IPCC reviewer: "don't cover up the divergence"

Steve McIntyre writes: One reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report specifically asked IPCC not to hide the decline. The reviewer stated very clearly:

Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18)

The IPCC said that it would be “inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series“.

IPCC reviewer notes: click to enlarge

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

This is like a domino effect – one thing leads to another then another then another. We will all be climate experts by the end of this lol

Matthew W

Hiding right out in the open !!!!!!!!!!!!
This just keeps getting better by the day !!!!

Patrick Davis

This could be a diversionary tactic in the run-up to Copenhagen. While a lot of people are pulling this leak to bits, slippery and sneaky pollies insert not only an ETS/Cap & Trade policy, but other draconian policies too.

twit

Thanksgiving Day Invitation to the Climate Change Skeptics
All the data and what models exist seem to indicate that we have reached a peak in oil production and a long steady decline is ahead of us.
This chronic oil depletion crisis happens to be occurring in parallel with climate change awareness, although peak oil has gotten much less publicity. This is serious stuff, yet the government barely acknowledges its significance because it has serious ramifications on the economy.
So, unfortunately, much of the public has no awareness of our petroleum predicament, and further, a significant number of people actively question the phenomena of peak oil.
Like it or not, a sizable cross-section climate change skeptics also happen to be oil
depletion skeptics. There is no arguing this, as you hear it on radio talk shows constantly and you read about it in opinion pieces such as by George Will and a host of others.
So the challenge to the climate science skeptics who claim to be hot-shot statistics wizards — why don’t you “audit” those of us who post on http://theoildrum.com and other oil depletion blogs?
We are waiting, all of our data is open, we only discuss matters in open daylight, and we will kick your asses with our skillz. Seriously, we have to change our energy policy and soon. Whether it is due to a crisis in climate change, or due to an inexorable decline in easily accessible petroleum, things will change, like it or not. Here is your chance once more to prove someone wrong. Good luck.
And BTW, whatever data we uncover does not belong to us; oil reserve estimates are usually locked up in some corporate or foreign nation-state vault totally immune to FOIA requests. Double good luck in getting that. You will get to see how the people with the REAL money play hardball.
It looks like you have finished mopping the floor with the climate science crowd, and
you should be ready for your next conquest. Yes, we are waiting for you, and we knew this day would come.

BarryW

As with Watergate, Plame, and Martha Stewart, it’s not the act that gets you caught it’s the cover-up.

Alvin

Some guy named McIntyre. Sounds like a smart scientist 🙂

Glenn

Was this “discussed” in any of the Assessment Reports?
And was how Briffa reconstructed the temperature between 1600 – 1700 discussed:
http://camirror.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/briffa3.jpg
**********
“The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/full/391678a0.html

I can just hear Al Gore’s response if he’s asked about the cherry-picking of the Yamal tree data: “Well, the fact that there are cherry trees growing in Yamal is further proof of global warming.”

eo

The pollies have made up their minds based on the opinion polls. They are going to Copenhagen just like going to Iraq– based on the same quality of information and intelligence. At least for the next two to three years they could wave the flags “Mission Accomplish”. When the quality of the intelligence or information becomes known they dont care. They will be out of office by then. In fact the pollies will be the first one to claim they have been misled. After all they are just decision makers, they are not climate scientists. They dont care about history. If climate science will start to unwound, the world will have move on to another type of hysteria. The good thing about climate science is the very long shelf life of the hysteria. Climate Change hysteria is not unique. In fact public policy specialist have a special term for this phenomenon. It is called “moral panic”.
This is the irony of climate science. There professionals but the field has really been hijacked by movie stars, MSM personalities, railway engineers, theologians, etc. The top science societies have been hijacked and are freely supporting the principles that destorys the credibility of science. Hopefully the climategate issue will develop a wide base of intellectuals who will lead the revival of science who will counter balance the pseudo scientific appeal of the movie stars and carpet baggers riding on the economic benefits of climate change.

No matter how well meaning, anything less than straight ahead truth will get you in the end. That’s what always happens to politicians, but it’s sad that scientists are also getting into it.

Jim B in Canada

Who coined the word climategate?
Just Curious.
REPLY: It was coined here at WUWT on Nov 19th I believe. – Anthony
Here it is:
Bulldust
Submitted on 2009/11/19 at 3:52pm
Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?

