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.
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.