By Steve McIntyre from his camirror.wordpress.com site.
For the very first time, the Climategate Letters “archived” the deleted portion of the Briffa MXD reconstruction of “Hide the Decline” fame – see here. Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been “hidden in plain sight” (see here. ). This isn’t true.
The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA here and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001. Nor was the decline shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email (or for that matter in the IPCC 2007 graph, an issue that I’ll return to.)
A retrieval script follows.
For now, here is a graphic showing the deleted data in red. 
Figure 1. Two versions of Briffa MXD reconstruction, showing archived and climategate versions.shown below, clearly does not show the decline in the Briffa MXD reconstruction.
Contrary to Gavin Schmidt’s claim that the decline is “hidden in plain sight”, the inconvenient data has simply been deleted.
The reason, as explained on Sep 22, 1999 by Michael Mann to coauthors in 938018124.txt, was to avoid giving “fodder to the skeptics”. Reasonable people might well disagree with Gavin Schmidt as to whether this is a “a good way to deal with a problem” or simply a trick.
Figure 2. IPCC 2001 Fig 2.21 showing Briffa, Jones and Mann reconstructions together with HadCRU temperature.
Retrieval script:
##COMPARE ARCHIVED BRIFFA VERSION TO CLIMATEGATE VERSION
#1. LOAD ARcHIVED DATA
url<-"ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt"
#readLines(url)[1:50]
Briffa<-read.table(url,skip=24,fill=TRUE)
Briffa[Briffa< -900]=NA
dimnames(Briffa)[[2]]<-c("year","Jones98","MBH99","Briffa01","Briffa00","Overpeck97","Crowley00","CRU99")
sapply(Briffa, function(x) range( Briffa$year[!is.na(x)]) )
# year Jones98 MBH99 Briffa01 Briffa00 Overpeck97 Crowley00 CRU99
#[1,] 1000 1000 1000 1402 1000 1600 1000 1871
#[2,] 1999 1991 1980 1960 1993 1990 1987 1997
Briffa= ts(Briffa,start=1000)
#2. LOAD CLIMATEGATE VERSION
loc="http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=146&filename=939154709.txt"
working=readLines(loc,n=1994-1401+104)
working=working[105:length(working)]
x=substr(working,1,14)
writeLines(x,"temp.dat")
gate=read.table("temp.dat")
gate=ts(gate[,2],start=gate[1,1])
#Comparison briffa=ts.union(archive= Briffa[,"Briffa01"],gate ) briffa=window(briffa,start=1402,end=1994) # plot.ts(briffa)
X=briffa
par(mar=c(2.5,3,2,1))
plot( c(time(X)),X[,1],col=col.ipcc,lwd=2,ylim=c(-1.2,.5),yaxs="i",type="n",axes=FALSE,xlab="",ylab="")
for( i in 2:1) lines( c(time(X)),X[,i],col=i,lwd=1)
axis(side=1,tck=.025)
labels0=seq(-1,1,.1);labels0[is.na(match(seq(-1,1,.1),seq(-1,1,.5)))]=""
axis(side=2,at=seq(-1,1,.1),labels=labels0,tck=.025,las=1)
axis(side=4,at=seq(-1,1,.1),labels=labels0,tck=.025)
box()
abline(h=0)
title("Hide the Decline")
legend("topleft",fill=2:1,legend=c("Deleted","Archived"))
Sponsored IT training links:
Using 70-646 virtual exams, you’ll pass your 350-030 exam on first try plus get free demos for next 640-822 exam.
Note to US readers, here in UK the warmists are still running interference in the MSM. Check out (ex-commie) Aaranovitch in The Times.
sample:
“They somehow believe that the whole global warming schtick is an amazing confidence trick performed upon the peoples of the world by a group of scientists and socialists, and pursued by politicans keen to get their hands on green taxes (though for what nefarious purpose we do not know), and which has taken in almost all the governments of the world, from the US to China.”
Note the use of the word ‘trick’.
Keep up the pressure guys n gals. Don’t let them get away with it.
(PS – great work so far – props to you all)
It is all clearing up. We have several cheats working together and a handfull are in agreement with the cheating.
No wonder Hansen, Jones and Mann attack and mess with McIntyre when he wanted data.
Just watching “Question Time” on BBC, and the second question is “Is global warming a scam?”
The first person answering was a sceptic,
Mind you Marcus Brigstock than well known scientist is a zealot of warmist, UEA – CRU is insignificant.
At least it is the open.
So either 70ties were as cold as deep LIA – or trees are bad thermometers, probably underestimating real temperatures.
Hide the declineeeeeee – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
Time for criminal charges to be placed on the appropriate scientists. The sooner this happens the sooner we can get to the bottom of all this.
The wiki “Climategate” page needs attention. It is being redirected to a locked page called “Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident”.
There is another problem with their graph…they preferentially adjusted all of the data DOWN in the 1500s and 1600s…look at the reconstruction…I see a lot of years with very similar anomalies to the 20th century.
The scientists posting the emails are the IPPC experts.
(They get plenty of money and fame from it.)
These scientists plot (see emails) put their theory
to the IPPC and public and goverments follow.
What is unbelievable to me is the miss direction used by the offenders. They say things like “These e-mails will ultimatly show the integrity of the scientists”, hoping that people will not read the e-mails, but will just think “ya, he is right, some may look bad, but in the end it is all good”.
Then there is the notion that this is only 1 or 2 pieces of evidence out of hundreds. What they don’t realize is that most of this data is re-used in many other studys, and that realy this is the only quantitative evidence. The rest (arctic ice etc) is all qualitative, and could be interpreted many different ways.
Every time I look at such graphs, it strikes me that manipulators thrive where anecdotal and academic history go missing.
Though born in ’49, I learned from parents and grandparents about weather conditions between the wars. Apart from a brief but serious spell of drought around 1960, it was clear that the earlier period had been hotter and drier. The dustbowls in the US seemed to co-incide with Aussie conditions. Anecdotal, yes, but deeply ingrained.
As to accepting the absence of Medieval Warming in Mann’s original graph…you’d just have to be dumber than dog’s-do and more ignorant than a highly paid news-anchor.
Sorry guys, being a mere mortal…what does this all mean (well, not the deleted data bit, but the data itself)?
Regards
Mailman
From the band “Toto”, 1979, I give you the satirized version of the song “Hold the Line”:
Hold the decline
Warming isn’t always on time
Oh, oh, oh
Hold the decline
Warming isn’t always on time
Oh, oh, oh
Somebody please make a YouTube music video of this! 😀
I wait for the first of the Climatatii to step out of the closet….
Mailman it means tree rings are not robust proxy thermometers. The hockey stick shaft is a nonsense
I presume this is the beginning of analysis of the DATA files (not emails)?. This is where AGW will be buried and legal action will ensue. Expect to see massive resignation within weeks.
Maybe when the ‘world climate alarmist leaders’ arrive back from Copenhagen we should just take them straight to a specially constructed climate crimes unit and that can be the new reality TV. Milliband comes to mind, daddy was a Marxist after all.
Adolphe (Ralph) Miliband (7 January 1924 – 21 May 1994) was a notable Marxist political theorist. He was the father of two British MPs.
David Wright Miliband Member of Parliament, who is/was the current Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Member of Parliament for the constituency of South Shields ….
and
Edward Samuel Miliband is a United Kingdom Labour Party politician. He is/was the Member of Parliament for Doncaster North and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change….
Both are part of the Brown Ministry of deception on climate change.
I think the wiki article is actually quite balanced given how coverage of climate science in wiki has been subject to manipulation itself by immediate “corrections” of updates to critical articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate
Larry
I am in total agreement with Finbar (14:55:39) :
“Don’t let them get away with it”.
But that’s not all.
From John Holdren to Al Gore who will be in Copenhagen together with Obama.
Don’t let them get the away with it and don’t allow them to make further legal commitments based of crooked and corrupt data. Stop Copenhagen.
Re Question Time
Should be on BBC iPlayer soon. Second question in, worth watching for those who can access the iPlayer. The person who raised the question gave a good account of the facts – Roman warm period etc. Also Melanie Philips of the Daily Mail nailed her colours to the skeptic mast.
Has to be said most of the audience were converts to the church of warming.
SandyInDerby (15:06:44)
I also watched this item in BBC’s Question Time.
Melanie Philips was given a reasonable chance, but a promise she could come back with a response to a point which basically required “weather is not climate” didn’t materialise.
David Davis was also reasonable, stating that the science isn’t final and never will be, though admitting his opinion to be 80% confident in the AGW idea.
The argument that “most scientists” agree with the AGW view was again pushed. I think this is one area where there needs to be more clarity out there, along the following lines:
(a) Just how big is the climate science community? What percentage of this is involved in the IPCC papers (and Climategate)?
(b) Most scientists are not climate scientists. Before I retired I was a physicist. However I have been pretty dismayed by some of the data handling that appears to have been going on in the climate science community from what has been revealed recently (from Yamal to Climategate). I used to think that climate science was being done properly – now I am far from convinced, to say the least. I hope that most of it is – but most scientists don’t have the time to get into another field sufficiently well to be able to be sure; they expect other scientists to be working honestly. At least that’s how it used to be!
(c) The “peer review” idea needs to be explained – especially if the relevant community is as small as it appears to be. If it is really the case that a very small group has been peer reviewing all this stuff then of course we can expect problems.
Still, at least there’s a discussion with views on both sides on the “Question Time” follow up discussion on the web:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=7278&edition=1&ttl=20091126232705
Tim S.: is the what you’re looking for?
By Minnesotans for global warning, posted at Air Vent.
REPLY: on our main page too -A
Tim S – after all the talk about “true believers”, maybe something more like…
I thought science was nothing more than fairy tales
Meant for someone else but not for me
Facts were out to get me
That’s the way it seemed
Disappointment haunted all my dreams.
Then I made this trace
Now I’m a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind
Hockey stick – ooh!
I’m a believer, IPCC-er and I lie.
Who thought data had to be a static thing?
Seems the more I changed the less I plot .
What’s the use in tryin’?
Just fix the maths again.
Medieval sunshine is now rain.
And I saw my trace
Now I’m a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind
Hockey stick – ooh!
I’m a believer, IPCC-er and I lie. 🙂
I wonder if in fact RC has basically closed down? re Thanksgiving etc. I mean it would be hard for G Schidmt to continue in public given this and CA re hide the decline posting? I suspect there getting the feeling the game is up with the data analysis JUST starting…. I would tremble knowing CA is going to have a look at my data and analysis LOL….
I just fear that Post Modernism and Relativism plays a large part in this saga. I blame the Universities for disseminating this tripe, it really means that they feel immune from criticism, producing the “my reality is as as good as your reality” attitude.
This is far, far, removed from the spirit of scientific enquiry, it is as if we live on two different planets.
Joe A (15:12:32) : Time for criminal charges to be placed on the appropriate scientists. The sooner this happens the sooner we can get to the bottom of all this.
As my old man always said Joe “there’s no dignity in haste” and another “revenge is best served cold”.
Is there no wonder Gav and his Team say they refuse to visit this blog as doing so would certainly give them very very bad nightmares however I doubt anybody this side will be losing any sleep over that thought.
Anthony and Steve and all your associates – Unbelievably amazing information coming through each day resulting from your collaboration, combined expertise and diligence.
Thank you
Anthony: Oops! I looked for it on your main page, didn’t see it, but didn’t scroll far enough down.
It appears the period from 1910-1950 appears to be way warmer than the last 20 years based on that grapth. But with a slight upturn from 1980-1990…The bottom appears to be around 1970’s…So 1930’s and 1950’s were .2-.5 warmer than today.
Is that right.
Also to note is around 1650 the height of the little ice age it’s only around .4-.5c cooler than today. I thought the little ice age was 2c colder than today.
Spartan79 (15:47:12) :
Tim S.: is the what you’re looking for?
Must admit that I have watched it a few times as it just makes me laugh sooo much.
“Climategate” has everybody rethinking global warming. Many are wondering — if leading scientists were tempted to finagle their data, is the evidence for catastrophic climate change weaker than previously thought?
Actually, the evidence was never even evidence.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-is-%E2%80%94-and-what-isnt-%E2%80%94-evidence-of-global-warming/
Finbar (14:55:39) :
That’s one of their favorite propaganda techniques, mocking our legitimate concerns as if they are just some nut-ball conspiracy. They tell the truth about themselves, and laugh at it, as if it couldn’t possibly be true. It’s surprising how effective that has been, not just in perverting science, but in politics and business, as well. It’s harder to get away with in engineering, because when the design fails, it’s usually pretty clear who’s fault it is, though that won’t stop a good con artist from blaming the victim anyway. After all, what does he have to lose?
Heidi Deklein (15:50:39) :
Now I’m a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind
Come on Heidi, get a few friends together and make a Utube vid for all us people that know the song and where you are coming from.
p.s I’ve got a Heidi of my own now.
Pre-crime …
A staple of the “Human Rights” Industry in, among others, Canada, a *pre-crime* can be committed by utterance of any statements that is “*likely* to expose a person to hatred or contempt”. (Check out the litany of woes Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have had to endure over the past three or four years.)
How is this any different from the *pre-crimes* committed by the Haldley CRUw and IPCC.
Effectively, by their collective malfeasance, anyone associated with pushing for climate change action resulting in increased taxes, is guilty of a pre-crime … in that the ensuing tax burden is guaranteed to have “likely resulted in the exposure of governments to the hatred and contempt of their taxpayers.”
In Ezra’s immortal words:
Fire.Them.All.
That graph is actually very frightening. If those proxies really were behaving like thermometers, we’ve been cheated out of 0.3-0.4C of cooling due to dodgy surface records. One could eyeball a continuation of the slow downward overall trend in temps since the Eemian and hello glaciation.
yeah, I know, one set of proxies. But still…
Finbar (14:55:39) :
P.S.
In fact, Monbiot is using a variant of that technique. Here illustrated by Claude Raines
Very effective, given all those he’s taken in with it.
Climategate reaches White House.
Holdren conspires with Mann and Jones to bash Soon/Baliunas when they write about Hockey Stick validation
From FOIA file
1066337021.txt
There seems to be a consistent missunderstanding by media interviewers about the meaning of Jone’s boast of using Mann’s ‘trick’ ‘to hide the decline.’ Should we worrry about it, I dunno. Too difficult for sound-bite interviews? Perhaps not.
The interviewers take the quote, out of context, to suggest that these guys were trying to hide the recent decline found in global temperature indicators (i.e., no warming since this century).
Whereas, as I understand it:
This is all about the dubious use of proxy data to make recent warming look historically extraordinary. The need to hide the decline since 1960 suggests that the proxy data set used to hide the MWP etc is not a good proxy. If the data was assessed as divergent from measured temperature after 1960 then maybe it is also wrong about 1260, or 1360 when other indicators suggest it was warmer than now. What has been found is clear evidence that these IPCC authors knowingly manipulated the data used as proof of recent extraordinary global warming….and then actively obstructed other scientists requests to check the data and what they had done with it.
A bit more than a sound bite, but, if this is right then, we might want to encourage this correction where possible. Otherwise, we might stand accused of allowing the quote to be missinterpreted out of context.
Mailman (15:20:19) :
“Sorry guys, being a mere mortal…what does this all mean (well, not the deleted data bit, but the data itself)?”
Read the legend in figure 2, look it up if you’re interested. You shouldn’t expect an education of a complex topic to be provided everytime someone new asks.
The data itself shows there was temperature data (inferred from reading tree rings – “tree data”) to around 1990, and that the “tree data” plotted on the graph left off around the most recent 30 years worth of that “tree data”. Look at the temperature anomaly in figure 1 at around 1990, about -.3c. That doesn’t show on figure 2.
HTH
‘ HACK ‘ ?? If this is a hack, I’m a climate scientist!
Syl, I agree, but I feel that the 1930s-1950’s where very close to the late 1980-1990’s. Also, I believe that the little ice age was at least 2c cooler than the 1998 peak.
I agree the 1930’s and 1950’s where very very warm across the globe. But looking at snow fall trends has me thinking that the 1980s and 1990 were much alike that time period. I feel its a pattern,,,but we are a middle of a respectable down turn not much unlike the 1960’s and 1970s when they where crying ice age.
I couldn’t help but giggle at the Google ad for solar power associated with this article 🙂
Why are people claiming RC is down? Last post by “Dan” on
26 November 2009 at 5:43 PM
Looks like this is finally breaking in the Canadian mainstream news media
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/26/11929676-sun.html
Toronto Sun – Lorrie Goldstein – SCATHING!
Mailman (15:20:19) :
Sorry guys, being a mere mortal…what does this all mean (well, not the deleted data bit, but the data itself)?
Regards
Mailman
———————————————————–
Among other things it means that the jury is still out on whether the planet is experiencing a long term warming trend( leaving aside the question of it actually being a bad thing or not ). If it is (getting hotter ), then are people really the cause? If no (to either of the above ), then future behavior of the global society becomes somewhat less clear. Translation: Global political and financial power will change hands yet again. How, and to whom, is undecided at present, but there are many contenders. It may turn out to be ” the devil you know” outcome, or a continuation of the well known ” King of the Hill” game we’ve been playing since we became bi-pedal. My bet is on the latter.
But of the ~ 6.7 billion people who occupy the planet, no more than a few million have any idea what any of it means and even fewer have any real say so in the outcome. The rest of us just live our lives the best we can.
This is maybe a little OT, but yesterday on CSPAN (in the US) they had a big trans-Atlantic conference on health issues surrounding AGW (but originating in the UK, I think). The rhetoric was pretty much that billions are going to die for lack of water, etc.
But I watched a little on the off chance that someone said something about the CRU-gate. Indeed one person did: Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet.
He was rather full of venom toward those who were trying to make something of this (all timed to disrupt Copenhagen, you see). So I queried the internet on Mr. Horton.
He was the editor when the controversial article on Iraqi war casualties was printed…which I anticipated.
But I didn’t know that he published a rather infamous article of MMR and autism which was influential in reducing the vaccination rate in the UK.
This website is from a reporter from the Sunday Times which (if you click thru) will tell an interesting story.
http://briandeer.com/mmr/richard-horton.htm
There still is life in the old girl yet!
Straight after a dismal ‘question time’ on the BBC, that briefly touched on the subject of Global Warming in front of a mostly sullen audience, the programme ‘This Week’ came on the box.
Hosted by the excellent Andrew Neil, the first five minutes really rips into the politics and bad science behind AGW. Thanks messrs Neil and Portillo for that. Thanks also to Ms Abbott who after tentatively mentioning the recent floods in North England was clever enough not to pursue the matter when Mr Neil, puckishly, asked her about the 1954 floods in the same area.
Why do I think the above is on topic?
Firstly, it shows how effective the combination of humour and undoubted mastery of the topic (Neil and Michael) are in countering dissent ( Diane)
SMc, Anthony and many others have this gift in abundance but their talents are known of by too few at the moment. For those of us with less talent but the same aspirations to put Science back on its rightful pillar our role must be to make more aware of the issues permeating climate change.
I just tell acquaintances to Google Climategate- it seems to help.
Secondly, for those who can get ‘This Week’ on the BBC iPlayer the first five minutes will render your keyboard a soggy mess unless you remove all potable beverages first.
You have been warned!
Keith Minto (15:54:42)
Hear, hear!
>>>Sorry guys, being a mere mortal…what does this all mean?
And it also means that if the tree-ring data is not a good proxy for climate temperature, then they should not be using it to delete the Medieval Warming Period from history.
I fact, I wonder how they have derived this tree-ring data in the first place. I have always thought that you should only use tree rings for the last half of a tree’s life. For the first half, until it gets its head above the canopy, the tree rings represent the tree’s struggle for light with its neighbours – totally unconnected with temperature and climate. Only when the tree is mature, should its rings be counted.
Do they do this? I bet they don’t.
.
Melbourne 11 am Friday 27 Nov. A quick poll has indicated the Australian public are 81% against Emission Trading Tax and 7% are in favour. Yet we have both main political parties pushing for it. What is the modern definition of democracy?
Sounds familiar. Aren’t these the same bunch who were hollering from the rooftops that the WMD intelligence that was accepted by all of these countries was a con? Sorry guys, you already played that card.
Demonstrating uncertainty, concentrate on the link between CO2 and Bristlcone Pines, the latter still the main plank supporting hockey stick variations. Following email (portion here) sent to Martin Juckes and several other dendo people.
“Another serious issue to be considered relates to the fact that the PC1 time series in
the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150
years (on the assumption – following an earlier paper by Lamarche et al. – that this
incressing growth was evidence of carbon dioxide fertilization) , by differencing the
data from another record produced by other workers in northern Alaska and Canada
(which incidentally was standardised in a totally different way). This last adjustment
obviously will have a large influence on the quantification of the link between these
Western US trees and N.Hemisphere temperatures. At this point , it is fair to say that
this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable.
Keith (Briffa)”
email 11641207120.txt Nov 2006
…. and thus the link between Bristlecone Pines and temperature?
Article: Contrary to Gavin Schmidt’s claim that the decline is “hidden in plain sight”, the inconvenient data has simply been deleted.
‘In plain sight’ means that far from being hidden, the decline in wood density was announced in one of the biggest science journals on the planet –
“Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html
This reduced sensitivity meant that the post-1960 tree ring data didn’t reflect the increase in temperature observed in the instrumental record. Why would anyone want to graph data that they already knew was invalid? Omitting it was obviously the right thing to do.
Actually, its worse than I have just suggested, for this also calls into question the whole science of dendrochronology and C14 dating.
.
To stitch the tree-ring series together (from many individual trees of different ages) it is assumed that climate temperature effects tree-ring growth across all trees in a region. Thus similar trees of varying ages will have similar patterns within their growth rings. Thus comparisons between trees can be made, and a series of growth rings can be spliced together, back into the distant past.
However, if tree-ring growth is only poorly affected by temperature, and affected much more by soil and light competition (as this data from Yamal demonstrates), then the whole ‘art’ of splicing tree ring data together to form a contiguous series of rings going back into the distant past may be based upon wishful thinking. I did read somewhere, that the matches between trees were not all that good sometimes, and assumptions and guesses had been made.
But if we have breaks in the tree-ring record, because the tree ring-widths are largely random and based upon many other factors, then the whole of the C14 dating mechanism may also be in error. C14 dating does not give us a direct year or decade – the C14 result must be compared to a known C14 database, and the database used is tree rings from dendrochronology. But if the dendrochronology is all wrong, and based upon unwarranted assumptions, then the whole C14 dating technique is also invalidated.
Ooops.
.
News Flash: Michael Mann discovers the Medieval Warm Period and the Little ice age.
And its all about ocean heat, El Nino La Nina etc
And…
“If the response of the Earth in the past is analogous to the temperature increase caused by greenhouse gases… it could lend credence to this counterintuitive notion of a La Nina response to global warming,” said Professor Mann.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8381317.stm
What’s it all mean?
My first guess is that its about explaining the recent pause in global warming: What the recently discovered MWP and LIA tell us about recent global warming (by CO2 emissions) is that we can expect large La Nina like periods like the one we have been experiencing for the last decade.
Can someone find the original Science article or press release.
‘hide the decline’ satire video from Minnesotans for global warming has made it in to the news in Russia
at 2:35 of this video
The Hide the Decline chart above should be the top post on Drudge. I suggest overlaying it on top of the IPCC chart to show what they hide, and what they showed the world.
I certainly don’t know the sophisticated statistical strategies to use on this stuff, but I do know enough about XLS to copy the anomalies from this email:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=146&filename=939154709.txt
and put them into XLS and plot them, asking for R^2 of a trendline.
As long as we’re curve fitting, I did a linear regression, and polynomial of degrees 2, 3, 4 and 6 thru 1994
Linear 0.01
poly deg 2 0.15
poly deg 3 0.18
poly deg 4 0.24
poly deg 6 0.25
Looks like 4th degree is about it for explanatory power…but there’s an interesting jump between 3 and 4
Now do the same thru 1960
Linear 0.02
poly deg 2 0.25
poly deg 3 0.25
poly deg 4 0.27
poly deg 6 0.30
The big jump is at degree 2 (the one that goes up and up)
The 1961 thru 1994 data points really shape the curve, and your interpretation. Which is why having a good theory (physical or otherwise) first is so important.
I don’t get where they get the zero anomaly value. If everything is under the zero line shouldn’t the line be moved down? Is it supposed to be a mean? Did they make up some composite world temperature that they consider best for human life? Or are there accurate records from zero to 1000 AD that show temps above the line? (Don’t think so.) Anything to do with the different latitudes measured?
Sorry for the stupid question.
The scientific rationale to “hide the decline” can only be that the tree rings started showing spurious cooling trends starting in about 1960 – there was no actual cooling, it is just that the tree-rings started showing a spurious decline in 1960 for non-climatic reasons.
There could be an actual explanation for this which might include pollution, acid rain, aerosols blocking sunlight, increased forest fire fighting creating increased competition from other trees, CO2 fertilization creating increased competition etc.
But none of these other rationales have been shown in the science to produce a spurious decline. In fact, the NH forest cover increased substantially after 1960. There is no substantiated rationale.
And if the “other” rationale was to just show “actual measured temperatures” instead of the proxy measurements, then the truncation should have started in 1850 rather than the day tree-rings started showing the divergence.
So, if there is no science backing up the truncation starting in 1960, then it is truly “hiding the decline” and it is just attaching a line going up instead. It is also admitting that tree-rings are not temperature proxies after all. They are just mathematical constructs designed to produce a hockey stick.
Science should never be “illogical”. It should never make you say to yourself “Well that makes no sense whatsoever, especially considering the evidence. In this case, you will have to prove it which you have not done so far.” Yet, no proof is offered or demonstrated.
Mailman (15:20:19) :
Data was manipulated. What their graphs show is not what happened in the real world.
Gene Nemetz (17:15:20) :
2:35 of the video, not 3:35
Laws based on Fraud: before they finish robbing me blind in California, I live to see a whole lot of unethical scientists, politicians, and one loud-mouth governator go down first. Read this; then devote your life to throwing them all off the cliff:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/the-cliff-of-political-oblivion-laws-based-on-fraud/
enough (16:15:21) :
Climategate reaches White House.
Holdren…,/i>
Some are picking up on this. I can’t see any way around this not hurting Barak Obama’s image. That is unless the story continues to go noticed–which I doubt.
WakeUpMaggy, I believe that 0 is what they use for today’s temperature. At least on their graphs.
Keith Minto (15:54:42) :
“I just fear that Post Modernism and Relativism plays a large part in this saga. I blame the Universities for disseminating this tripe, it really means that they feel immune from criticism, producing the “my reality is as as good as your reality” attitude.
This is far, far, removed from the spirit of scientific enquiry, it is as if we live on two different planets.”
Ah, but we do Keith, we do. They live in a fantasy world, where everything non-humanoid is blesed, non-agressive, kind to Gaia. In their world, the migration of the continents occured as if in Camelot, gently, oh so slowly, in nurturing fashion. Volcanos mean beautiful sunsets.
The real world is much harsher. Magnitude 11+ earthquakes occur, volcanos explode leaving holes miles across, asteroids impact the planet leaving holes 100s of miles across, and the sun fluctuates up to 3% in output, just for starters.
They think man is worse than an animal, we know that the universe isn’t a very friendly place at all for life forms.
enough (16:15:21) :
Climategate reaches White House.
Holdren conspires with Mann and Jones to bash Soon/Baliunas when they write about Hockey Stick validation
From FOIA file
1066337021.txt
———————————————————-
Interesting exchange between Holdren, etc. What I find most interesting is the astronomical size of the egos on display in this and other emails.
To wit (Holdren’s words ): “In other words,
for many (but not all) policy purposes, the details that are impenetrable do not matter.”
What’s significant about the latest BBC lovefest for Mann and his nonsense ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm ) is that the article isn’t by-lined, nor has the reader comments facility been enabled.
Clearly, this squib was timed to go off as part of the pre-Copenhagen boost. Equally clearly, whichever BBC eco-loon wrote it (take your pick) is too scared to append her or his name to it.
And God forbid the sceptical unwashed should be allowed to question!
I thank those that have made the effort to make readable compilations of the Climategate emails and code. What is revealed is an affront to the good conduct of Science; an affront to the spirit of public service; and an affront to the democratic ideal of free speech. In short, it is nothing short of a travesty.
BernieL (16:15:44) :
There seems to be a consistent missunderstanding by media interviewers about the meaning of Jone’s boast of using Mann’s ‘trick’ ‘to hide the decline.’ Should we worrry about it, I dunno. Too difficult for sound-bite interviews? Perhaps not.
The interviewers take the quote, out of context, to suggest that these guys were trying to hide the recent decline found in global temperature indicators (i.e., no warming since this century).
Whereas, as I understand it:
This is all about the dubious use of proxy data to make recent warming look historically extraordinary. The need to hide the decline since 1960 suggests that the proxy data set used to hide the MWP etc is not a good proxy. If the data was assessed as divergent from measured temperature after 1960 then maybe it is also wrong about 1260, or 1360 when other indicators suggest it was warmer than now. What has been found is clear evidence that these IPCC authors knowingly manipulated the data used as proof of recent extraordinary global warming….and then actively obstructed other scientists requests to check the data and what they had done with it.
A bit more than a sound bite, but, if this is right then, we might want to encourage this correction where possible. Otherwise, we might stand accused of allowing the quote to be missinterpreted out of context.
__________________
Absolutely right!! We need to keep emphasizing that what is being HIDDEN is the modern (post-1960) DIVERGENCE between the INSTRUMENTAL temperature measurements and the PROXY (tree ring) temperature measurements. And because no one can explain WHY this modern divergence occurs (see Bill Illis at 17:27:29), there can be NO real confidence that these proxy measurements coincided with rather than diverged from what instruments would have measured in the distant past (in this case, from 1400 until the instrumental record starts in 1881). This alone is enough to DISQUALIFY these tree rings as a temperature proxy and to DISCREDIT any study that relies on them.
The issue that is being hidden is the UNRELIABILITY OF THE PROXY. It is NOT a matter, as Gavin and his crowd keep trying to suggest, of simply not showing inaccurate temperature data on a graph.
Proves that trees don’t make good thermometers… That trees are cr*p at taking temperature actually.;-)
Briffa and the mob were oohing and ahhing and marveling at the trees wonderful temperature record right up until the modern thermometer record….. and then the trees became traitorous scoundrels that wanted to show lower temperatures where the thermometers showed higher temperatures….
Thus “Hide the Decline, (hide the decline)”
Michael Mann discovers the Medieval Warm Period – UPDATE
Here is the abstract of the article released today:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/326/5957/1256
Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly
Michael E. Mann et al
Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific. The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation.
O.K. I may be a bit dumb and not understand the difference between a local climatic event and a global one but in five years there were five major volcanic eruptions;
In 1812, La Soufrière on Saint Vincent in the Caribbean and also Awu on Sangihe Islands, Indonesia.
In 1813, Suwanose-Jima on Ryukyu Islands, Japan
In 1814, Mayon in the Philippines
Then in 1815 the big one; the eruption of Mount Tambora on the island of Sumbawa, Indonesia.