Robert Wood of Canada

Bishop Hill is getting into a series on the codes.
There must be a thousan knowledgeable people investigating them as well.
E-mails; Harry’s red me file and the codes. The person who released this knew she was sowing all the clues …yeah!

Gene Nemetz

Alvin (18:14:54) :
Some guy named McIntyre. Sounds like a smart scientist 🙂
Or an auditor whose name must not be mentioned.

Alvin

Anthony – Google hits 8,560,000 for Climategate
sweet

Robert Wood of Canada

Jim Watson 18:22:16
Al Gore’s response to any challenhe is: “Are the Polar Bears endangered?”
Response: “No, they are increasing in numbers”.

Roger Knights

REPLY: It was coined here at WUWT on Nov 19th I believe. – Anthony”
I went to the first thread and searched it, and this was the first use of the word:
Bulldust (15:52:36) :
“Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?”

Roger Knights

“The IPCC said that it would be “inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series“.”
Cue the chorus:
“Hide the decline / hide the decline / hide the decline.”

Fred

twit……’peak oil’ as in maximum reserve size or ‘peak oil’ as in a maximum daily production rate?…….the latter is the only one that may have some legs….all you really need though is after Mann et al get skidded they can be simply rehired to massage daily max output datas & simply hide the production decline……….

Roger Knights

Remember everyone that skeptic scientist Tim Ball will be on Coast to Coast AM tonight in the last two hours. That’s 12 -2 Pacific, 3-5 ET.

littlepeaks

twit —
Don’t worry. (That’s what my wife always says). The amount of oil that has not been extracted in the United States and surrounding area is HUGE. Some of the oil is recoverable by drilling, and some is recoverable from other means (i.e. oil shale — see http://geology.com/news/2008/billions-of-barrels-of-oil-in-north-dakota-and-montana.shtml )
Perhaps if the current administration would let us recover some of this oil, it would help us recover, somewhat, from our ever-burgeoning national debt in the U.S.

MattN

They must have an alternate definition of “inappropriote” that I am unaware of.

Glenn

Roger Knights (18:42:01) :
“REPLY: It was coined here at WUWT on Nov 19th I believe. – Anthony”
I went to the first thread and searched it, and this was the first use of the word:
Bulldust (15:52:36) :
“Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?”
Bulldust did it. He must be the “hacker”.

youse guys dood good … you’ve made us skeptics on sideline proud as can be

D. King

Climaquiddick.
Roger Knights (18:42:01) :
I don’t know where I saw this, but it is like driving off a bridge.

Roger Knights

He’s a good short sale candidate: the carbon emissions Exchange-Traded Note (ETN) GRN . Here’s an article on it:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175467-grn-new-carbon-emissions-etn-offers-green-energy-alternative

Spenc BC

Here are two MSM efforts to expose climategate. Sorry for the constant posting here. Once I see MSM carrying this more I’ll find a new way to voice my concern. Thanks for all the help on this site.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/…/the-global-cooling-cover-up
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/steve-janke-how-zealotry-came-to-pervert-climate-science.aspx

Roger Knights (18:44:26) : “The IPCC said that it would be “inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series“.”
There is no statute of limitations on fraud. A signature obtained by fraud is invalid. The Copenhagen Treaty is probably already void. It’s merely another opportunity for BO to make a pathetic spectacle of himself. [KRudd can forget getting a bow, though.]

Bob Shapiro

“Fred (18:44:55) :
twit……’peak oil’ as in maximum reserve size or ‘peak oil’ as in a maximum daily production rate?…….the latter is the only one that may have some legs….all you really need though is after Mann et al get skidded they can be simply rehired to massage daily max output datas & simply hide the production decline……….”
In the early 70s, OPEC was formed. One of their early decisions was to allocate quotas for production based on each country’s reserves. Almost immediately, one member country after another doubled their official reserve numbers. And, though only negligible new reserves have been found in OPEC countries, those doubled reserve figures have never decreased significantly – after 40+ years of continued production.
But, while it’s easy to massage reserves (on paper), actual production (the real asset) either is there or it’s not. Also, keep in mind that OPEC (and other oil producing countries) continue to increased their domestic demand for their produced oil.
Using Mexico as an example, while they still produce a lot of oil, they’re about to be in balance between domestic production and domestic consumption. So, Peak Oil (maximum production rate) should be considered more of a problem for importers – like the US – when the exporters stop being exporters.

Mike K

The hysteria that has been created by these Ivy League socialists around global warming has nothing to do with protecting the earth’s climate. Nor is it about reducing any of the greenhouse gases now being emitted. The reason for this charade is to create a funding mechanism for the emerging one world government and give it the authority to dictate energy policy over nation states. If you don’t believe me, just follow the flow of money in the house climate bill and it’ll become perfectly obvious to any reader what is happening.

Ripper

twit (18:07:09) :
“Thanksgiving Day Invitation to the Climate Change Skeptics”
The climate change skeptics are the alarmists.
They are the one in denial that the climate changes. Hence all the hockey sticks.

Mattb

This is not new though is it? I mean surely Steve already knew he had made those comments, and that the IPCC knoicked them on the head. None of this is new, the divergence is not covered up (there it is in plain text in the comments), the divergence issue has been openly discussed has it not?
Fred – at least you confirmed Twit’s opinion that “Like it or not, a sizable cross-section climate change skeptics also happen to be oil depletion skeptics.”

denier

Now that the bubble has burst on this farce, the powers to be need another “common enemy” to get this one world government put in, I know what that enemy is….
STUPIDITY
Our next enemy is STUPIDITY, We need a massive new tax and global government to battle STUPIDITY! This farce has proven there will never be a lack of that resource. The most renewable resource in the galaxy.

karl heuer

If any of the fraudulent work was done under US government contract, those responsible BY LAW should be barred from future US govt. contracts and grants.

Richard

The REAL cause of AGW: fortran.

Christopher Byrne

@ Jim Watson – Thanks for the chortle. And by the way, that is some island you live on!
Sorry if this is a re-post, but it’s just too funny: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/al_gore_places_infant_son_in

Pompous Git

Twit
The audit interest here is mainly papers relied on by the IPCC in their Assessment Reports on *climate* and a few other papers on *climate*. Peak oil is not climate-related AFAICT. If you want to audit stuff on peak oil, go ahead. We won’t stop you.
If you had played a role in these climate audits, then you might have been able to beg a favour in return. At this stage, it looks like you are too lazy, or incompetent and so demand that busy people drop what they are interested in so they can do your dirty work for you.

David Ball

twit has jumped on the next fear bandwagon. CAGW is a bust, now they need to scare us with something else. I am a fan nuclear energy and think we need to build reactors like there is no tomorrow (which, of course there will be). The oildrum ignores huge oil finds (especially those on our own soil) and is part of the same fear machine that drives AGW. To paraphrase Fred (18:44:55) , if we do not produce it, we can say we are running out. I refuse to be frightened of what we do not know. Sorry twit.

GA

Hockeysticks everywhere!
Traffic to my site (green-agenda.com) has gone up 10-fold since climategate broke. Used up my monthly bandwidth allocation in just 12 days. Site will be down till 15 Dec 🙁
I really should upgrade!

oakgeo

Those reviewer notes and IPCC responses are wild. I especially like the third response shown, to Reviewer Comment ID # 309-20:
“Rejected – Rutherford et.al. did not use the tree-ring density data after 1960 so there are no data to show”
The authors of Rutherford et.al. 2005, by the way, are: Rutherford, S.; Mann, M. E.; Osborn, T.J.; Bradley, R.S.; Briffa, K.R.; Hughes, M.K.; Jones, P.D.; we’re quite familiar with all these names now.
Do you think they used the “hide the decline” trick?
Was the divergence problem discussed in AR4? What caused the divergence?

JEM

twit, Fred –
Historically, ‘peak oil’ means ‘peak at a particular extraction cost’.
If oil is permanently above $80/bbl there is more liquid hydrocarbon available than we’ll ever find occasion to use, whether it comes out of the ground as crude oil, shale, sands, coal conversion e.g. Fischer-Tropsch, etc.

Henry chance

Let’s ignore Algore’
Now Briffa is also in avoidance mode.

Jim Watson (18:22:16) :
“I can just hear Al Gore’s response if he’s asked about the cherry-picking of the Yamal tree data: “Well, the fact that there are cherry trees growing in Yamal is further proof of global warming.””
He’s thuper thuper serial about the threat of ManBearPig, too! Half man, half bear, half pig….

This controversy has indeed been hiding in plain sight for years with the problem being that the only ones with enough ears listening to them who might expose it lacked an actual scandal to run with.
(1) “We used simple linear regression, fitting the the regression equations over the period 1881 – 1960, or over the total available period prior to 1960 when the instrumental record was shorter. The period after 1960 was not used to avoid bias in the regression coefficients that could be generated by an anomalous decline in tree density measurements over recent decades that is not forced by temperature.” – Briffa
(2) “Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues….” – IPCC Ch.6 of latest IPCC report (AR4) written by Briffa et al.
“Hide the Decline!” graphic:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2ngrn0m.jpg

L. Gardy LaRoche

As of 20:04 PST 2009 Nov 26: [Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:05:38 UTC]
8,660,000 for Climategate. (0.28 seconds)
On Google.

Ian

I like this one from Phil: [August 2008, 1219239172.txt, discussing final form of a paper they are submitting, after having gotten reviewer’s comments. Mike was concerned that the last 12 years of “unprecedeneted” warming wasn’t showing in a particular graph]
“Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, Gavin,
On the final Appendix plot, the first and last 12 years of the annual CET record were omitted from the smoothed plot. Tim’s away, but when he did this with them in the light blue line goes off the plot at the end. The purpose of the piece was to show that the red/black lines were essentially the same. It wasn’t to show the current light blue smoothed line was above the red/blue lines, as they are crap anyway. The y-axis scale of the plot is constrained by what was in the IPCC diagram from the first report. What we’ll try is adding it fully back in or dashing the first/last 12 years. The 50-year smoother includes quite a bit of padding – we’re using your technique Mike.”
Sigh.

David L. Hagen

JEM (19:50:31) :
Peak Oil also specifically refers to flowable light oil. e.g. US light oil production peaked in 1971. Even 1500% increases in price have not significantly changed the decline.
NonOPEC oil peaked in 2004/5. See Oilwatch Monthly Nov 2009
Peak Oil concept could be applied to each class of hydrocarbons and each region etc. Avoid the confusion of mixing different types of hydrocarbons. Bitumen/tar or coal are very different from light oil.
See

Glenn

Ian (20:06:51) :
I like this one from Phil: [August 2008, 1219239172.txt, discussing final form of a paper they are submitting, after having gotten reviewer’s comments. Mike was concerned that the last 12 years of “unprecedeneted” warming wasn’t showing in a particular graph]
“Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, Gavin,
On the final Appendix plot, the first and last 12 years of the annual CET record were omitted from the smoothed plot. Tim’s away, but when he did this with them in the light blue line goes off the plot at the end. The purpose of the piece was to show that the red/black lines were essentially the same. It wasn’t to show the current light blue smoothed line was above the red/blue lines, as they are crap anyway. The y-axis scale of the plot is constrained by what was in the IPCC diagram from the first report. What we’ll try is adding it fully back in or dashing the first/last 12 years. The 50-year smoother includes quite a bit of padding – we’re using your technique Mike.”
Tim Osborn is the head modeller of the CRU staff.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/
He’s still away
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/

Rod Gill

littlepeaks (19:01:57) :
The Berken Oil shale technically has massive amounts of oil, but take 1KG of Camel dung and 1KG of Oil Shale and the Camel dung has more energy. It would take more than 1 barrel of oil to extract, refine and distribute one barrel of oil from the shale. Modern technology can’t overcome the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
The canadian oil sands aren’t much better: they are using their gas supplies to create steam to extract the oil and basically swap for oil.
This is what peak oil is about: the only oil left is very expensive and available only in small quantities so barrels per day are very low and won’t make up for falling rates from old super giant fields.
The oil problem is massive and here we are running towards the cliff looking backwards at a red herring called CO2!#!@#$!

JPSobel

twit –
The idea of peak oil is uninteresting. It’s largely an economic issue, not a scientific one.
Yes, at some time in the future, global oil production will hit a maximum and begin a “long steady decline”. Prices will rise, new extraction techniques will emerge, alternative energy sources will be utilized. However, the disappearance of hydrocarbons from the economy will not happen overnight. The free market should (and ultimately will) handle the transition.
As for your statement, “Seriously, we have to change our energy policy and soon. ” – I think most readers of skeptic blogs would agree. For a good example of this thinking, click on the “About” button at the top of this page.

Spenc BC

Allow me one more excellent story from a major Canadian News paper. The story seems to be picking up steam in that paper.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx