950’s in Maine, a feat that has not been possible since. I remember cold winters and warm winters in my youth (in the 50’s and 60’s) and I still see it today. Normally I would trust data over my experience, but now that I see how much the data is manipulated, I have to trust my experience and that tells me that it is as cold now as it was in my youth. Hopefully we will be able to get raw, unfiltered data in the future from people of integrity, but I fear that we will have to wait for scientists without political and funding agendas to come onto the scene.
You say Los Angeles is proof of man’s impact on the environment. There is some truth to this, however, the indians call the LA basin “the land of 10,000 smokes.” LA is geographically unsuitable for handling any form of pollution, whether from forest fires, power plants or automobiles with an on shore breeze trapping gases against a mountain barrier on the east side of the basin. Citing LA as an example of man’s damage to the environment is the sort of cherry picking that characterizes the folks on your side of the debate.
As far as when we should transition from fossil fuels to other forms of energy, all we need to do is watch the price signals in a free market (the wisdom of crowds). Of course your counter-argument is that you don’t trust markets but I certainly trust them more than your opinion.
All involved need to be thrown in prison and tried for treason, fraud, theft, and being very stupid. None deserve to be called “scientist” – they are all hacks – and not very good ones either.