The Year Without a Summer was 1816, with destroyed crops in Northern Europe, the Northeastern United States and eastern Canada. In China, the cold weather killed trees, rice crops and even water buffalo and overwhelming floods in the Yangtze Valley in 1816. In India the monsoon torrential rains aggravated the spread of cholera from a region near the River Ganges in Bengal to as far as Moscow.
In the winter of 1817 the waters of New York’s Upper Bay froze so hard that horse-drawn sleighs were driven across Buttermilk Channel from Brooklyn to Governors Island.
In eastern Switzerland, the summers of 1816 and 1817 were so cool that an ice dam formed below a tongue of the Giétro Glacier high in the Val de Bagnes; the ice dam collapsed catastrophically in June 1818.
So world wide, there was cold and rain. O.K. Is that global? Thing is it isn’t a big thing in the reconstruction. 1817 is the 10th coldest, 1816 was the 12th coldest.
The 1601 Huaynaputina, sulphur dioxide rich, eruption is the coldest year, but only for one year. Russia had famine between 1601 and 1603, the German wine industry collapsed in 1602 and the grapes failed for 2 years.
Why is there only one spike of one year? Is there temporal resolution that bad?
1641 to 1643 are really cold. Really, really cold. However, this is the most studied period of British History; the Civil War. Now you would have thought that the record would have mentioned the bad weather and the inability to resupply costal towns and cities by sea. No, the weather was normal. But, between 1641 and 1643 the years are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th coldest in the record.
The London frozen river years were in the winters of 1408, 1435, 1506, 1514, 1537, 1565, 1595, 1608, 1621, 1635, 1649, 1655, 1663, 1666, 1677, 1684, 1695, 1709, 1716, 1740, 1768, 1776, 1785, 1788, 1795, and 1814. 26 in 400 years or 6.5%.
You would expect that there would be some correlation between cold global years and cold London. What do we see, bugger all. there is no correlation between the coldest 6.5% of English winters and the global average.
Now this either means that global temperature has no effect on extreme weather events or that local and global mean different planets.
Why don’t the cold periods match the history books?
“I just fear that Post Modernism and Relativism plays a large part in this saga. ”
What is true is whatever keeps the grant money flowing.
Heidi Deklein (15:50:39) :
A Monkees fan, I presume? Very Cute.
” In eastern Switzerland, the summers of 1816 and 1817 were so cool that an ice dam formed below a tongue of the Giétro Glacier high in the Val de Bagnes; the ice dam collapsed catastrophically in June 1818.”
And Mary Shelley wrote _Frankenstein_.
I think the idea is valid that the artifact of a ‘global temperature’ is not strongly related to local, or even regional, weather events. But that would not suit the worldview of the transnationalist political agenda.
Icarus (16:54:17) The whole of the dendro record is weak. This has been known for decades and Briffa and Mann were told they were weak , yet they used them anyway. To exclude the last 4 decades because it has “issues” makes one wonder. Post 1960 was not shown because it did not show the desired “evidence”. Show only that which supports the argument, suppress or exclude that which does not. At least the “team” has been consistent. It is, however, poor science.
” the NH forest cover increased substantially after 1960. There is no substantiated rationale.”
In the northeastern quarter of the U.S., the conversion of open farmland to tree-friendly suburbs has something to do with the increase in tree cover. I always marvel when coming into Newark Airport how we in New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the U.S., live in the middle of a forest. That’s how it appears from a mile up, at least.
Say, where’s Tom P. these days?
Why not ask an old person what it was like 50 years ago?
Wouldnt that be a better proxy than three trees in the middle of BFE Russia?
I too thought the decline was a failure to match the current temperatures, thus invalidating the premise of using tree rings, but now I wonder. Looking at figure 1, the ‘decline’ actually fits the current temperature rise since the 1970s, but with a steeper drop from the 1940 peak. Maybe the tree rings are right, and the temperature measurements have been doctored to raise the 1970s temperatures.
BernieL (18:42:53) :
Michael Mann discovers the Medieval Warm Period – UPDATE
Bernie, does that say that warming is more regional than global? Ok, let’s go back to raw and build new models. A matrix of models in a regional method. That certainly discredits a global model method.
First off, hats off to you Anthony Watts for such a great blog… Been following for years and you have done a lot for reasonable people who had questions.
I can only hope that this reigns in some of the stupidity of people trying to cram what amounts to a tool of social control on the rest of us.
Criminal charges would be a nice start although it would have to take an act of God for that to happen. But also thank you whomever released the data. Who ever you are, you are my new hero(s).
My question is, will this put the final nail in the coffin of man mad Global Warming?
Correct me if I’m wrong, working from memory here, but didn’t Mann eliminate the medieval warming period using proxies and then his graph ended with a hockey stick? So trees are fine for eliminating the inconvenient medieval warming period despite other methods supporting those high temperatures but the same tree data must be ignored when it also shows lower temperatures in the 20th century?
Icarus (16:54:17) :
I’m sorry Icarus, what did you say? I can’t hear you.
Mann and Jones might want start looking for work.
I am getting the impression that those who don’t even have a cursory knowledge of paleoclimatology can spot academic misconduct. To co-opt a famous phrase – “I can’t define data fudging but I know it when I see it.”
In Canada, the MSM took almost a week, but they finally found the right spin on the story – yes the documents are authentic but the CRU says its all taken out of context. Trust us.
Happy Thanksgiving all. Wonder what the decline looks like if you apply the GISS adjustments to it. Anyone tried this? Sorry if so, haven’t had time today to read through comments and such, I am the family chef, so I have been busy. Need to hire a dishwasher… 😉
:Proves that trees don’t make good thermometers
The fact that the Boy Scouts didn’t pick-up on it is good enough for me. They certainly wouldn’t have bought into that “teleconnection” business either.
Bill Illis (17:27:29) :
Hi Bill. There may be a valid reason, but how can anyone say, with reasonable certainty, that these things are not issues in the chronological record also?
“My question is, will this put the final nail in the coffin of man mad Global Warming?”
No AGW is a Frankenstien monster created by mad scientists artifically brought to life. It cant be killed will simply break out of the cofin and rise from its grave. The cofin has to be nailed shut, weldeds shut, incenerated, the ashes need to be disolved in acid then the liquid remains need to be shot in the brightsts visible stars in the galixy where they are vaporized down to their atomic elements.
In short do not under any circumstances let up on this.
I was watching a Discovery Channel show last night called Little Ice Age – Big Chill. I think they said that the approximate temperature decline was 3-4 deg F below now and then when Mt Tambor erupted, the temps went down another 3 deg F.
enough (16:15:21) :
I read the first string of exchanges, from 2003, and (as Curious George did above) find Holdren’s self-esteem and elitism suffocating. Holdren delivers up these exchanges about Balliunis and Soon, who I gather were his colleagues at Harvard at the time, with a snide remark to the climatologists that he hoped they would find it “entertaining”. I’m not sure I see any real reason for his forwarding the string to CRU, other than as self-promotion, sort of showing off his true-blueness and simultaneously getting a sniff in at the self-professed layman. God, it’s easy to hate some of these people.
“..Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been “hidden in plain sight” (see here. ). This isn’t true.”
Isn’t true? If someone says something that isnt true doesnt it mean he is lying? And if what he has said is “in plain sight” (that which was hidden has been revealed), then his lie has been nailed?
“The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA here and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001. Nor was the decline shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email (or for that matter in the IPCC 2007 graph,..”
How much lying can these people get away with? How can they be made accountable for their deceipt? Why dont the honest scientists, and there are plenty of them, speak up?
Maybe a direct appeal should be launched to them?
There’s similar language in the (2003) e-mail exchange cited above. John Holdren, (now President Obama’s adviser for Science and Technology) takes the position that Mann’s proofs cannot be understood by most people. So, the blogger asks him whether global warming policy, with its incalculable tax burdens, can fairly be enacted on such an uninformed society? After naval-gazing upon the challenge of disseminating tricky technical stuff to the “uneducable” masses, he says that they deserve to be kept in the loop, and that is why he serves there at Harvard – at the nexus of science and policy.
Conspicuously absent are references to specific science. In abundance are glowing affirmations of, and “optimism” about Mann, Jones and the climate science coterie. Asked where the burden of proof lies – on Soon and Balliunus (as critics), or upon Mann et al as proponents of “unprecedented warming”, he assures us that the burden is on the former.
Climategate must change his mind. The burden of proof has shifted.
I like the re-written songs from my younger days. Now, who do we think should be singing a version of the old Beatles number “We’re so sorry, Uncle Albert”?
Why are you still talking about this? How is this news? This just confirms the divergence problem.
The fact that you are making a big deal out of the divergence problem shows why Michael Mann et al were justified to “hide the decline” – because it just confuses (well, misleads) people who don’t understand dendrochronology.
BBC Question Time
Though I did not watch the programme, it is interesting that the subject was covered as the second item for discussion. This means that there were a lot of people in the audience who wanted to ask the question.
I was in the audience for QT a few years ago. The way the questions are selected is…
When the audience arrive at the venue, each person is given two cards on which to write a question. These are collected, then the production team collate them by subject. The biggest pile is the first question, second biggest second question etc. The last question of the night is usually a light hearted item, which though topical, does not come of the subject order.
To my mind, it is VERY encouraging that the Climategate question came second as this is what the audience wanted to talk about in large numbers. In spite of the BBC’s attempted shutdown on the subject, it would appear that the message is slowly getting through.
Maybe the audience wasn’t as AGW indoctrinated as was assumed.
Alec J
See my post earlier. ralph (17:01:19)
If tree rings are not a good proxy for temperature, then the entire Yamal series (and other tree ring series) is invalid, and not just the 20th century bit.
They splice these series together by using tree ring widths, and assuming that all trees react the same to climate. If they don’t, then you cannot splice the rings into a series, and all tree ring records going back into the distant past are worthless.
.
Gene Nemetz (17:15:20) :
“‘hide the decline’ satire video from Minnesotans for global warming has made it in to the news in Russia”
Three minute news item on Russian Television – we would be lucky if the Western media allocated it 30 seconds.
Hmm, perhaps I could do some research on the topic of, “Comparative Attention Span in Diverse Cultural Settings, as Influenced by Anthropogenic Global Warming”?
The gig is to get us all compliantly paying eco taxes- for ever!
Its an unending source of revenue for those peddling its benefits and its dire predictions of catastophe if we dont.
Nothing more than a fancy protection racket.
Heres how it works.
Jones 2009 et al produce graphs hiding the decline of global temperatures artificially ramping temperature upwards on their released material.
World leaders such as Dumbama and El Gordo the Brown all rush to implement the Copenhagen plan.
The public gets reamed with ever rising “eco” taxes ( after all who wouldnt want to “save” the world?) and at a point in the future say 20 years, the same jones et al release more material showing temperature now declining.
Then the IPCC triumphantly trumpets that they have saved us as the planets temps will still be cooler than the graphs currently being released today.
Its a brilliant scam which has taken in millions of the dumbest useful idiots and continues to do so.
“Why would anyone want to graph data that they already knew was invalid? Omitting it was obviously the right thing to do” – Icarus
Well, you’ll have to excuse us more conventional scientists, but generally where part of our data has a recurrent but unexplainable glitch which can’t be explained by our current theory then we look for the flaw in the theory, not just say “this bit doesn’t work” and then ignore it (and “hide it” in all more public versions of the graph i.e. outside the journals which few will read).
If tree rings can “lose sensitivity” (i.e. lose correlation) with temperature in the late 20th century and you don’t know how or why, then HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY DIDN’T LOSE CORRELATION ELSEWHERE? You don’t. Or put another way, the rest of your data is effectively worthless until and unless you can understand under what circumstances such divergence occurs.
That you and they apparently cannot see that and/or that they publish and use this data regardless is one reason (of many) why “scientist” is not a title they deserve.
When you have been lying and cheating for so long like the AGW crowd what is the problem, why not just keep on lying and cheating. At the current rate of atmospheric increase of carbon dioxide it will only take about another 3500 years to reach record levels (if man is still alive), so come on AGW’ers no time to waste.
The irony is that the AGW hypothesis was first proposed in 1938 in a paper published in the Royal Meteorological Society’s Quarterly Journal (my late father told me about it in 1961, he is currently turning in his grave in disbelief at current Pseudo Scientific Stupidity) and it was proposed as a GOOD thing, people in those days worried about a return to an ice age.
However during the ensuing 70 odd years Earths average temperature has warmed and cooled, all within the range of natural variation according to the empirical record, atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased, and still to this day not one single piece of empirical evidence has been found to support the AGW hypothesis. Come on warmers only 3000 odd years left to find some REAL evidence, then you will not have to keep on lying and cheating, or alternately just throw the towel in and admit that AGW is a NULL HYPOTHESIS. Cheers.
If I had the money I would hire many Large Venue Projectors and paint Copenhagen [from Dec 17th until John Prescott opens the doors!] with images of the “Hide the Decline” graph. Plus a morphing
” Hockey Stick to Reality” graph for good measure. No explanations necessary.
Copenhagen will be tainted [for decades] with the smell of bad science and green political garbage. And John Prescott.
By the way, in 2005, Tom Wigley recommended us another way to see that the hockey-stick-like reconstructions were rubbish:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=538&filename=1119957715.txt
Wigley: “A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleo reconstruction work as supporting the MBH reconstructions. I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other reconstructions. Although these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all.”
That’s interesting. Because he’s not on the “deniers’ side”, he finds it appropriate to hide the evidence against a hypothesis even though he is aware of it.
its a long time since I studied biology, but at my first dendro-lesson I’ve learned that correlation of dendro-data with climate is extremely problematic in the second half of the 20th century. And that the reason is air-pollution.
If I’m not completely mixing things up, already in the 80s these things were discussed in the scientific community.
And now my question:
What has changed since then? Have there falsifications of the above mentioned been published that confirm that (raw) data of tree rings from the second half of the 20th century can be used?
Or may the so-called “scandal” be simply the ususal kind of handling tree-ring data in these kind of studies? And due to the simple fact that the input of Nitrogen, Sulfur etc. into forest ecosystems massively rised after WW2?
Yes indeed. PoMo has also given people a habit of attacking motives, instead of examining reasoning and data.
To me the correct sequence should be:
1. Does the reasoning and data make sense?
2. if not, will people admit this?
3. if not, what possible motive might be driving them?
But PoMo reverses this:
1. They are being driven by a bad motive
2. so they won’t admit
3. that their reasoning and data are bad.
Greenies believe their own motives are pure, and that sceptics’ motives are impure. Therefore greenies’ arguments are right, and skeptics’ arguments are wrong (and even if they are right, they are still wrong). It gets very circular and self-reinforcing.
PoMo did, however, make a great contribution to the deconstruction of oppressive structures in culture, like institutionalised racism, but in its more mediocre forms, PoMo adherents tend to just use it to ignore any rational argument that they don’t like, on the basis that, “well yeah, he would say that, because he’s a…”
That’s where culturally we’re losing the integrity and the standards. In a sense they believe less in science than most people do, simply because they view science as something that’s culturally manufactured. So better to manufacture a science for a “good” cause than to let the greedy nasty people (moms driving SUVs) manufacture science to suit their own consumerist lifestyle.
The other problem is that all this relativistic thinking tends to make greenies quite soft natured, so they can lack the fortitude to live up to their ideals (although some do). Sorry, was that long enough bashing greenies? I’m sure there’s more…
I’m not a scientist, so my first curiosity would be, if we know certain events can render dendro records useless for temperature reconstruction for decades at a time, what other unknown events in the past may render further portions of the records useless?
There seems to be a huge leap of faith between:
“we have some data which is interesting because it seems to suggest there may have been warming if we assume all else is equal, so we need to try to find better ways to reconstruct past temperatures using other kinds of data that are actually reliable, to see if there really has been warming”
and:
“we have some data which suggests past warming, and it would be unhelpful to our publishing schedule to dismiss it just because it might have been contaminated in ways we can’t check, so we’re going to stick to it as gospel, and present it as the ‘weight’ of evidence”.
If engineers were in the habit of using the second approach, my iPod would never work, my plumbing would rarely flush, and my roof would have collapsed.
Official US position on the leaked info is, according to Carol Browner, the “Climate Czar(ina)” —
“Nothing has changed, because the science is settled.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/25/climate-czar-says-e-mails-dont-change-anything/?feat=home_top5_read
The “Reality-Based Community” insists you believe the emperor’s tailor, not your own lying eyes.
We’re all looking at this – and are outraged – on the basis of traditional, normal science. But some science (especially climate science) has been hijacked by a new definition of science, ‘post-normal’ science. If we don’t understand this, we will never understand what has been motivating these guys. I was astonished when I researched this. It’s a neo-Marxist attempt to redefine the role of science. I compiled a post about this that you might find illuminating – especially as it quotes extensively from Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA, in Norwich, UK, and contributor to the IPCC, also involved in the CRU emails. Hulme clearly defines climate science and the IPCC as ‘post-normal’, and so not subject to truth claims in the normal way.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/
Is there any reason in the original Briffa-report on why the Data from 1960 and onwards was not published?
I think the hiding in plain site comment might be in relation to the IPCC reviewer comment you just posted. In the previous IPCC review they had stopped the chart at 1960 so the decline would not be on the chart. This made it pretty obvious that they did not want people to see the post 1960 data. So they hid it in plain site by faking the data from 1960-2000 so that no one would notice it was missing.
You can search the emails here http://www.eastangliaemails.com/search.php – amazing you can’t make this stuff up
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=868&filename=1206628118.txt
Chillybean 15:39:30:
“Ralph Miliband….David Miliband……Ed Miliband..”
Don’t forget Steve Miliband………..”Some people call me the space cowboy….”
It is easy to assume that the UEA is a place where all the staff think alike: this would be a mistake. While reading The Reference Frame’s post on the CRU leak (an excellent resume by Lubos Motl with this youtube clip — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTGLpqFGyYM), I saw mention of Mike Hulme’s co-authored letter to a newspaper warning of — well the usual stuff — but the interesting part is that the letter was drafted by Dr Helen Wallace, senior scientist for Greenpeace. All he had to do was sign it and kerching! there was another warning from the cognoscenti about the falling sky. Thank you rubber stamps, just sign here and here… Allegedly, of course, for we have not yet heard from Dr Wallace about whether the email is genuine. Anyway, Professor Hulme is made of sterner stuff than this allegation would imply and it is unfair to tar him — and no doubt others at that learned institution — with the the same brush as those who are alleged to be implicated in dubious practices.
So I searched on his name and went to The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/06/mike_hulme_interview/
The extract below is heavily snipped ([]) and is best read in the original:
quote
Just two years ago, Mike Hulme would have been about the last person you’d expect to hear criticising conventional climate change wisdom [] [he was] the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, an organisation so revered by environmentalists that it could be mistaken for the academic wing of the green movement. Since leaving Tyndall [] critic of such sacred cows as the UN’s IPCC, the “consensus”, the over-emphasis on scientific evidence in political debates about climate change, and to defend the rights of so-called “deniers” to contribute to those debates.
As Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, Hulme remains one of the UK’s most distinguished and high-profile climate scientists. In his new book, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, he explores how the issue of climate change [has become] as much of a cultural idea as a physical phenomenon.”
[]
Hulme despairs over the comments made to the Copenhagen climate conference in March by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, then the Danish Prime Minister. Rasmussen told delegates that “science should be the basis for decision-making in this field”, and asked scientists to keep it simple, “not to provide us with too many moving targets…and not too many considerations on uncertainty and risk and things like that.”
unquote
I urge everyone to read the original.
Uncertainty and risk and things like that! Don’t confuse me with the facts, just tell me what to say! Tell me what to think! Gutless, responsibility-off-fobbing politicians needed Mummy’s hand to hold as they innocently peed away their taxpayers’ money. And now they can say ‘no, not us, it was the scientists, they told us lies!’ Riding the tiger, they will solve the problem of dismounting by pushing off the scientists as placatory lunch. Well, not all scientists lied. The good scientists — the true scientists who have tried to uphold the highest standards, like Professor Hughes — must be applauded. The UEA is not wholly corrupt and people should remember that while pursuing the truth. Climate science will need to be rebuilt and good men will be needed to rebuild it.
JF
Let’s hope no-one ends up like David Kelly.
While on the subject of tree rings. It looks like tree growth is affected by GCR rates…
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3098/cosmic-rays-speed-tree-growth?page=0,0
I can tell you guys…the silence in the MSM/Broadcasting over here (London) is absolutely DEAFENING!!!
Keep it up.
Mailman, Lets just say that the CRU d is a firehouse in New York, The fireman are told that they have to prove all fires are started by water if they want to get their funding for the comming years. So the fireman find several ways to prove that all fires are started by water. They come up with 4 ways and publish it in their reasearch papers ,they send the papers out to other firehouses to get the material “peer reviewed”All the other fireman agree with the findings and they declare that all fires are started by water if you look hard enough.The funding arrives by the truckload. They announce to the world that the debate is over ,and water is the culprit because the fireman said so !and they should know they are experts on fire. Now go back and replace fireman with” CRU”, fire with” “global warming”and water with “carbon”
This is what these people did,what caught them is that they had to alter so many scientific studies in the process to keep the lie going that they became a joke to many in the world and now the world has the proof. They have been working on this theory for decades and no one cared ,untill they linked it to carbon with the tree ring data etc. That gave them the enemy they needed an enemy that could not defend itself.
My point here is this has to be put in terms that non scientist can understand like my wife and children most people don”t know how reasearch is conducted if the don’t know that none of what has just happened means anything to them.
Can someone help me/us to understand the full significance of this. I’m really confused.
In my understanding the reason that the decline is not included (hidden) is that it is based on tree ring data and there was concern that trees have been forming rings at a different rate since the 1950’s. But if we look at actual measured temperature data there is no decline since 1960. Is that true? So if the tree ring data predicted a decline but there wasn’t actually a decline then wouldn’t that say the data is bad or the science behind using tree ring data is bad?
Or said another way what is the real significance of ommitting data asside from the fact it was inappropriate behaviour?
By the way I’m a long time fan of WUWT and definately anti-Gore alarmism. I just don’t understand some of these issues. This is one that’s been bugging me so can someone help?
Thanks,
Doug
Thanks George,
“No AGW is a Frankenstien monster created by mad scientists artifically brought to life. It cant be killed will simply break out of the cofin and rise from its grave. The cofin has to be nailed shut, weldeds shut, incenerated, the ashes need to be disolved in acid then the liquid remains need to be shot in the brightsts visible stars in the galixy where they are vaporized down to their atomic elements.
In short do not under any circumstances let up on this.”
I agree… it is an ideology, not science, and facts and logic do not apply with them. It took me quite a while to realize that the “truth” just gets in their way. They don’t care how much money it costs or how many people it hurts. This hit me kind of hard when I figured this out many moons ago.
If nothing else this should give them pause for a bit… So if the trend goes toward cooling will they once again jump on a Man Mad Global Cooling bandwagon?
The government fools running both the UK and the US will not change their minds easily. They see the power gained by controlling all aspects of the lives of their citizenry. Reality means nothing the those who wish to govern.
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” – Ibid
Couldn’t help looking at the UEA history on their website; Found this gem:-
“UEA’s academic thinking was distinctive from the word go. The choice of ‘Do Different’ as the University’s motto was a deliberate signal that it was going to look at new ways of providing university education. ” Boy oh boy, they got that right!
On a more serious note, take a look at all the funded research programmes now going on at UEA, and the cost of this rubbish. Notice the same names cropping up all the time, it’s wonder that they can get a day off:-
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/
Why did the UK government select a rather new and unimportant University to do this research in the first place, the college only started in 1963, hardly a place of excellence and longstanding scolarship, yet it is touted as the world’s foremost research centre on climate.
We must be mad to have listened to these people.
its a long time since I studied biology, but at my first dendro-lesson I’ve learned that correlation of dendro-data with climate is extremely problematic in the second half of the 20th century. And that the reason is air-pollution
It’s “plausible” – but given that most pollution problems were regional, coresponding with industiral activity, and that particulates, as well as SOx and NOx levels all improved from 1960 through 1980 due to increasingly-strict environmental laws, we would expect to see the degree of “divergence” lessening. Instead, we have Briffa, Jones et al simply waving their hands and claiming that none of the contrary data points were meaningful.
Sorry, but a claim that requires trillion-dollar economic disruption requires stronger proof than this self-reinforcing clique has provided.
WAG (23:42:16) :
Because "the divergence problem" shows that tree rings are not a reliable measure of temperatures. Basing a whole socio-political plan of action on something that we know is not reliable is–in a word–stupid. It is akin to finding a site that says that vaccines cause cancer, knowing that the "science" is unreliable, and still stirring up a panic and trying to ban the use of vaccines in children.
If tree rings are reliable temperature proxies, they should not suddenly come unglued from instrument records now, when anyone can go chop down a few living trees and compare it with NOAA.gov. That it isn’t reliable for recent (and warmer) times, means that it probably isn’t reliable for other time periods.
It calls into question how much of the climate science we are being fed is truly based on measurements versus someone's pre-existing biases. It means that we need to call off Copenhagen for at least a decade, while we submit all existing climate studies to independent verification by non-affiliated parties. This would include all recent and current peer-reviewed research.
In short, Climategate is exactly the same as the Nixon surveillance tapes in the 1970s and should have the same result: throw them out of office and let them live out their lives in shame. At the very least, admit that human-caused warming is more of a political theory than a scientific one.
For those coming up to speed from elsewhere in science, could you please clarify the environment in which the given “script” will run? I have never seen anything like it. After a Google search, I am guessing it is “R” or a related language, but “R” does not appear to have a “plot” command, and the script appears to have a lot of “methods,” such as “plot.ts” that seem even less easy to find. As a bonus, is there a variant of the scripting language that you are using which runs on (Sorry! ;( Windows?
Thanks!
Icarus,
“Tree-ring chronologies that represent annual changes in the density of wood formed during the late summer can provide a proxy for local summertime air temperature1. Here we undertake an examination of large-regional-scale wood-density/air-temperature relationships using measurements from hundreds of sites at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. When averaged over large areas of northern America and Eurasia, tree-ring density series display a strong coherence with summer temperature measurements averaged over the same areas, demonstrating the ability of this proxy to portray mean temperature changes over sub-continents and even the whole Northern Hemisphere. During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. 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. Moreover, the recent reduction in the response of trees to air-temperature changes would mean that estimates of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, based on carbon-cycle models that are uniformly sensitive to high-latitude warming, could be too low.”
Thi statement is akin to the old story about the scientist testing sensitivity of a frog’s response to the spoken command “jump.”
Carefully cutting off one leg at a time and commanding the frog to jump, he noted positive results for each of the first three amputations; upon severing the fourth and final leg, no response at all ensued.
His final notes read:
“It is clear that cutting off the sum of a frog’s appendages renders the beast stone deaf.”
WAG (23:42:16) :
How exactly is it asserted, and with what proof, that the issues that cause the divergence in the later tree rings are not issues in the earlier reconstructions?
docduke (08:44:33) : says:
As far as I am aware, Steve McI only runs R on Windows. Of course, you do have to have the appropriate R packages as well.
Anthony, I know we have not seen eye to eye but please let these posts run.
I have no selfish reasons for posting here, my only aim is to kill Copenhagen.
[snip]
REPLY: “Sophistry in politics” No and hell no. You proceeded to post bomb multiple threads here multiple times even after I told you the content you were pushing on your website was not welcome.
Hell you are doing it right now, multiple posts under difference names.
Coming back later and saying “we have not seen eye to eye” while at the same time engaging in post bombing at the same time insults my intelligence and the intelligence of readers here when what was called for was an apology.
Bugger off!
– Anthony
I don’t see any HTML in the comments, so I won’t try to compose links. My first Google search on R took me to http://www.omegahat.org. That is apparently obsolete. With a more determined try, I got to http://www.r-project.org and cran.r-project.org which are very much alive! The Windows version of R can be downloaded from http://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/. I walked through the options, but a full install with default startup would have gotten the same result. It took about 30 seconds to install and under 5 minutes to copy the scripts from this page and run them on a Windows 2000 platform. The result was a printable, full-color graph of the “Hide the Decline” plot! One doesn’t even need to know how to read R to get this far, though further analysis and validation will certainly require more understanding. Manuals are available at cran.r-project.org/manuals.html including a 15 MB PDF manual that prints in approximately 3,000 pages (it is alleged)!
All this stuff is great, but what do we do next?
1) I think its time to write a revision of IPCC’s stuff plus policy prescriptions using the finally “released” information to revise the – a chapter on the fraud should be included
2) I think a series of international symposia on rescuing and rehabilitating science should be convened. We should also include the totally hijacked Social Sciences. I see several years of work. It should begin with a re-affirmation of the scientific method and promulgation of safeguards and should be published as a text for use in science education.
3) Courses in ethics with ample case histories should be mandatory for science students. Engineers and lawyers have to study ethics and apply the codes in all their dealings and can lose their right to practice if breached – why not scientists?
4) A substitute for the Nobel Prize must be created – I don’t see how the NP can be even repaired. They have been handing out prizes at least since the last decade of the 20thCent. to some of the most undeserving characters of the period: Arafat-Rabin-Peres for “Peace” in the Middle East; Kofie Annan for presiding over the massacre in Rwanda and for his son’s ripping off of the Oil for Food Program in Iraq. The IPCC for its “hide the decline” and other cartoonerie, Al Gore for knowingly perpetrating lies that the UK school boards had to ban because of the disinformation of his film (the ACADEMY AWARDS should be at least shaken up and in the process they might give Robert Duval a long-overdue oscar) and the people that didn’t get a Nobel Prize is equally telling: Ted Turner (eventhough I’m beginning to wonder about his supporting the UN); Bill Gates (I wrote to an Oslo newspaper when I read their blurb on the illustrious prize winners of the year and admonished the committee for overlooking Bill Gates probably because he was a capitalist like Alfie Nobel.
“Academics around the world who have spent years working on papers using this data must be in full panic mode. By the admission of the global-warming theocracy’s own self-appointed experts, the data they have been using is simply “garbage.” ”
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-global-cooling-cover-up/?feat=home_editorials
Rereke Whakaaro (01:07:36) :
Hmm, perhaps I could do some research on the topic of, “Comparative Attention Span in Diverse Cultural Settings, as Influenced by Anthropogenic Global Warming”?
Could get you some grant money.
Icarus:
“‘In plain sight’ means that far from being hidden, the decline in wood density was announced in one of the biggest science journals on the planet –
“Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes””
Ah yes I remember it well. Having noticed the decline in proxy temperatures where the real temperatures went up they came up with this marvellous tautology: It does not mean the tree ring data is not a proxy for temperature at all – No. Instead it shows that there is a “reduced sensitivity” to temperatures at northern latitudes. What period are they talking about? Why, the period when the tree rings diverged from measured temperatures. So having failed to confirm their proxies with the temperature record, instead of rejecting the proxies, they rejected the evidence of the divergence.
Marvellous science.
I’ve been reading this blog (daily) for many months now.
It is absolutely essential that people use alternative news media sites to educate themselves about what is going on, and I regard this particular site as the best example of the genre (internet revolution in the availability of information). I sincerely thank AW, mods and all the contributors for being leaders in the effort to provide an alternative to the corporate-controlled, brainwashing MSM on the issue of AGW.
The 10 minute video by the American chap in this thread made me understand what the ‘divergence problem’ is – i.e. since 1960 tree rings going down, temps going up. Thanks to you sir.
It also clarified for me that ‘hide the decline (hide the decline)’ actually refers to hiding the decline in tree ring thickness to cover up the divergence problem. Twisted web these people weave. I don’t mean HARRY. I’m a coder too – for 25+ years – I totally empathise with him.
People – a quite small proportion of the public – are picking it up to mean it means ‘hide the decline in temperatures), which I now know it doesn’t. That’s not too bad though, because the MSM ARE trying to hide the decline (in global temperatures) since 1998.
Apparently Terry Wogan mentioned it on BBC Radio 2 this morning. According to my colleague, using the words “lying to us since 1998”.
Terry Wogan’s retiring at the end of the year so I guess he can say what he wants now…
I have seen comments on this thread and others which express concern that YouTube and the MSM (which I guess YouTube is almost part of now) are suspiciously quiet on this issue at the moment. There is, apparently some disquiet out there over what that means.
And I think that’s a good thing. If it takes the climate issue to make the global populace wake up to the fact that our minds are being subjected to a constant and ongoing barrage of brainwashing – through the MSM – then that can only be a good thing.
The question then becomes:
What else have we been deceived about, by the governments, the lying MSM and the ‘scientific community’?
And the international bankers, who set up and funded the UN, whose IPCC seeks to fill us with fear and impose global governance and taxation, who also control the MSM and the politicians?
I suspect that, over the coming months, many WUWT contributors may start to feel exasperated because they know that it’s all a crock of sh*t – and we can more or less prove it – but they’re going ahead and doing it anyway (Copenhagen etc.). And the MSM will keep ramping up the AGW fear factor (ice caps melting, cities drowning) in the coming couple of weeks – like we get at the moment from the BBC while all this
really important CRU leak stuff is happening.
We’ll be saying ‘but we have proof’, ‘it’s obvious they’re lying’ and so on.
Prepare to be very disappointed folks. Or make such a noise that you won’t be. The time is definitely now.
Big shout out to all the new contributors since this story broke. The only way we are going to make them back off re. Copenhagen (and all the rest), is if we intimidate them with our numbers, i.e. the number of us enraged by this issue, as evidenced, for example by WUWT viewing stats, etc.
Dear Moderator,
If this strays too far afield, feel free to cut it or suggest a more appropriate venue.
———–
“This will be the final nail in the coffin…..”
“This could be the final nail in the coffin…”
“Could this be the final nail in the coffin..”
Answer: We don’t know because we can’t forsee the future! As fast as we expose the rot in the structure’s timbers, the dark side tries to hide it again with wallpaper. They say “See, our house still stands!” Someday, with 20/20 hindsight, we will look back and see who won. For now, we can only keep the faith and fight the good fight — despair is a sin.
I dig in the code because many others are qualified to dig in the emails and try to put them in context. Fewer are retired computer scientists, so they/I must dig through that muck for the rest. It is a sewer down here (and I am unanimous in that opinion). I’m trying (and no luck yet) to understand this software/data dump at a higher level; tie together all the disparate pieces, as it were.
The biggest problem (as with all reverse engineering) for me is understanding what they should have done, aside from using a proper development method vs. their ad-hoc trial-and-error development method. Only by showing what they should have done as compared to what they actually did do can we with certainty establish that they are wrong! Anything less lets them deflect the criticizm as just a matter of opinion. There is nothing of formal documentation to point the way home. Do the following questions have answers?
1. What is the formal definition of the Earth’s Instantaneous Temperature? Here is what I mean by this: If I have a thermometer it will continuously vary in value, but at any instant of time I may read the instrument and determine the temperature at that instant. So, If I had a large number of thermometers randomly distributed about the Earth and read them all at the same instant of time,
is the arithmetic mean of the (gigantically) large number of individual instantaneous temperatures the Earth’s Instantaneous Temperature, or should a different central tendency estimator be used vice the mean.
2. What is the formal definition of the Earth’s Average Temperature over a given time period? Here is what I mean by this: Consider the following hypothetical case:
Day1 20, 30, 40, 50, 50, 40, 30, 20
Day2 20, 20, 35, 50, 35, 20, 20, 20
Day3 20, 35, 50, 50, 50, 50, 35, 20
If the preceeding data were accurate temperatures taken on 3 hour intervals at a fixed location on three consecutive days, do all three days have the same average temperature just because they have identical highs and lows? My (fast fading) recollection of university physics and chemistry classes suggests the answer is no. In addition, my grand-daughter in high-school said the answer is no. Am I making too much of nothing? Is it the case that the uncertainty of individual average measurements when averaged across space, then averaged over time provides a much more certain result? I also took Stats, and have some past experience in QA, but I’m not completely comfortable that I have a handle on this.
In times past, I have encountered cases of “since we can’t measure what we want, let’s measure what we can (and ignore the difference).” Is this just another such case? In my defense, I have tried to search for the answer to these two questions on my own, but have only found double-talk gobbledy-gook, and precious little of that. Guess Google isn’t my friend after all. Can anyone point me to a clear answer to either (or both) of the above questions?
p.s. My symapthies are with Readme-Harry; for all we know he may have left things better than he found them.
Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))
Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.
According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Comments: 115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables
published as International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009)p.275-364
I have the most recent version of this paper on my desktop and review it frequently. It is mostly understandable but it doesn’t help me to make sense of this CRU-d. There must be some sense in this crud, why can’t I see it? What’s wrong with me? Help?
I suggest you all be very careful to emphasise that the problem is solely with the (so called) evidence for the idea that current warming is a historically unique event, which in turn has been used to justify requiring us to look for a historically unique culprit, that is – lo & behold – industrialisation which produces CO2.
Once the proxy data is revealed as unreliable – not just because of tree ring issues but also because other proxies all clash – then all we know is that temperatures have & are varying, and are a bit warm at present, probably. No need to look for a unique “anthropgenic” contribution. AGW converts will claim you are denying there has been warming, which is not really the key issue. The issue is “hockey stick – or not?”
Quite separately, I understand there are major issues with the science that CO2 is the major cause of warming.
Fortuitously, we do need to get away from burning oil, but lets drive policy from the correct facts, not from politically/green-inspired belief.
The elephant in the room is over population, IMHO, but that’s another story.
Keep up the good work!!
>>Can someone help me/us to understand the full
>>significance of this. I’m really confused.
Scientist, he say that tree rings are very good proxy for temperature, so we know temperatures in ancient past.
Scientist, he say that there was no Medieval Warming (MWP), because tree rings say so, and we all believe tree rings.
Scientist, he likes trees to say this, because the MWP [SNIP] his CO2 warming idea, as there were no coal-fires power stations in 1350. Good trees, well done you lovely reliable tree rings.
However.
Tree rings, well she says that temperatures have been decreasing since 1970.
Scientist, he says you stupid [SNIP] tree rings, real temperatures must have been increasing after 1970, because we have deliberately ignored UHI to make it so. And we have told everyone so. So I will delete you stupid unreliable rings after 1970 – because keeping you will invalidate all our other arguments.
.
Sorry, that was sarcasm at the end (aimed at them, not you all). What I should have said is “best I can figure out, you just can’t get there from here.” Trouble is who would take my word for it since I’ve not published in peer-reviewed journals?
The prior post was an over long way to say “If the biggest part of finding the right answer is asking the right question, then in this case what is the question we are missing?
MattN (19:18:24) :
“Say, where’s Tom P. these days?”
The devil is in the details:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%E2%80%A6/
“Well, that explains a few things … they’ve managed to “persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.” I hadn’t noticed that exemption in the FOI documentation I’d seen. Call me crazy, but I don’t think that’s in FOI Exemptions, I doubt if it’s legal, and it definitely isn’t ethical. I note that they are circling the wagons in Australia as well … this is followed by:
Phil Jones to Thomas Peterson of NOAA, 6/20/2007 AM (1182342470) :
Tom P.
Just for interest. Don’t pass on.
Might be a precedent for your paper to J. Climate when it comes out. There are a few interesting comments on the CA web site. One says it is up to me to prove the paper from 1990 was correct, not for Keenan to prove we’re wrong. Interesting logic.
Cheers
Phil
Wei-Chyung, Tom,
I won’t be replying to either of the emails below [FROM STEVE MCINTYRE AND DOUG KEENAN], nor to any
of the accusations on the Climate Audit website. I’ve sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we
should be discussing anything with our legal staff. The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me,
and somehow split up the original author team. I do now wish I’d never sent them the data after their FOIA
request!
Cheers
Phil
He obviously views sending data in response to an FOIA request as optional.
Thomas Peterson to Jones, same email:
Fascinating. Thanks for keeping me in the loop, Phil. I won’t pass it on but I will keep it in the back of my mind when/if Russ asks about appropriate responses to CA requests. Russ’ view is that you can never satisfy them so why bother to try?”
REPLY: Not the same Tom P. that posts here. That Tom P. is based in the UK at Imperial College. Not related to NCDC ‘s Tom Peterson at all. – Anthony
Someone at RC posted the NOAA link from above. Gavin, as smug as he is, replied that one should look in the right place. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/nhemtemp_data.txt
Steve, another wild goose chase I predict.
Ciao
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php
You like the Danish polar temperatures graph, but how about the sea extent graph?
REPLY: Apparently you weren’t skeptical enough to note on the right hand side that the graph comes from The National Snow and Ice Data Center, not DMI. NSIDC has an agenda, particularly now that it is headed by Dr. Mark Serreze who boasted in the media that we’d would see an “ice free north pole”. Didn’t happen. – Anthony
REPLY: Not the same Tom P. that posts here. That Tom P. is based in the UK at Imperial College. Not related to NCDC ’s Tom Peterson at all. – Anthony
I stand corrected. Do we know if the Tom P. who used to post here has any affiliation at all with either the motley CRU or the Team? His (lack of) understanding of statistical methodology as well as his demeanor towards data sampling and manipulation would seem to make him fully qualified for membership of those cliques.
sceptical (22:44:01) :
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php
“You like the Danish polar temperatures graph, but how about the sea extent graph?”
That is an incredibly lame presentation of the NH sea ice data, showing basically only September minimum, where 91.67% of the annual sea ice data have been discarded. Why not show all of the data to get a full picture?
Re. Mark Serreze, have you taken him to task for his appallingly stupid and antiscientific (no basis in science) prediction of “ice free north pole” in 2008?
Anyone interested in anything beyond this self gratifying hysteria, can look at the website below for a fact update and reality check on the nature of the stolen data from CRU.
https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
This feeding frenzy is disgusting. You all know that facts haven’t changed one way or the other. How about Watts and McIntyre release ALL their emails for the last 5 years to public scrutiny in the interest of freedom of information? I fully support an impartial inquiry, but it must include all relevant information.. INCLUDING ALL OF YOUR (Watts/McIntyre et al) data and emails and a criminal investigation into who stole the data and who knew it was happening. Then and only then can we clear this muddy water.
You do realise they hid – I mean, PUBLISHED – this discrepancy in Nature in 1998. Those wiley scientists hid their data in plain sight, in one of the most widely-read science journals, 10 years ago, right where denialists like McIntyre would never think to look!
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html
Wow! Informational whiplash going from my local newspaper, Maine’s own Lewiston Sun Journal, to this thread. I read LSJ’s news through in about six minutes, spending at least two on the comics. On the other hand, I’ve let my breakfast coffee go cold in the hour-plus I’ve happily spent here. There was even a comics section (Hide the Decline” lol) and an informative embedded video lecture at 16:25:14! Superb! I learned tons and am properly and righteously mad as hell.
I love the Internet! Now, which way to the Bastille? The wheels have come off the GW HoaxWagon and I want to be there for the ritual burning of the carcass. I’m not even sure that I want to maintain my calm, collected and of-so-reflective outer facade for this event.
More recent in second half of article::
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/10/working-to-develop-more-reliable-methodology-keith-briffa/
Thank you so much for posting!! We have been covering Climagegate in depth at Common Cents…
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
In Aristolian logic 101, one learns what should be common sensical that if the premises are invalid, the conclusions can’t be anything but invalid. The global warming fiasco starts with the false premise that CO2 is a significant green house gas that can have major impacts on climate. With CO2 comprising less than 3 percent of so-called green house gases and green house gases comprising much less than 1 percent of the total atmosphere, it defies reason and sensibility to assert that CO2 can have a significant role in climate or anything else affecting this planet.
As is often said in computerese, GIGO, garbage in – garbage out.
@czekmark
I am going to cut and paste your remark and send it to Congress. — Mr. Anonymouse.
How many salivating proponents of “ClimateGate” take Bible myths at face value with zero scrutiny? Half of Americans polled still believe in Noah’s Ark. Does that hypocrisy register? Creationists calling for “sound science” is the biggest hoax imaginable.
Denial of AGW is similar to the denial of a long list of man-made environmental problems. Acid rain pollution controls were “draconian.” Catalytic converters were a power-robbing socialist conspiracy. CFCs and the ozone hole were a “hoax” to cripple auto shop profits. Remember those days? “The economy ain’t workin’ right unless it’s destroyin’ nature!”
There’s a very good presentation on the history of such propaganda, titled “The American Denial of Global Warming.” Google it and watch it for free online. That is, if you have an hour’s attention span. Most of you would rather get dumbed-down soundbytes on everything. Just enough to keep you happy, righteous and deluded.
[REPLY – Speaking as an atheist/agnostic, religion is faith-based, not evidence-based. Provide evidence and faith itself is lost in the wash. Creationism conflicts with science, so there is no surprise that the polls are wonky in that regard. But there is no biblical conflict with Global Warming, so GW is not analogous with the creationism/natural selection spat. ~ Evan]
czekmark, your claim that CO2 can’t be significant because of its relatively small percentage is an old canard that’s completely bogus. It shows a serious lack of understanding on the topic. Are you getting that from Limbaugh or Hannity?
You could invest just 30 minutes reading about CO2’s actual properties and how it’s present in many layers of atmosphere while water vapor (etc.) effects are limited. This was learned back in the 1950s when the characteristics of different gases were categorized. Search for Gilbert Plass, et al. That is, if you’re not afraid of knowledge like most of the fringe-right.
AGW also wasn’t politicized back then because a decision had yet to be made on dealing with worst-case scenarios. Science is usually taken for granted until evidence compels people to change habits, then denial predictably kicks in and time gets wasted fighting it. Constructive skepticism is a different matter.
Something tells me that the moderator of this forum won’t allow my two comments, but what the heck.
[REPLY – Why wouldn’t we? Opposing views are allowed and encouraged. Personal abuse to posters, obscenities, and offensive material, of course, will be snipped. ~ Evan]
@ Jim C: As a Christian global warming critic, I do have a number of irons in the intellectual fire, not all of which I should involve in a public forum with a specific focus. With focused respect to this forum’s issue, I must further separate the politics from the science once in a while. Your post bids me do so now.
I must oppose the policy fixes that claim to prevent the death of the planet’s ecological systems from AGW. These policies and treaties (Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cap-and Tax etc) do far more than tinker with the mechanics of my car or the chemical make-up of its gasoline. Attempts to improve the environment at the level of technological improvements have happily been the arena of public debate and those that cross the bar of electorate approval are now part of our culture. Well and good. The recent and radical proposals have effects reaching far beyond the merely technical. These AGW related proposals truly deserve the name ‘draconian’. Our national sovereignty, personal freedoms, free market economy and republic stand to be destroyed. On top of that, media, government, academia and AGW science cabal suppress discussion, debate and, Gaia forbid, skepticism. Example: Not one story on network TV about ClimateGate! This is a demonstration of network political intent and their monopolistic stranglehold on information that should send chills down all our spines.
I can competently investigate the policies and their ramifications and their intent, IMO. I have enough background as a reader and thinker to do that, using the variety of sources available to me.
As to the science behind AGW, specifically the points about CO2 that you raise: I will check into the site you offer, but I am truly, as an untrained person, over my head in evaluating the material. I also have a built in skepticism, thanks to the emails and data REM’s that came out of CRU. Please grant me this legitimate skepticism, one built up on on first hand testimony of AGW principals. I CAN read the REM’s and emails and know darn well what motivations, intents, purposes and behaviors they indicate. At the heart of AGW, in its Holy of Holies (EAU, Penn State etc) lies a political purpose to which all scientific integrity has been prostituted. And that’s before Harry_Read_Me shows us all the uselessness of the data that got manipulated!
To sift through the jargon of a discussion of CO2 that may be influenced by the researcher’s need to be consistent with AGW beliefs, I need sites like this and, yes, Jim, comments like yours. I expect that you will keep me-and more competent posters- honest. But please focus on the point of the post. You sound desperate otherwise.
I think it’s both strange and scary how little the press in Norway talk about the potential misjustice and misleading which have been done – on an international plan.
Lucky for me that I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, so I’ve used maybe 20-30 hours to read up on this case.. However, it was kind of hard to find a good source for information, as many of the sceptics have little or no proof.
This page and some others; I find that I can trust.
It’s not good that the climate cause has become a milk-cow for a certain group of people, so they will do whatever to maxmize the propaganda and fear, they will mislead and cheat.
Any one may copy and paste, fax, email, this letter. NO recognition is necessary except to anonymouse. Please thank anonymouse LOL. Writen last night and sent to 567 on the Hill: Every congressman, every Supreme court judge, and every unconstitutional Czar, and every Secretary and president and vice president. I use http://www.americanvoice(dot)com
An Open Letter To The President, Congress and Supreme Court:
Sirs and Mesdames:
You have ONE JOB: Your only job is to do one simple thing, You SWORE an Oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution. That is your only job: HONOR your Oath of Office and Protect and Defend the United States Constitution and defend the Liberty of the People. Anything else you do is inconsequential…. See More
1. Prove the eligibility of Obama by showing a real Birth Certificate with real facts. The one on his website is not the official Birth Certificate.
2. Cease and desist all Co2 and AGW legislation until the Unbiased FACTS are revealed. Do a complete Investigation of Climate Gate.
3. Cease and desist all deliberation on signing any treaty that cedes US Sovereignty: this includes Copenhagen Treaty, Codex Aliminatarius, Health care legislation, Jay Rockefeller’s internet control bill! This is an act of Direct TREASON ON YOUR PART if you or anyone CEDES US Sovereignty to any entity or acts Contrary to the Constitution .
4. CEASE and DESIST all unconstitutional laws that do not fall into Article I section 8 of the US Constitution. You have no authority to legislate on issues not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.
5. Honor your Oath of office and OBEY Amendment 9 which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the PEOPLE”.
And Amendment 10 which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are RESERVED to the States respectively, or to the People”.
6. Repeal the Patriot act! It is unconstitutional because it violates the bill of rights right down the line. Do I have to remind you that Amendment IV states: The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation , and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
7. Stay out of FREE SPEECH! Amendment I clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
8. Complete Audit of the Federal Reserve. The FED is unconstitutional from the start. The genesis of the Federal Reserve was passed with 3 Congressmen in the dark of night. The constitution is very clear who is supposed to have the authority to coin money: CONGRESS! You must STOP making unconstitutional laws.
9. It is not Constitutional for you to allow the courts to pass laws according to Article III. You are overburdening the system with bills and laws you KNOW are unconstitutional.
The Constitution does not give authority to you, our government representatives to lie to us and deceive us, nor does it give authority to the government to act without the consent of the people. When government no longer looks out for the best interest of the people, the government ceases to be the rightful, legitimate government, and as such, it is time to abolish the entire government. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations , pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”.
This is what happens when the government is funding research. The scientist becomes a prostitute according to the agenda of the politicians seeking for power.
There has been fraud regarding funds on Climate Change research:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019956/climategate-the-lawyers-move-in-those-scientists-are-toast/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE (ClimateGate Who’s Who)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI (Armed Response to ‘Climategate’ question). This is how the UN censors questions about Global Warming.
and more fraud in the carbon trading scheme:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-european-carbon-credit-trading-system-plagued-by-fraud/
And now, the question everyone should ask: How much carbon reduction is needed to reduce the temperature to the UN target?
Answer: A minimum of 80 years without electricity and without fuel. That is, no heating, no cooking, no cars, no trucks, no tractors for agriculture, no cargo boats and no planes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKCyk_DhVI (Climate-Gate – Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton )
Follow the money….
“The carbon market in the US is expected to be trillions of dollars by 2015, and the technology we are offering is as little as 10% to half of that number”. Earning only 10% of a trillion represents an income of 100 billions a year, which is twice the total wealth of Bill Gates. Guess who is behind this corporation, to become a trillionaire? You have to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuifVNofEtk