# The new math – IPCC version

How the IPCC invented a new calculus

A new form of calculus has been invented by the authors of the the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), in order to create the false impression that global warming is accelerating.

How the new IPCC calculus works

Here’s how it works. Look at the following graph:

Now consider the following question:

Is the slope of the graph greatest at the left hand end of the graph, or the right hand end?

By just looking at the graph, or by using old-fashioned calculus developed by Newton and Leibnitz, you might think that the slope of the graph is similar at both ends. But you would be wrong. In fact, the slope is much greater towards the right hand end of the graph. To prove this, we need to apply the new calculus developed by the IPCC. To do this, we draw a sequence of straight-line best fits backwards from the right-hand end-point:

This clearly shows how the slope of the graph is in fact increasing.

How IPCC calculus is used in the IPCC report

Here is one of the key graphs from the AR4 report:

The graph is Figure 1 from FAQ 3.1, to be found on page 253 of the WG1 report. The slope over the last 25 years is significantly greater than that of the last 50 years, which in turn is greater than the slope over 100 years. This ‘proves’ that global warming is accelerating. This grossly misleading calculation does not just appear in chapter 3 of WG1. It also appears in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM):

The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years“.

Thus, policymakers who just look at the numbers and don’t stop to think about the different timescales, will be misled into thinking that global warming is accelerating. Of course, we could equally well start near the left hand end of the graph and obtain the opposite conclusion! (Just in case this is not obvious, see here for an example). A similar grossly misleading comparison appears at the very beginning of chapter 3, page 237:

The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade).

How did this get through the IPCC’s review process?

The IPCC reports are subjected to careful review by scientists. So how did this blatant distortion of the temperature trends get through this rigorous review process? The answer to this question can now be found, because the previous drafts of AR4, and the reviewer comments, can now be seen on-line. (The IPCC was reluctant to release these comments, but was forced to do so after a number of freedom of information requests).

The answer is quite astonishing.  The misleading graph was not in either the first or the second draft of the report that were subject to review. It was inserted into the final draft, after all the reviewer comments.

It is not clear who did this, but responsibility must lie with the lead authors of chapter 3, Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones. Here is the version of the graph that the reviewers saw in the second draft:

Note that in this version there is only one trend line drawn.

So why was this graph replaced by the grossly misleading one? Did any of the reviewers suggest that a new version should be drawn with a sequence of straight lines over different time intervals? No. One reviewer made the following remark:

‘This whole diagram is spurious. There is no justification to draw a “linear trend” through such an irregular record’

… but his comment was rejected.

It is the same story with the misleading comment in the SPM mentioned above (“The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years“). This statement was not in the original version reviewed by the scientists. It was inserted into the final draft that was only commented on by Governments.  The Chinese Government suggested deleting this, pointing out that:

‘These two linear rates should not compare with each other because the time scales are not the same’.

Well done to the Chinese Government for spotting that. Too bad their valid comment was ignored by the IPCC.

h/t to Roger Carr

Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
Editor
April 12, 2010 1:08 pm

You can even get a heck of a good R-squared with a linear trend-line through an incomplete sine wave…
Partial Sine Wave R^2=0.88

Gary
April 12, 2010 1:13 pm

The instances of sleight-of-hand (a/k/a “cheating”) just continue to mount. As Steve McIntyre says, with this bunch you always have to watch the pea under the thimble.

MattN
April 12, 2010 1:14 pm

Worst. “Science.” Ever…

Dr. Bob
April 12, 2010 1:18 pm

We used to be able to lie only with statistics, but now we can lie with Math as well.
And this goes along with Geroge E. P. Box’s famous comment:
Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.
Box, George E. P.; Norman R. Draper (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. Wiley. pp. p. 424. ISBN 0471810339.
Variations:
Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.
Box and Draper, Empirical Model-Building, p. 74
All models are false but some models are useful.

Frank
April 12, 2010 1:20 pm

This particular misuse of end-points has been noted for a while, but I was unaware that it was inserted after the last stage of ‘review’. Given that this bit of ‘science’ is now going ‘mainstream’, and that it should be a trivial exercise for the IPCC to reveal the source, does anyone want to bet on how long it takes from today (4/12/10) for the IPCC to do so? (PS – I don’t believe they will).

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
April 12, 2010 1:26 pm

So much for the western Enlightenment when we have our leaders corrected by those guys running a big factory/restaurant called China.

jack mosevich
April 12, 2010 1:28 pm

This is a linear accelerator.

April 12, 2010 1:35 pm

AGW is simply a f.r.a.u.d …

April 12, 2010 1:36 pm

I’ve always wondered about this mad disease i call “lineartrenditis”. One might just as well draw a straight line from 4.5 billion years ago up till the present day.

April 12, 2010 1:41 pm

You have to get a hockey stick somehow!

Paul
April 12, 2010 1:42 pm

x = 5
I love math!

April 12, 2010 1:43 pm

BETTER THAN #CLIMATEGATE! “Confidential document reveals #Obama’s US climate talk strategy” http://bit.ly/cCiisZ

Justa Joe
April 12, 2010 1:45 pm

The slope is linear. It’s equal throughout (.75).

geo
April 12, 2010 1:49 pm

You have to remember their modellers have (studidly, in my view) convinced them that all temp increases from here will be “monotonous”. Believing so leads to this kind of result.
It’s only been in the last couple years that they began straddling this issue, by talking about a temporary pause and then “a return with a vengeance” of warming after that.
I call that a “straddle” because it tries to maintain the illusion of montonous increases by just increasing the timeframe over which they happen. In other words, they are trying to straddle a granularity argument. That increases are monontonous over, say, a 25 year period, but perhaps not for any given 10 year period inside the 25 year period.

JDN
April 12, 2010 1:50 pm

I really think you’re beating a dead horse by other means here. The “hockey stick” is no good, and, any misrepresentations about fictitious data are distractions from the primary falsehood which is the “data” itself.

Original Mike
April 12, 2010 1:54 pm

I have to say, I don’t fully understand this criticism. Given just the data in hand, it seems reasonable to estimate the rate of change as has been done. It doesn’t prove anything. If the temperature flattens or turns around tomorrow, the benefit of the increased length of data will show the current result to be artifactual, but given the data we have today, is what they did beyond the pale?

H.R.
April 12, 2010 1:57 pm

Dr. Bob (13:18:02) :
“[… And this goes along with Geroge E. P. Box’s famous comment:
Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.
Box, George E. P.; Norman R. Draper (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. Wiley. pp. p. 424. ISBN 0471810339. […]”

I’ve got my copy of that book not two feet from where I’m sitting. I didn’t recall the second part of the quote – just the first part stuck with me – but then again I haven’t had much call for model building in the last 20 years.
Thanks for the memory jogger. I need all of those I can get nowadays ;o)

Milwaukee Bob
April 12, 2010 2:05 pm

Another excellent analysis and – hmmm, another “gate”?
And it seams to me the summary point of this is: With a wide variance cycle that measures in the 10s of thousands of years with sub-cycles within that greater cycle, any reference to a short term (couple hundred years or less) trend would (must) include a precise indication of where within each, (the long term cycle and any short term sub-cycle therein), the trend event is taking place for proper “scientific” perspective and obviously – relevance….. Unless, of course, you have an ulterior motive or hidden agenda. But far-be-it for me to accuse anyone of such a thing.

Chris
April 12, 2010 2:14 pm

Original Mike,
See arguments by Geo. The arguments in favor of the short-term trends were supposedly backed up by the models. Now there has been 13 yrs of cooling, which wasn’t predicted by the models. So, it all goes back to the validity of the models (i.e., are they reliable?). Remember, the only line of evidence for future warming comes from the models. It’s the only thing that separates AGW from natural variance (over millions of years) which have shown temps to be both cooler and warmer than today.

Peter Hearnden
April 12, 2010 2:14 pm

This is a non story that, I can only assume, is here to provide today’s opportunity for harumpfing.
Those lines just show the linear trend over a variety of times. I don’t think here anyone can (or will) show either that the trends are wrong, or show where anyone (other than Anthony (who I assume has written this piece)) asserts these trends or graphs ‘prove’ anything.

April 12, 2010 2:15 pm

In a post from a year ago…
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/has-global-warming-accelerated.html
…I looked at the Global SST anomaly trends of the two warming periods in the SST record. The trend of the rise in Global SST anomalies from 1910 to 1943 (0.116 deg C/decade)…
http://s5.tinypic.com/119qzk6.jpg
..is the same as the rise in Global SST anomalies from 1975 to 2007 (0.115 deg C/decade):
http://s5.tinypic.com/2vuk978.jpg

Ibrahim
April 12, 2010 2:17 pm

Please explain what the forcing was that caused the warming from 1910 to 1940?

RonPE
April 12, 2010 2:17 pm

For small laughs, an engineering prof asked us “What’s the derivative of acceleration?”
Looking us in the eyes, he would say “JERK!” to emphasize the double entendre.

Chris B.
April 12, 2010 2:19 pm

1910 to 1940 was steeper, and earlier in the current overall trend. To not address this obvious slope in the graph and focusing on the most recent increase is evidence enough for me that the authors have no credibility.

David L. Hagen
April 12, 2010 2:21 pm
bob
April 12, 2010 2:23 pm

Well of course it is accelerating, the CO2 is increasing at a more than exponential rate.
Show that graph next to a graph of CO2 concentration.
But why bother

Pat Moffitt
April 12, 2010 2:24 pm

I ask for a bit of an indulgence- perhaps the most important lesson to teach is to suspect any government report that decides winners and losers. The last minute “changes” posted above is a typical tactic and in no way restricted to climate issues.
The most outrageous I have seen is admitting to writing the recommendations before receiving the scientific report. I offer for your amusement or sadness the 2004 National Academies report “Atlantic Salmon in Maine”. (The report determined the fate of a lot of gov subsidies.) The scientists did not get the “right” message and wrote an opinion that was not preferred by policy makers. They said liming rivers- not dam removal- was the essential requirement. The Report’s recommendations however said: “That information (liming) became available after the rankings were developed, and so it is not incorporated into the diagrams and analyses.” Basically an admission the recommendations had been written before the scientific report!
It gets worse (perhaps a lesson the IPCC report should be seen as business as usual.) Scientists went after this subject again 2 years later in the
2006 “Effects of low pH and high aluminum on Atlantic salmon smolts in Eastern Maine and liming project feasibility analysis” where it was stated:
“A majority of the committee still believes that a liming project should be conducted. The committee believes that an in situ liming experiment would be the most effective tool for assessing the ecological benefits or impacts of liming in Eastern Maine rivers.”
Somehow the report’s recommendation said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE:
“Based on existing data, the SalmonPVA, and our current understanding of how acidification effects salmon survival, acidification does not appear to be having a significant population effect on the DPS rivers. Until new information becomes available, it would be premature to assume that river liming on a large scale would contribute significantly to the recovery of the DPS.”
To all the climate scientists– you are not alone. I admit to not knowing whether this knowledge helps or hurts.

Original Mike
April 12, 2010 2:24 pm

Thanks, Chris. As I said, they can’t use this analysis to predict the future (that’s what I meant when I said “it proves nothing”). As you say, only the models do that. But as a simple description of the data, it seems OK.

Michael in Sydney
April 12, 2010 2:24 pm

And the Nobel prize for doing whatever it takes to promote the cause goes to…
Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones for an interesting new trick based on good ol’ sleight-of-hand!!
Michael

Steve Goddard
April 12, 2010 2:25 pm

AGW types love to generate linear fits of cyclical physical processes, using cherry picked start and end dates. My personal favorites are Greenland trends that start in 2003 and end in 2007.

Dr A Burns
April 12, 2010 2:26 pm

If we look at the past 100 years, the rate of fossil fuel consumption increased 1200% after 1945. If we compare the rates of warming, we find:
Before 1945 … 0.16 deg C per decade
After 1945 … 0.11 deg C per decade
That is, the rate of warming DECREASED after the increase in fossil fuel burning.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Dr A Burns
April 12, 2010 2:28 pm

Here’s a plot showing the decrease in warming after 1945
http://www.q-skills.com/tmpvff2.jpg

Jose A Veragio
April 12, 2010 2:32 pm

” Here it is ”
LOL
Forget mathematical modelling.
Mathematical Marketing is just as reliable and a lot more effective.

CodeTech
April 12, 2010 2:34 pm

Peter Hearnden (14:14:44) :
…or show where anyone (other than Anthony (who I assume has written this piece))…

I guess this shows what happens when you “assume”.
There is a link provided, actually.
I assume this is a good example of your observational skills.

TallDave
April 12, 2010 2:40 pm

But that means the Earth will be unlivable by 2010 or so… OMG THAT’S RIGHT NOW!!

April 12, 2010 2:43 pm

To the point, so much of the so called science has been pulled-up and called into question that it has become farcical. For those that can spare the time it is well worth going back and trawling through Climate Audit just to see what has been uncovered and analyzed by the amazing efforts of Steve McIntyre – starting with the trashing of the hockey-stick.

Henry chance
April 12, 2010 2:44 pm

Jerry Ravitz claims to be a Maths major.
Michael Mann also claims a Math degree altho his doctorate is Geology.
I suspect that heavy weights have the authority to adjust the theory.
I didn’t know the pythagorean theorem need adjustment also. How much does the value for x or the hypotenuse change when CO2 increases?

Steve in SC
April 12, 2010 2:45 pm

It is much worse than we thought!

DirkH
April 12, 2010 2:45 pm

“Peter Hearnden (14:14:44) :
This is a non story that, I can only assume, is here to provide today’s opportunity for harumpfing.
Those lines just show the linear trend over a variety of times. I don’t think here anyone can (or will) show either that the trends are wrong, or show where anyone (other than Anthony (who I assume has written this piece)) asserts these trends or graphs ‘prove’ anything.”
The graph and the trend lines are drawn this way to deceive.
The rate of change between 1920 and 1940 is the same as between 1980 and 2000, but the trend lines are drawn in such a way as to suggest that what has happened recently is more dramatic than past changes.
For you, this might be a non-story; maybe you are just not interested in the psycho tricks of the IPCC. We are.

George Turner
April 12, 2010 2:46 pm

Justa Joe, the slope isn’t linear 0.75 because the line has to be adjusted for a continually varying pencil width, humidity induced distortion of the graph paper, and other confounding factors. After homogenization and corrections, the hypotenuse of the triangle will look more like a hyperbola. It’s basic climate science.

rbateman
April 12, 2010 2:47 pm

In the IPCC graph above, the cooling of the 40’s to 70’s is nowhere to be found. Cooling slopes down. Thier depiction is flatter than the view from Sacramento.

Delaware Surveyor
April 12, 2010 2:51 pm

Sorry Paul, you get points off for not including your units!

Editor
April 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Peter Hearnden (14:14:44) :
This is a non story that, I can only assume, is here to provide today’s opportunity for harumpfing.
Those lines just show the linear trend over a variety of times. I don’t think here anyone can (or will) show either that the trends are wrong, or show where anyone (other than Anthony (who I assume has written this piece)) asserts these trends or graphs ‘prove’ anything.

It’s not a matter of trends being right or wrong… It’s a matter of the significance and meaningfulness of the trends.
A linear trend-line through one leg of a sine wave will have a very high R^2 (high statistical significance) but it is totally meaningless; because the sine wave is a harmonic function.
A plot of the HadCRUT3 temperature series since 1995 certainly seems to show a warming trend…
However, this trend is not “statistically significant.” The correlation coefficient (or r-squared) value is only 0.13. This means that only 13% of the data fit the linear trend.
Since 1998, the data show no trend at all…
Since 2003, HadCRUT3 shows a statistically insignificant cooling trend…
One of the “problems” with the way climate data are handled is in the obsession with applying linear trend lines to non-linear data.
A Sine wave has no real linear trend…
Sine Wave (From Wood For Trees)
But… What happens if my data represent only a portion of a Sin wave pattern?
A partial Sine wave apparently has a very significant secular trend.
The r-squared of a linear trend line of this partial Sine wave is 0.88… 88% of the data fit the trend line. This implies a very strong secular trend; yet, we know that in reality Sine waves do not have secular trends.
If we take the entire HadCRUT3 series and apply a linear trend line, we get an apparent secular trend…
The r-squared is 0.55… 55% of the data fit the secular trend. This implies that there is a real long-term warming trend.
What happens to that secular trend if we expand our time series like we did with the Sine wave?
The apparent secular trend vanishes in a puff of mathematics…
Moberg et al., 2005 Climate Reconstruction
How can such a clear secular trend vanish like that? The answer is easy. Each “up hill” and each “down hill” leg of a Sine wave has a very strong secular trend. Unless you have enough data to see several cycles, you don’t know if you are looking at a long-term trend or an incomplete cycle.
If we take the HadCRUT3 series and compare the the period from 1912-1945 to the period from 1975-2009, we find that they are statistically indistinguishable…
We also find that Moberg’s Medieval Warm Period reconstruction is very similar to the HadCRUT3 series…
HadCRUT3 vs. Moberg Medieval Warm Period Reconstruction
Using the GISP2 ice core data from central Greenland we can see that over the last 50,000 years, there have been statistically significant warming trends…
GISP2: 50 kya to 1855 AD
And there have been cooling trends of varying statistical significance…
GISP2: 10 kya to 1855 AD
GISP2: 3.3 kya to 1855 AD
What does all of this mean?
It means that the Earth’s climate is cyclical. It means that the climate changes we’ve experienced over the last 150 years are not anomalous in any way, shape, fashion or form. And itr means that linear trend lines can be very misleading when applied to less than one full wave length of a quasi-harmonic function.

kcom
April 12, 2010 2:57 pm

I’m no math expert although I took quite a bit in college. But, to Original Mike, I think all you need to do is look at the early run-up people have mentioned from 1910 to 1940. The slope is greater than the recent one. So what’s to disprove the argument one might make that the 1930s were heating up faster than any known time in recent history and now the warming trend has slowed down. The slope from 1940 to now is less than it was during the runup. The problem of overheating is actually decelerating, not accelerating. Using their logic, this is an equally valid argument. Same information, same graph, different conclusion. They are cherrypicking time periods to prove a point they want to be true, when other time periods they could have picked would prove something entirely different. In other words, their comparison is bogus.

Editor
April 12, 2010 3:01 pm

Chris B. (14:19:07) :
1910 to 1940 was steeper, and earlier in the current overall trend. To not address this obvious slope in the graph and focusing on the most recent increase is evidence enough for me that the authors have no credibility.

The point is that a trend line from 1975-2010 will be steeper than a trend line from 1910-2010; causing a false impression of accelerating warming.
False Acceleration

Archonix
April 12, 2010 3:07 pm

Peter Hearnden (14:14:44) :
Your point might be valid, except the IPCC report several times states that the linear trend of short period X is steeper than over longer period Y. In other words the IPCC has repeatedly used these linear trends to “prove” that the temperature is rising faster… the article clearly points out why this is at best a rather deceptive use of linear trends.
The fact is these linear trends are splattered onto the graph in such a way as to create the impression of an increasingly rapid rise in temperatures. It’s an illusion that serves a political purpose. It’s a lie, yet it’s been used to “prove” that temperatures are rising faster than ever before.

Ben Kellett
April 12, 2010 3:09 pm

But……….what if the “misrepresented” trend continues…….what if temps continue to accelerate up the way over the next 25 yrs? Will any of you begin to worry?
It is wrong to cheat & to misrepresent but I suspect the intention was to emphasise the point that they believe to be true and which just might be true. Not good science but good for getting non scientific decision makers to see things in ways that they understand.
The Chinese have always been smarter than Westerners, so no surprises that they picked up on it first!

Neil Fisher
April 12, 2010 3:09 pm

Add the trend-line for 2000-2009 and watch the “acceleration” disappear.
Oh wait – that would be deceptive, wouldn’t it?

Richard S Courtney
April 12, 2010 3:12 pm

I have been pointing this out in public and in private since the AR4 was published. It disappoints me that it is now being stated as new information. I had hoped it would be common knowledge by now.
Richard

George E. Smith
April 12, 2010 3:15 pm

Yeah BUT ! From 1940 to 1950, the global warming headed off into a real funk, and it looked like we were in for an ice age by 1960.
Somehow, I don’t think those ever increasing slopes upwards that IPCC sees, are any where near a sdangerous (potentially) as a continuation of that dramatic 1940-1950 crash.

Jaye
April 12, 2010 3:15 pm

PH,
I think the point is why not show the trend for the linear portion between 1880 and 1910? or between 1910 1940? What’s the point of any of this piecewise linear fitting? What sort of hypothesis are you testing? Nothing physical that’s for sure.

Speechless in Seattle
April 12, 2010 3:16 pm

Peter Hearnden wrote “I don’t think … anyone can … show … where anyone … asserts these trends or graphs ‘prove’ anything.”
If the trend lines in the graph were not meant to prove anything, why were they inserted at all? Why were they mentioned in the SPM? Merely to prove that the IPCC is about “spin”, not “proof”?

Jaye
April 12, 2010 3:19 pm

What AW has done here is a poor man’s “proof by contradiction”, assume a method means X (where X implies the data set has some sort of accelerating trend), apply it to a perfectly valid data set (a trig function) where the method shows X when clearly the data has no trend at all. Poof the technique vanishes in a puff of logic.

George E. Smith
April 12, 2010 3:21 pm

“”” RonPE (14:17:32) :
For small laughs, an engineering prof asked us “What’s the derivative of acceleration?”
Looking us in the eyes, he would say “JERK!” to emphasize the double entendre. “””
Well that prof must have had in mind, that ultimate in catastrophically sluggish functions:- exp(-1/x^2) .
Now that function is zero at x = 0, and also its derivative is zero at x = zero, and so is its second derivative; and its third derivative.
So this poor chap starts off at zero with zero velocity, and zero acceleration; and also zero rate of increase of acceleration.. In fact, every derivative of that function is zero at x = zero; so how in the blazes would that ever get anywhere ?
But somehow, at X = 1, that slowpoke has managed to stagger all the way up to 1/e or 37% (of 1).
Don’t ask me how; I reckon it is magic.

Scott
April 12, 2010 3:24 pm

Hmm, the last two plots aren’t showing up for me (I even tried a “relaod”. Were the originals moved? Can’t really evaluate the article without those.
On an OT note, the whole Greenpeace threat fiasco made it to the opinions page of the Colorado State University newspaper, and the author did a good job of raking Greenpeace without being over-the-top.

Not Al Gore
April 12, 2010 3:26 pm

If you are, do this little “thought experiment”:
Take the data and pretend you are back in 1940. Do the SAME ANALYSIS and see what you find.
What you will find is the linear trend was accelerating at an EVEN HIGHER RATE back then.
So now ask yourself this question:
If the rate of acceleration of the temperature trend was HIGHER in 1940 than it is today, what does it say about the impact of CO2 on the temperature trend?
Hint: CO2 growth was virtually non-existent prior to 1940.
The bottom line is this:
If you believe this type of trend analysis is correct, then you must also agree that CO2 is NOT the cause.
Can’t have it both ways.

George E. Smith
April 12, 2010 3:27 pm

“”” Peter Hearnden (14:14:44) :
This is a non story that, I can only assume, is here to provide today’s opportunity for harumpfing.
Those lines just show the linear trend over a variety of times. I don’t think here anyone can (or will) show either that the trends are wrong, or show where anyone (other than Anthony (who I assume has written this piece)) asserts these trends or graphs ‘prove’ anything. “””
Well it might be an indicator that “trend” means absolutely nothing.
Actually, the graph is a plot of real actually measured and masticated data; and the only “trend” that it really has is where it goes to from the most current observed value; to whatever value will be measured next; and that up and coming value, is totally unpredictable from anything that has happened before, as a simple look at the graph would reveal.
The furure is kinda like that, which is why they call it the future.

brc
April 12, 2010 3:27 pm

Peter Hearnden (14:14:44) :
Why are you defending the indefensible? Why are you pretending that nobody takes any notice of these graphs? These are both in the WG1 and the Summary for Policymakers. They are clearly designed to alarm the casual observer. You have to be honest and admit this.
Why not also draw a trendline from 1860 and 1910, and show the current rate is nothing unprecendented? The statement “The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years“ is clearly designed to alarm and motivate policy makers to act. It should say ‘The linear warming trend is similar to the trends observed in 1880 and 1910, and follows the general warming trend observed since 1850.’ Even Phil Jones admitted that these prior periods showed the same rate of warming.
Second to the actual content of the graph, what about the IPCC process. What is the point of having reviewers if the editors can just put in whatever they like in the final draft, without any reviewers reviewing it? This is categorically not an inclusive process.

April 12, 2010 3:31 pm

Shouldn’t you be correctly saying the fake line is directed at the world’s useful idiots, the food stuff of politicians. I doubt politician even open the books they get.

Liam
April 12, 2010 3:33 pm

The way I see the data on the graph, there is an acceleration for a decade or so near the end, but the rate of temperature change has been accelerating, decelerating and flipping from warming to cooling over the whole timespan and one could show as great an acceleration during earlier periods.
As we know, there has been a deceleration, possibly a reversal, for the last decade or so, which isn’t shown on the graph.
Its not so much that they have invented a new calculus, they have simply cherry picked the data to give the answer they required to support their story. Nothing new there!

April 12, 2010 3:34 pm

As can be clearly seen by the progression of the trend lines, the slope will continue approaching vertical, and soon we’ll have a rise of 10 anomaly units per year. Then we will all die.
In other news, evolution has begun prepping our possible replacements. New multi-cellular animals discovered on the the floor of the Mediterranean that “…do not depend on oxygen to breathe and reproduce…” (The headline material says “first animals” and I’m thinking about the ones living deep under water at the sulfurous volcanic vents.) So if we do go insane on planetary CO2 reductions, get caught in an ice age where cooling oceans soak up so much CO2 that the plants shut down, and O2-CO2 cycle respiring species go away, life on Earth will go on. Isn’t that good to know?

CRS, Dr.P.H.
April 12, 2010 3:37 pm

Well, I understand what they are trying to show, i.e. that the rate of temperature growth has increased more in the later industrial period.
Statistically, this is not an uncommon treatment (breaking up the series and showing the slope for smaller time units). However, to be consistent, they should compare apples to apples & compare the smaller slopes to each other, not only to the overall slope for all data. This will always give a wrong impression.
For example, if they were to do the same technique for the 25 years including 1915 to 1940 in the Global Mean Temperature graph, I think the slope would be nearly identical to the 25 year period of 1980-2005 (eyeballing it anyway).
Very misleading, if we were to do this for the past winter compared to previous 10 winters, we’d be out buying shares in snowblower and parka manufacturers. Just more evidence of how the AGW priests cook the books to sow panic among the policymakers and public.

Feet2theFire
April 12, 2010 3:39 pm

If that is their methodology, will they NOW take the 12 years since 1998 and do the same thing?
No. They argue that 12 years does not a trend make.
When it goes UP, use the shorter trendline.
But when it goes DOWN, one takes the LONGER trendline. It’s not FAIR to use the shorter trendline THEN!
(Heads I win, tails you lose?)
B. (14:19:07) –
Agreed – and the 1860-1880 one is maybe even steeper. Phil Jones agreed on these in an interview – but didn’t mention it in the IPCC. Sandbagging piece of dung, really.
The one constant is that the steep incline always ends in a peak and then there is another decline – one that can’t be hidden.
That is the most stressful thing for the Hockey Team – that since they drew so much attention to their predictions that they can’t hide this decline.

HAS
April 12, 2010 3:42 pm

Peter Hearnden in fact there has been a long discussion over at Our Changing Climate (“Global average temperature increase GISS HadCRU and NCDC compared”) that demonstrates that the GISS time series violates the assumptions underpinning linear regression, so the trends and confidence limits quoted in Fig 1 from FAQ 3.1 are meaningless (quite apart from the arguments being made here).
Notwithstanding this the IPCC Report says in the caption to Fig 1 “Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming” and then references this Fig over a dozen times in the report (according to my lazy Google search).

April 12, 2010 3:43 pm

FWIW, several of my old math teachers and university professors might have a stroke upon seeing that first diagram. Never use x for the hypotenuse, use h!

Xi Chin
April 12, 2010 3:49 pm

Not content with using cherry picked data, aka the hockey stick, AGW have here cherry picked their (faulty) method of measuring acceleration and then ignored the review process – as is standard practice it appears – you could not make this stuff up! It is so bad, nobody would believe it if you told them. You just couldn’t make it up.

kse
April 12, 2010 3:50 pm

I made my own “climate model” few weeks ago. I used following assumptions: there is some cyclic climate process that has period of approx. 60 years (recent minima 1860(?), 1910, 1975 and maxima 1880, 1940, 1998) and there has been some constant recovery from LIA. Furthermore, I considered impact of the average GHCN “adjustements”.
So, if we assume that there is a such periodical process, fix a minimum to 1910 and approximate that its amplitude is 0.48 K, and if we take that the recovery from LIA is 0.16 K / century (calculated form hadcet 1659-1900), we get something like this:
http://users.tkk.fi/kse/trend60lt_fixed.png
with linear trend of 0.29 K / century.
Next, if we deduct this “climate model” and average GHCN adjustments from HadCRUTv3, we get this:
and the remaining linear trend is 0.061 K / century.
Does this prove anything? Definitely not – but certainly these were quite odd results considering that I didn’t do any “parameter optimization”…

Alan Simpson
April 12, 2010 3:53 pm

Was going to say, (bu**er), but on second thoughts, upon my very word! This is the first time I have seen this “revolutionary new scientific method” demonstrated.
Is it really true you can just make stuff up? [snip] me where is R.Gates when you need it?

April 12, 2010 3:57 pm

The bombshell for me is that it was inserted after the scientific review process.
This is shades of the 2nd report scandal over the change from AGW as inconclusive to AGW as aconclusive finding of the report — inserted after the scientific review. See http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
It should also be mentioned that this graph has continued to be used even after it has been widely discredited by the IPCC, including Pachauri in his official speech at Copenhagen, for which he was roundly criticised for it on WUWT (I cant find the page).

Al Gored
April 12, 2010 4:07 pm

It just keeps getting worse. But since these are all now effectively (world) government statistics, should we be surprised?
The economy is on the rebound too. And there’s no inflation.
One irony here is that the Chinese government, which pumps out whatever convenient economic statistics it needs for the moment, found this.

David S
April 12, 2010 4:14 pm

Speechless in Seattle (15:16:50)
If you mix “proof” with “spin” don’t you get “spoof”?
Alan Simpson: what do you need R Gates for, other than to try to make some money by betting against him on Arctic Ice levels?

April 12, 2010 4:20 pm

CSIRO and BOM used this same “trick” here in Oz a couple of weeks ago, making dire claims from the trends from 1960-2009. This was quickly picked up by Jo Nova, Andrew Bolt, (and, ahem, me, at kenskingdom), showing that trends since 1910 are no cause for alarm. If in doubt, pick a shorter period to make your trend- works every time.

April 12, 2010 4:21 pm

Doesn’t it say something about the IPCC’s commitment to truthfulness when China is pulling it up?

Feet2theFire
April 12, 2010 4:22 pm

This whole graph is bogus. The entire Michael Mann/CRU/GISS/NOAA effort to reduce climate down to ONE number for every month is a mirage. It means nothing.
After reading Frank Lansner’s How not to compare temperatures I am convinced that all averaging does is flatten and flatten and flatten.
And the ultimate in flattening is to reduce everything to one number – and THEN go off and read something into that number – which doesn’t represent ANY of the data that went into creating that one number.
If you look at the proxy graphs in Frank’s post – which I have reason to assume are typical for all multi-proxy and mega-multi-station graphs – it is obvious that the average doesn’t tell us anything whatsoever about what is really going on. Single proxies and temperature traces are all OVER THE MAP. And each one is fairly NORMAL for that location or proxy.
And when one takes each one of those traces and compares them to that one number, NONE of them agree with the ONE number. The sacred number. The HOLY number.
The useless number.
What the average SHOULD be telling us is that the overall average stays within a narrow band of about 1C either side of some norm – and that is all.
We should then stop right there. And then go off and do something USEFUL.
Reading anything at all into that +0.5C to -0.5C graph is like priests trying to tell how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
What is the REAL story is in all those huge variations in all those proxies and all those met stations. They tell us that EVERYPLACE ON EARTH is much more variable than that stupid GATA graph. Some places are wilder than others’ but very few follow that graph.
You have one number – what does that do? FOR ANYBODY? It allows someone to scream, “The SKY is Falling!” because of a rise of less than 1C. At EVERY POINT on the globe the temperature changes more than that in one hour and every hour on most days.
What Frank’s graphs show is that the heat is all over the place. When the heat from one area moves to another area, the first area cools and the second warms up – and usually in measurements larger than 1C. But the total heat stays essentially the same. And I challenge anyone to show us all that a 1C change at ANY point on the globe is a disaster.
ALSO: Proxies are single points. To have a single proxy represent the entire globe in past centuries and millennia is just plain WRONG. It is okay to have it there as a reference or a general IMPRESSION. But to have ANY single point or small group of points on the Earth represent the globe for a 100-year period or a 1,000-year period and then tell us it is meaningful as compared to the THOUSANDS of data points we now have (even if those are less than recent decades) is just WRONG.
As I commented on Frank’s post, those proxy datapoints should also show TIME uncertainty bars, because the C14 dates and the counts of the tree rings and ice cores is NOT an exact science, so every data point behind those single-line graphs actually is a horizontal line in itself.
And with all that +/- in BOTH directions, and with all the HUGE fluctuations in local and regional climate, attempting to conclude ANYTHING from swings of 0.01 in the GLOBAL average – other than this: THE GLOBAL AVERAGE IS VERY STABLE.
Mountains out of molehills. Climate catastrophes out of 1C or less waverings in that number. Is there a difference?
NO! THE EARTH IS NOT WARMING.
The otherwise useless “average” is within that narrow band – WHOOP DEE FREAKING DOO.
Around that average all KINDS of huge fluctuations are going on, some here, some there, and varying all the time.
As Dick Lindzen says OVER AND OVER AND OVER, “The climate is changing all the time. What’s the big deal?” But it doesn’t stay one way; it keeps oscillating in its multitudinous ways – EVERYWHERE. Changes come, and changes go.
Let’s all get scared when that ONE useless, meaningless number shifts another 0.2C.
Shame on the AGW people for their tempest in a teapot.

Alan S. Blue
April 12, 2010 4:26 pm

This does bring up an interesting point.
Could we have the derivative of the “smoothed series” plotted?

Spector
April 12, 2010 4:27 pm

I suspect that there may be a lot of people in the general public who do not know the scientific difference between the terms ‘increasing’ and ‘accelerating, ‘ perhaps thinking that word ‘accelerating’ just indicates increasing at a relatively high or dangerous rate. Of course, anyone who has passed a high school physics course should know or once did know the difference.

Layne Blanchard
April 12, 2010 4:43 pm

Everyone knows that yellow lines are always the hottest. And with Earth’s mantle at millions of degrees now, this graph is completely understandable: We’re cooking from within.

Steve Oregon
April 12, 2010 4:48 pm

Does this weaken the consensus?
Just laugh.

April 12, 2010 4:49 pm

I am amazed at those claiming this is a non-story.
1. The data has been deftly ‘dressed up” to demonstrate something that is not in fact mathematically correct (SPPI have reported on this, but not this aspect exactly, just that there are preceding identical trends).
2. The ‘scientist’ review process was entirely circumvented by slipping this in fraudulently after their review was complete.
3. When the governmental review was undertaken, the new, fraudulently inserted graph was called out by the Chinese government, and the valid (and extremely succinct and to the point – very un-Chinese!) criticism was entirely ignored.
I think it is time we made it clearly known that the IPCCs reports have become so knowingly fraudulent that they should be ignored by policy-makers. If the IPCC wish to claim otherwise, they should be forced to defend this and other behaviour, such as the glacier data remaining even when known to be invalid.
In a fair world, it would be in a court of law with their very jobs at stake, if not their liberty, but we well know that UN is so far above any laws that it will never happen.

April 12, 2010 4:57 pm

In fact, I believe we can assume that the arrow will never reach the tortoise……?
Zeno called out the IPCC 2,500 years ago!

April 12, 2010 5:03 pm

Spector & Layne Blanchard,
It’s even worse than that: click

Peter of Sydney
April 12, 2010 5:15 pm

This is not science; it’s deliberate misinformation. People who peddle such information should be put behind bars, not rewarded with more tax dollars. However, since the world is being turned upside down, as per Orwell’s predictions, things will get much worse, thanks to the large proportion of brain dead people in the world. Enjoy the ride as best you can – that’s all we can do.

April 12, 2010 5:17 pm

Great observation by: Feet2theFire (16:22:07) that the total throw is around 1 degree C.
The big question that won’t occur to the Big Government Scientist types is what makes it decrease the 3-4 deg C worldwide that puts us into another ice age?
After time, what pulls us out? And why?

kcom
April 12, 2010 5:18 pm

Love it, Smokey.

Anu
April 12, 2010 5:28 pm

Similarly, there is no way to determine the slope of a parabola, because depending on the part of the curve you focus on, the rate of change can range from 0 to infinity:
http://tinyurl.com/y74evwm
P1? P2? P3?
There’s just no way to fit a linear trend to a parabola, so parabolas cannot be used in science.

April 12, 2010 5:33 pm

The point that is being ignored is that there is a warming trend approximately every 60 years since the invention of the thermometer and written temperature records. [That is about 1860.]
The warming cycles are 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1970 – 1998. The first two were probably not caused by CO2 so why do they think the third one is !
Even Phil Jones of CRU infamy acknowledges this.
Question: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
Dr Phil Jones: An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/#more-16418

Mikey Likes
April 12, 2010 5:40 pm

How long until we all realize the pols are stringing the ‘scientists’ along.
All of this is non-sense piled on non-sense.
1st The ‘scientist’ determined they needed to Fake all of the temperature records to make their simplistic models work.
2nd The ‘scientists’ used some discredited 100 year old CO2 experiment and attempted to extrapolate the results from a very small experiment to the entire earth’s climate – an extreme stretch.
3rd The IPCC realizes that even after faking it all along – they need to SNEAK fake info into the fraudulent document.
We have been scammed and when are the real ‘scientists’ going to stand tall and admit this.
The entire scientific community will suffer for generations when enough people learn of this.

April 12, 2010 5:47 pm

Anu (17:28:19) :
“There’s just no way to fit a linear trend to a parabola, so parabolas cannot be used in science.”
No, it means the only legitimate trend line that can be fitted to a parabola is a parabola.

George E. Smith
April 12, 2010 5:54 pm

“”” H.R. (13:57:04) :
Dr. Bob (13:18:02) :
“[… And this goes along with Geroge E. P. Box’s famous comment:
Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.
Box, George E. P.; Norman R. Draper (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. Wiley. pp. p. 424. ISBN 0471810339. […]“ “””
Well I’m not sure I agree with that. I know that Gaia has a model that works very well; gives the correct results every time.
The problem with Gaia’s model is that is completely intractable so there’s no way we can play with her model.
That said; what is it that is wrong about other models. some of them can be manipulated with great dexterity (mathematically speaking).
The main problem is they don’t turn out to be models of any real planet we know of.

Bill Illis
April 12, 2010 6:18 pm

The basic IPCC theory is that there are NO natural cycles or natural drivers of the climate in action right now (a small solar impact of 0.08C only).
Through this, they can claim the 1975 to 1998/2006 warming was caused by greenhouse gas forcing only.
But we know the ocean cycles of the ENSO certainly impacts temperatures and (I believe) so does the AMO and the Southern Atlantic’s cycles.
These cycles can explain the ups of 1850 to 1880, 1910 to 1945 and 1975 to 2006 and also the downs from 1880 to 1910, 1945 to 1975 and 2006 to 2009. And it works on a monthly basis.
If you remember the global temperature model based on the ENSO, AMO, Southern Atlantic AMO and CO2, it continues to work pretty well and matches the historical temperature record very closely (without any smoothing at all). It is hard to imagine this is a fluke.
The warming trend is less than 2.0C per doubling (even after a projected 30 year lag as the warming in the ocean pipeline catches up).

DeNihilist
April 12, 2010 6:42 pm

Now near as I can tell, the CO2 temperature rise forcing starts at about 50 PPMV (Gavin thought that this was reasonable). SO take a starting temp of about 14*C as the starting point for all the factors at that CO2 point, let’s say. Then take a mid-point range from the ipcc of say 3.3*C rise for every doubling – 50/100 100/200 200/400, this should have added approx. 10*C to our 14*C starting point. Hmmmmm………..

Bart
April 12, 2010 7:22 pm

George E. Smith (15:21:47) :
“Don’t ask me how; I reckon it is magic.”
Or quantum mechanics, same difference.

Jim G
April 12, 2010 7:31 pm

My favorite statement in investing (located in every prospectus) which seems to be forgotten when it comes to climate science:
“Past performance does not guarantee future results.”

David Alan Evans
April 12, 2010 7:36 pm

Original Mike (13:54:47) :
I hope you’re joking.
Print the graph & by hand draw the trend from 1910 to 1940.
DaveE.

baahumbug
April 12, 2010 7:40 pm

As Richard S Courtney said, this has been known for a while.
What surprises me is that there are a couple of commenters who are defending this fraudulent misrepresentation.
I think it’s called “bloodymindedness”

James Sexton
April 12, 2010 7:43 pm

Smokey (17:03:46) :
Beautiful illustration of climate science!!!!
Anu (17:28:19) :
There’s just no way to fit a linear trend to a parabola, so parabolas cannot be used in science.
Certainly not when you attempt a linear solution. Of course, if you flip it just right, you can have a circular argument!!!

James Sexton
April 12, 2010 8:11 pm

Peter of Sydney (17:15:24) :
This is not science; it’s deliberate misinformation. People who peddle such information should be put behind bars, not rewarded with more tax dollars. However, since the world is being turned upside down, as per Orwell’s predictions, things will get much worse, thanks to the large proportion of brain dead people in the world. Enjoy the ride as best you can – that’s all we can do.
I don’t share your cynicism, but I share your immediate concern. Bolivia seems to be worth a study. Apparently, the next climate treaty is to contain money that is prohibited to nations that don’t sign on. This includes money already being given on a regular basis. Evidently, Bolivia says they won’t sign, but it isn’t fair that they can’t have the free money……???????……..??????? Has the educated world really gone this far?
If you can’t sustain yourself, and are dependent upon someone else to feed you, can you really stipulate the conditions upon which you receive the money? If you can sustain yourself, why are you receiving the money? Why are we giving the money? We were giving the money prior to the climate hysteria. Have the conditions changed that required our generosity? If they have, why are we still doing so? If they haven’t then the requirements are still there.
Sadly, I sense that we’ve kept them on the teat only to coerce them into things latter that we might want…………as I write yet another check to the United Way.(It allows me a sense of entitlement. 🙂 )
If the nations and the people of the world would simply do for themselves, then the world could and would collectively tell these alarmists to get a real job and piss off. Unfortunately, the world has decided interdependency in preferable to self-sufficiency. This allows the tyrants of this world an opportunity to cajole many entities of this world to see things their way. We’ve convinced people they can’t, therefore, they won’t and are complacent to comply with the whims of our tyrants.

edwardt
April 12, 2010 8:28 pm

Hey, I thought they got rid of that 1940s blip thingy! And it still has a higher slope…hmmm. Interesting…guess they forgot their History Rewriting 101 training.

April 12, 2010 9:25 pm

A trend cannot be computed honestly with the High Priests of Climate selecting the data subset to fit the pre existing and important beliefs?
Seriously, ALL the linear trend lines computed from supposed 20th century temperature averages yield false conclusions. Since we know that from the methods of selecting curve fits and the nature of the data, there is no scientific reason why there should have been ANY straight line fits in said graph.
Further, you have here the implicit use of a straight line fit as “predictive”. It is no more predictive than drawing a line through stock market data.

janama
April 12, 2010 10:28 pm

Lord Monckton discussed this chart in his address in Brisbane. He showed that 1860 – 1880, 1910 – 1940 and 1980 – 2000 all had the same slope yet 1860 – 1880 was pre industrialisation therefore CO2 could not be the cause of the warming.

molesunlimited
April 12, 2010 10:31 pm

Many moons ago that wonderful “Journal of Irreproducible Results” published a learned piece on how one set of random numbers could show any desired graphical result by chosing the axes and their units appropriately. Does any reader still have a copy of that article … or even the reference? Been decades since I referred to it and, regretably, my pre-computer-era reference cards have been long consigned to the dust bin of history.

April 12, 2010 11:54 pm

Putting the linear trend over the record is as stupid as putting one on temperature record starting last midnight and ending tomorrow noon. It will be rising, even all noons and midnights are of the same temperature.
IPCC states “warming during last 50 years is probably mostly man-made”, ignoring the warm phases of oceanic oscillations since 1978 whatsoever. Lets wait until they will be both in cold phase like in 1910 or 1965 and then compare again. On the CET record, the 1910 and 1980 cold dips are equal and 2000 warm peak is almost as high as the 1940 one.

Paul Vaughan
April 13, 2010 12:12 am

I know a “statistical consultant” who uses this practice of fitting straight-lines through time-series. I have one word for such [mal]practice: fraud.

Roger Carr
April 13, 2010 1:06 am

Smokey (17:03:46) : It’s even worse than that: click

Sweet, Smokey! Kinda rounds it off, huh?

James Crisp
April 13, 2010 1:28 am

David Middleton (14:55:27) :
A very thorough and well written argument. Perhaps this could be promoted to a main article?

Ryan
April 13, 2010 2:54 am

At the present time it is 12Celsius. By 2pm it will be 14 Celsius. By the end of this week, based on this trend, our blood will be boiling in our own skulls.
We’re doomed I tell you, doomed!!!
What do you mean that this use of short-term trends is wrong? Tell me where I have told a lie!

hendrik
April 13, 2010 4:02 am

Does anyone know of a source where to download the comments for the first and second draft? The harvard page by page view is nerve wreckingly slow and cumbersome to read.

Michael Ozanne
April 13, 2010 4:27 am

When You see phenomena based discussions degrade to comparing rates of change you know you are witnessing a “beat up”. See the early chapters of Dr Elizabeths Pisani’s “The Wisdom of Whores” for an explanation of the technique and how it was deployed to to induce panic driven action in another global problem area.

Pascvaks
April 13, 2010 4:48 am

Ref – MattN (13:14:32) :
“Worst. “Science.” Ever…”
_______________________
The Complimentary Angle to this expression is…
Best. ‘\$cience.’ Ever…”

hunter
April 13, 2010 5:14 am

Dr. Curry commented on this sort of historical editing in her recent interview.

maelstrom
April 13, 2010 5:27 am

the warmistas are working a new angle 🙂

franks
April 13, 2010 5:30 am

And we were told that these IPCC reports only contained scientific peer review material not politically modified misinformation.

Bill Marsh
April 13, 2010 5:49 am

Out of curiosity, what actual temperature does the Y axis 0.0 equate to? Surely it isn’t 0C, Is it that 14.2C ‘mean’ I see bandied about. The graph doesn’t provide any enlightenment.

Martin Hale
April 13, 2010 6:41 am

Ben Kellet said:
“But……….what if the “misrepresented” trend continues…….what if temps continue to accelerate up the way over the next 25 yrs? Will any of you begin to worry?”
“It is wrong to cheat & to misrepresent but I suspect the intention was to emphasise the point that they believe to be true and which just might be true. Not good science but good for getting non scientific decision makers to see things in ways that they understand. ”
Ahh, the old “But what if…” ploy followed closely by the “well, yeah, it’s wrong, but it’s for your own good” ploy. What you’re saying in the end is that the ends justify the means – a direct lift from the works of Machiavelli and a strategy employed by overlords, despots, tyrants and dictators long before and long after signore Machiavelli graced this fair life. “Damn the truth – the truth is what I want it to be! Now, let’s ram this thing through!”
This is science we’re talking about, not political kabuki theatre. Using false and/or deceptive scientific analysis to sway decision-makers based on one’s hunches, biases and personal paranoia is wrong and most people understand that implicitly. Most people understand and accept that if a position has merit, it has merit because it’s based on credible data, numbers and observations which support the conclusion proffered. Now here come this group of scientists who, for whatever reasons, feel the need to ‘sex up’ their data, numbers and observations to make their point. One can’t help but feel that the need to ‘sex it up’ reflects an inherent weakness in the underlying data, numbers and observations.

Original Mike
April 13, 2010 6:45 am

“I’m no math expert although I took quite a bit in college. But, to Original Mike, I think all you need to do is look at the early run-up people have mentioned from 1910 to 1940. The slope is greater than the recent one. So what’s to disprove the argument one might make that the 1930s were heating up faster than any known time in recent history and now the warming trend has slowed down.”
Nothing. Nothing at all. Just as you can’t prove the acceleration will continue with this data, you can’t disprove the hypothesis you lay out. I have said twice (and now three times), that their “analysis proves nothing”. It has zero prognostic value. Not having read the relevant IPCC sections, I don’t know if they claim that it does, and if they do their argument is bogus. Having just finished A.W. Montford’s book, and having found the behavior of the hockey team appalling, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did make a case for extrapolation. I was just asking.
“I hope you’re joking”

Editor
April 13, 2010 7:48 am

14.2 C is the estimated mean surface temperature of the Earth (right y-axis).
0 C is the global temperature anomaly – GTA (left y-axis).
The GTA is the deviation from some base line period.
These are reference periods of the four major temperature series…

HADCRUT3 Jan 1961 – Dec 1990 (30 years)
GISTEMP Jan 1951 – Dec 1980 (30 years)
UAH Jan 1979 – Dec 1998 (20 years)
RSS Jan 1979 – Dec 1998 (20 years)

mkelly
April 13, 2010 7:54 am

The acceleration of temperature is worse than even I thought. I checked the average high for a six month period (Jan-June 2009) and found it when up by 25 degree F in six months. To see if this could be real I checked the temperature yesterday morning and afternoon (0700&1400) here in the UP of Michigan and it went up almost 30 degrees F in a matter of hours. It sure is accelerating. 😉

PeterB in Indainapolis
April 13, 2010 8:27 am

Original Mike,
The answer to your question is “yes”… You can use the same “trick” using the data from 1920-1945 and get the same slope as they did using this trick at the end of the “graph”.
You can also pick different starting and ending points and have a best-fit line with a negative slope using fragments of this same data. They are trying to assign some sort of grand meaning to a statistical trick which they used which is essentially meaningless.

PeterB in Indainapolis
April 13, 2010 8:28 am

mkelly,
That is the funniest, and most apt observation I have seen in a long time!

PeterB in Indainapolis
April 13, 2010 8:40 am

Denihilist,
Even if you assume that 14.2C was the baseline temp in 1850, and that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at that point was about 250ppm (which i think is about correct), then an increase in CO2 from 250ppm to 390ppb should have still caused a 2.5C rise in temperature, for a current average temp of around 16.7C.
In REALITY, we are MAYBE (if you believe the thermometers, which is another question entirely) at about 14.7C which is not perceptibly different to ANY LIVING CREATURE from 14.2C. it is certainly nowhere near 16.7C.
So where is this phantom 2C of warming which we should have already had according to the IPCC calculations?

Original Mike
April 13, 2010 8:45 am

“Well, I understand what they are trying to show, i.e. that the rate of temperature growth has increased more in the later industrial period.
Statistically, this is not an uncommon treatment (breaking up the series and showing the slope for smaller time units). However, to be consistent, they should compare apples to apples & compare the smaller slopes to each other, not only to the overall slope for all data. This will always give a wrong impression. ”
Thanks, Dr. P.H. CRS (15:37:10). This was helpful.

Stu
April 13, 2010 10:12 am
enneagram
April 13, 2010 10:40 am

I think this deserves an special post:
BETTER THAN #CLIMATEGATE! “Confidential document reveals #Obama’s US climate talk strategy”

http://bit.ly/cCiisZ

bubbagyro
April 13, 2010 11:16 am

Peter B:
I am a scientist of 40+ years, and I see no grounds to even accept the premise that CO2 is increasing. In 1940s (a lag time after the high of the 30s consistent with CO2 being a result, not a cause), CO2 was measured at 400+ ppb at multiple places, using standardized wet chemistry developed by the greatest chemists in the world. At that time they was no vested interest in getting a particular result. Now we use a method that places the sampling next to a VOLCANO and we assume that the monolithic result is accurate, and we accept the results to be a microcosm for the world. I have not yet seen anyone, (even assuming the volcano sampling accurately reflects the world situation), use the standard wet chemical methods developed since the 1800s to try to arrive at an accurate comparison to assess the errors used both in site, sampling, and chromatographic measurement. This would make a great paper, and I assert an hypothesis that today’s methodology introduces large sampling, site, operator, and measurement errors, and this could be found out (could easily be falsified) by an unbiased method. Ahead of that, I am sure, as a prediction, that the actual chromatographic measurement has an excellent (small) coefficient of variance, but the human errors introduced by site, sampling, and operator are large and would swamp this final measurement. It would be tantamount to measuring ones house with a 6 inch ruler, and then reporting the results to 4 decimal places. The current methodology, to my knowledge, does not rule out foul play, since ISO or similar safeguards are to my knowledge not employed, nor are standard methods of scientific auditing used. Did Dilbert (hypothetical grad student hoping for a grant or tenure) breathe into the bag when collecting? Was a low absolute standard used as a comparator? (just have Dilbert leave the standard vial open for a minute). This is not paranoia – this is why ISO and AOAC methods of redundancy of measurement and ascertainment by independent auditors have been developed over the years, to guard against foul play, or introduction of inadvertent systematic error.

Anu
April 13, 2010 11:22 am

PeterB in Indainapolis (08:40:10) :
In 1850, the CO2 level was 290 ppm.
Today, it is about 390 ppm (more like 389.5)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Fast feedback climate sensitivity is expected to be increase temperature 3 ± 1.5°C for a doubling of CO2 (Charney – using climate models).
Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf
Let’s call it 3°C for a doubling of CO2.
Going from 290 to 390 then would be 1.31°C on this log scale.
What is the measured temperature increase from 1850 ?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
The record only goes back to 1880.
If 1880 to 1920 is analogous to 1940 to 1980, then 1850 would be at about -0.6°C temperature anomaly. Making the entire 1850 to 2010 temp. anomaly about 1.2°C, or 1.3°C if a new record is set in the next 3 years, as expected.
The important thing about planetary climate change is not that you can put on a coat if it gets 10°C colder – it is that the difference between Ice Ages and hot, humid tropical dinosaur climates all happened within about 10°C swings for the entire planet.
Regional swings, and daily, weekly swings, can be much greater.
http://csccc.fcpp.org/files/f13.jpg

bubbagyro
April 13, 2010 11:50 am

To [snip] post:
Cold kills species and civilizations due to thermal effects or lack of food. High CO2 is good for civilizations and little creatures as well. The Medieval and Roman climate optima was a time of plenty. The Little Ice Ages killed people with starvation, cold, and disease. Read some history.
Here is a study for CO2 going back to the 1800s I don’t know where[snip] cherry picked numbers came from. Perhaps they were “adjusted”?
Ernst-Georg Beck, 2007:
Accurate chemical CO2-gas analyses of air since 1800 show a
different trend compared to the literature of climate change actually
published. From 1829, the concentration of carbon dioxide of air in
the northern hemisphere decreased from a value of e.g. 400 ppm up to
1900 to less than 300 ppm then rising till 1942 to more than 400 ppm.
After that maximum, it fell to e.g. 350 ppm and rose again till today
(2006) to 380 ppm.
1. The CO2 chemical data show no constant exponential rising CO2-
concentration since pre-industrial times but a varying CO2-
content of air following the temperature. For example around
1940 there was a maximum CO2 of at least 420 ppm.
2. Historical air analysis by chemical means does not support a
pre-industrial CO2-concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC), as
modern climatology postulates. In contrast, the average in the
19th century in the northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the
20th century, it is 338 ppm.
3. Today’s CO2 value of 380 ppm has appeared several times in the
last 200 years — in the 20th century around 1942 and before
1870 in the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the
20th century rose to over 420 ppm in 1942.
4. Accurate measurements of CO2 air gas contents had been done
from 1857 by chemical methods with a maximum systematic
error of 3%. These results were ignored in reconstructing the
CO2-concentration of air in the modern warm period.
5. To reconstruct the modern CO2-concentration in air, ice-cores
from Antarctica have been used. The reconstructions are
obviously not accurate enough to show the detailed variations of
carbon dioxide in the northern hemisphere.

Justin Northrup
April 13, 2010 12:48 pm

George E. Smith (15:21:47)
re: – exp(-1/x^2)
actually, that function is undefined at x=0

David S
April 13, 2010 1:00 pm

I also have a problem with drawing straight lines through data that obliously doesn’t follow a straight line. Where should the line go on this data?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/Temp_0-400k_yrs.gif
If you ran it through the average it would say temperature should be 4 or 5 C colder than today. That would put us into an ice age. The only portions of the graph that are somewhat straight are the at the beginning of the interglacial warm periods when temperatures are shooting up like a rocket. If you projected any of those out to today it would show that todays temperatue should be 50 degrees C higher at least. But obviously that didn’t happen.

Anu
April 13, 2010 1:51 pm

Buggaboo:
Ernst-Georg Beck is a biologist, hardly qualified to be doing atmospheric physics. A biologist teaching at a high school. Perhaps that is why his “research” was published in “Energy and Environment”, the vanity Journal that is found in only 25 libraries worldwide.
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf
CRITICAL SURVEY OF THE CHEMICAL METHODS APPLIED
IN THE PAST
In this paper, I have assembled a 138 year-long record of yearly atmospheric CO2 levels, extracted from more then 180 technical papers

Paper title:
180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS
Whoops, he mixed up the 138 and the 180.
I guess while teaching high school, nobody checks his work.
According to a search of WorldCat, a database of libraries, Energy and Environment is found in only 25 libraries worldwide. And the journal is not included in Journal Citation Reports, which lists the impact factors for the top 6000 peer-reviewed journals. The editor of Energy and Environment, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen has stated that “it’s only we climate skeptics who have to look for little journals and little publishers like mine to even get published.”
But Ernst-Georg likes to sign petitions:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008
Hey, he’s an actual “scientist” – too bad he’s a biologist.
At a vocational high school in Germany, the Merion-Schule:
http://tinyurl.com/yylls9u
Try looking at real research:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/siple-gr.gif
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

Editor
April 13, 2010 1:55 pm

Anu (11:22:37) :
[…]
Fast feedback climate sensitivity is expected to be increase temperature 3 ± 1.5°C for a doubling of CO2 (Charney – using climate models).
Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf
Let’s call it 3°C for a doubling of CO2.
Going from 290 to 390 then would be 1.31°C on this log scale.
What is the measured temperature increase from 1850 ?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
The record only goes back to 1880.
If 1880 to 1920 is analogous to 1940 to 1980, then 1850 would be at about -0.6°C temperature anomaly. Making the entire 1850 to 2010 temp. anomaly about 1.2°C, or 1.3°C if a new record is set in the next 3 years, as expected.
[…]

“Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2″…
At which point in the last 540 million years has a doubling of CO2 correlated with 3°C worth of warming?
I don’t see it here: Phanerozoic CO2 vs. Temperature
I see a lot more than 3°C per doubling here: Upper Pleistocene.
A logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature since 1960 gives me this: CO2 v Temp
If I apply that logarithmic equation to the Law Dome ice core CO2 data, I get this: CO2-Derived Temperature Trend 1850-2100
It’s a surprisingly good match to the HadCRUT3 data from 1850-2009. It predicts a bit less than a 2°C total warming for a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 (275 to 550 ppmv).
One teeny, tiny problem. The model assumes that all of the warming since 1850 is CO2-driven. If there’s one thing that Skeptics and Warmistas can agree upon, it’s that at least half of the warming since 1850 is due to natural climate oscillations and variation.
So…
The pre-Pleistocene data do not support a 3°C per doubling relationship. Over most of the Phanerozoic, there is no consistent correlation.
The Upper Pleistocene data do not support a 3°C per doubling relationship. If anything, they support a temperature-driven climate cycle because of the fact that the CO2 consistently lags behind the temperature changes.
The modern instrumental data do not support a 3°C per doubling relationship. At most, they support less than a 1°C of warming as the result of a doubling of pre-industrial CO2… And this assumes that the HadCRUT3 is not overestimating the warming due to UHI and that the ice cores are not underestimating the pre-industrial CO2 plant stomata and historical chemical analyses suggest.
If the HadCRUT3 is biased by as little as 0.5°C due to UHI and the ice cores are underestimating pre-industrial CO2 variability… The total warming due to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 is immeasurably small.

Editor
April 13, 2010 2:00 pm

Correction to David Middleton (13:55:42) :
It should read “temperature-driven carbon cycle” rather than “temperature-driven climate cycle”.
“The Upper Pleistocene data do not support a 3°C per doubling relationship. If anything, they support a temperature-driven carbon cycle because of the fact that the CO2 consistently lags behind the temperature changes.”

April 13, 2010 2:34 pm

“By just looking at the graph, or by using old-fashioned calculus developed by Newton and Leibnitz, you might think that the slope of the graph is similar at both ends.”
I have a nit to pick with the the above sentence. Studies on the Archimedes Palimpsest show that the some of the essential concepts of *integral* calculus were formulated more than 2000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_palimpsest#Mathematical_content
There is only one known copy of this work that has survived into the 20th Century. However there’s speculation that Isaac Barrow–mathematician, Archimedes scholar, and mentor of Newton–may have read another copy. If so, this would shed some light on Newton’s famous shoulders-of-giants quote.

bubbagyro
April 13, 2010 3:29 pm

[snip] condemnation of Ernst is simply ad hominem, not considering the argument but attacking the person. Biology, chemistry, physics and math, are the hard sciences. Climatology is a derivative science, a “soft” science like sociology.
The Beck paper is a review of scholarly articles, complete with original data. I don’t care if he is has a Divinity degree like Al Gore or is a locomotive engineer like Pachauri, if their arguments are sound, a good scientist will listen and the arguments hold water. If they are not sound, even more reason to pay attention.
The original measurements were done by the fathers of analytical science, including the German and French schools. Our science is built upon those foundations.
I think Anu’s missives are self-discrediting because of the use of a myriad of logical fallacies, like ad hominem, ad ignorantium, ad vericundium (authority appeal) and probably more if I care to examine [snip] work.
Science & Environment is not a bad journal; it certainly does not have the consensus approbation of the dinosaur media. I used to subscribe to Nature and Science, but discontinued the subscription (after 30 years!) due to the corruption I recognized well before Climategate. We are going to have to depend on the second-tier journals from now on until and unless the “premier” journals clean their house of the influences of the Manns and Joneses of the world.

Anu
April 13, 2010 4:05 pm

David Middleton (13:55:42) :
Try looking at the cited paper:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf

Charney defined an idealized climate sensitivity problem, asking how much global surface temperature would increase if atmospheric CO2 were instantly doubled, assuming that slowly-changing planetary surface conditions, such as ice sheets and forest cover, were fixed. Long-lived GHGs, except for the specified CO2 change, were also fixed, not responding to climate change. The Charney problem thus provides a measure of climate sensitivity including only the effect of ‘fast’ feedback processes, such as changes of water
vapor, clouds and sea ice.

or

Atmospheric composition and surface properties in the late Pleistocene are known well enough for accurate assessment of the fast-feedback (Charney) climate sensitivity. We first compare the pre-industrial Holocene with the last glacial maximum [LGM, 20 ky BP (before present)]. The planet was in energy balance in both periods within a small fraction of 1 W/m2, as shown by considering the contrary: an imbalance of 1 W/m2 maintained a few millennia would melt all ice on the planet or change ocean temperature an amount far
outside measured variations [Table S1 of 8]. The approximate equilibrium characterizing most of Earth’s history is unlike the current situation, in which GHGs are rising at a rate much faster than the coupled climate system can respond.

Claims for the last 20,000 years do not apply to the last 540 million years – during this period, the Sun has increased in brightness more than 5%, plants have evolved (and the landmasses were covered with forests), and the continents have drifted – all major changes to the Earth climate system.
http://www.scotese.com/newpage12.htm
Milankovitch cycles and supervolcanoes also have large effects on the climate at these 500-million year time scales (see Permian extinction event 250 million years ago).
The problem before us is perturbing the existing Earth climate system with an appreciable fraction (34.5%) of total atmospheric CO2 on very short time scales – 1 to 2 centuries. And possibly increasing that perturbation to 100% this century.

Anu
April 13, 2010 4:31 pm

Bugaboos citation of a German high school teacher is simply wishful thinking. What’s next, a promising High School Science Fair Project that agrees with his preconceptions ? The whole point of having scientific journals and editors and peer review is to set a minimum standard for research, so you don’t have to wade through thousands of amateurish research attempts to see if one or two have merit. The Beck “paper” has been written since 2007 – why have no reputable journals published it ? Did he submit it but they asked him to explain some of his raw data and methods ?
Even published scientific papers are savaged here – this paper doesn’t even rise to that level of minimum competency. We know Dr. Lindzen, or Dr. Svensmark, or Dr. Spencer, or Dr. Christy, or Dr. Pielke, or Dr. Baliunas, or Dr. Soon, or Dr. Choi can all publish in actual journals – and none of them are “warmists”. Why is Mr. Beck rejected by all reputable journals ?
Perhaps Bubba can take this high school teacher under his wing, and introduce him to the world of Science, and help him get published if he feels so strongly that this groundbreaking work is not being recognized. Bugaboo can be G. H. Hardy to this poor German teacher’s Srinivasa Ramanujan. it must be hard for these German peasants to break into the exclusive world of Science… does Germany even have any Universities, or scientific journals ?
Energy and Environment:
Second-tier journals do better than 25 libraries worldwide.
Try fifth-tier.

bubbagyro
April 13, 2010 6:46 pm

[snip]: keep denying that everything the Climategate “scientists” told us is for the purpose of keeping each other in business. One hand washes the other. One lies and the other swears to it. “Peer reviewing” – they decide who the peers are. Elitism from second rate scientists who don’t even follow the scientific method. Keep believing the orthodox faith of the warmist theologists.
The burden of proof is on them, and they ain’t got any! I choose to stick with the hard sciences – physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics. The new science is a religion, not a science. The new consensus? The peer-reviewed science has not demonstrated its hypotheses, no not one of them. “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
Its over, bunko!
Reply: This is your first and last warning. Do not make up rude nicknames for other commenters or be deleted in entirety. ~ ctm

Editor
April 13, 2010 6:47 pm

@Anu
Why bother with “idealized climate sensitivity” models, when I can download the real data and run the numbers myself?

Richard S Courtney
April 14, 2010 1:23 am

Anu (16:31:03):
You dismiss Beck’s excellent analysis saying:
“Bugaboos citation of a German high school teacher is simply wishful thinking. What’s next, a promising High School Science Fair Project that agrees with his preconceptions ? The whole point of having scientific journals and editors and peer review is to set a minimum standard for research, so you don’t have to wade through thousands of amateurish research attempts to see if one or two have merit. The Beck “paper” has been written since 2007 – why have no reputable journals published it ? Did he submit it but they asked him to explain some of his raw data and methods ?”
OK. I undertand that reasoning. It is that the value of research work is determined by the background of a researcher and the reputation of the journal in which the work is published.
So, using that reasoning, I now know that aeroplanes cannot fly because the principles of aeronautics were devised by two bicycle salesmen who published their work in a journal on bee-keeping because ‘reputable’ scientific journals rejected it for publication. Your argument has convinced me so, clearly, that thing I can see in the sky is Superman and is not a Boeing 747.
Knowing that, I can forget problems of AGW resulting from increased aviation. Thankyou for putting my mind at ease about this.
Richard

Larry
April 14, 2010 2:20 am

Since the trend lines come (pretty much) from a minima each time, wouldn’t it have been better to draw more cycles of the sine wave, and show that if you take a straight line from the bottom of successive cylces to the current position the rate will accelerate? It does beg the question of who actually believes this stuff. Did the person drawing the graph believe it? Did the reviewers refusing the criticism understand the criticism? It isn’t as if many people actually read the document. Are they trying to get caught – sending messages past scientifically illiterate poliSeems like there are a few science courses where the only science is in the title of the course…

Roger Carr
April 14, 2010 3:49 am

bubbagyro (11:16:38) : ...developed over the years, to guard against foul play,

So it’s useless here, then…

Richard S Courtney
April 14, 2010 4:22 am

Larry (02:20:41):
With respect you miss an important point when you ask:
“Did the reviewers refusing the criticism understand the criticism? ”
THE REVIEWERS WERE NOT PROVIDED WITH THE GRAPH THAT WAS PUBLISHED.
As the above article says, we were presented with the graph (shown in the article) that has only one trend line. The amended graph (also shown in the above article) replaced it AFTER peer review and before approval of the draft by government representatives.
Please note that all IPCC documents are political (n.b. not scientific) documents. They are results of assessments of scientific literature in attempt to find information supportive of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC); i.e. a political agreement between governments. These results are then approved (line by line) by representatives of the signatory governments. Of course, most of these representatives are scientists because they need sufficient scientific expertise to understand the texts, but they act as representatives of their governments (i.e. as representatives of politicians).
The representatives of the Chinese government objected to the misleading graph that was substituted (as explained in the above article) but the representatives of all the other governments agreed it.
The approval of the misleading graph for inclusion in the IPCC report is not surprising: the graph presents the desired political message so its misrepresentation of scientific information is of little – if any – importance to the providers of the IPCC report.
Richard

Larry
April 14, 2010 4:35 am

Richard:
I was referring to:
The Chinese Government suggested deleting this, pointing out that:
‘These two linear rates should not compare with each other because the time scales are not the same’.
Irrespective of slipping it past the main review, the Chinese comment gave somebody the opportunity to correct it. Did they understand the ciriticism? There is clearly a conscious effort to deceive, but what is not clear is where, and who honestly believes. This is a document is intended for politicians – are they demanding cover or being deceived?

ChuckK
April 14, 2010 4:47 am

It’s not even clever, just a dumb trick. My physics profs would laugh and give a big fat 0 for that. Scandalous.

Richard S Courtney
April 14, 2010 5:28 am

Larry (04:35@09):
“Irrespective of slipping it past the main review, the Chinese comment gave somebody the opportunity to correct it. Did they understand the ciriticism? There is clearly a conscious effort to deceive, but what is not clear is where, and who honestly believes. This is a document is intended for politicians – are they demanding cover or being deceived?”
I reply that I think I answered this when I said at (02:20:41):
“The representatives of the Chinese government objected to the misleading graph that was substituted (as explained in the above article) but the representatives of all the other governments agreed it.
The approval of the misleading graph for inclusion in the IPCC report is not surprising: the graph presents the desired political message so its misrepresentation of scientific information is of little – if any – importance to the providers of the IPCC report.”
Simply, the representatives of governments were not deceived: the Chinese representatives explained the matter to them. But the document they were preparing was – and is – a tool for use by politicians.
It seems to me that you are failing to understand the purpose of IPCC reports.
You say;
“This is a document is intended for politicians”,
but I say,
“This is a document intended for use by politicians”
and the IPCC Charter states that “use”.
The use is justication of the FCCC. As I said;
“Please note that all IPCC documents are political (n.b. not scientific) documents. They are results of assessments of scientific literature in attempt to find information supportive of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC); i.e. a political agreement between governments.”
Richard

Sharpshooter
April 14, 2010 6:26 am

Uh, Oh! GraphGate 🙂

Anu
April 14, 2010 8:17 am

Richard S Courtney (01:23:02) :
OK. I undertand that reasoning. It is that the value of research work is determined by the background of a researcher and the reputation of the journal in which the work is published.
So, using that reasoning, I now know that aeroplanes cannot fly because the principles of aeronautics were devised by two bicycle salesmen who published their work in a journal on bee-keeping because ‘reputable’ scientific journals rejected it for publication. Your argument has convinced me so, clearly, that thing I can see in the sky is Superman and is not a Boeing 747.
Knowing that, I can forget problems of AGW resulting from increased aviation. Thankyou for putting my mind at ease about this.

Incorrect premise, incorrect conclusion.
The Wright brothers were inventors, not scientists. They went out of their way to be secretive – their goal was patents, and profits, not publishing their results. Although they were avid readers of past research (work on the Chanute-Herring biplane hang glider, and aeronautical data on lift that Lilienthal had published, for example), they had no interest in publishing their work.
Here’s what they were after – patent # 821,393:
I will give credit to the beekeeper, A. I. Root, for recognizing greatness when he heard/saw it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wright/reporter.html
But you are completely wrong that the Wrights “published their work in a journal on bee-keeping because ‘reputable’ scientific journals rejected it for publication.”
A. I. Root was just being a journalist, using the “Our Homes” section of his obscure beekeeping journal to share exciting news for his readers:
The following comes from the “Our Homes” section of Gleanings in Bee Culture, January 1, 1905, edition, pages 36 to 39, alongside articles such as “How I Manage Swarming” and “Judging Honey at Fairs.” This excerpt, and the one that follows, has been edited for punctuation, to remove asides, and to break Root’s very long paragraphs into more manageable ones; otherwise they appear as he wrote them nearly a century ago.

What hath God wrought?—NUM. 23:23.
Dear friends, I have a wonderful story to tell you—a story that, in some respects, outrivals the Arabian Nights fables—a story, too, with a moral that I think many of the younger ones need, and perhaps some of the older ones too if they will heed it. God in his great mercy has permitted me to be, at least somewhat, instrumental in ushering in and introducing to the great wide world an invention that may outrank the electric cars, the automobiles, and all other methods of travel, and one which may fairly take a place beside the telephone and wireless telegraphy. Am I claiming a good deal? Well, I will tell my story, and you shall be the judge. . . .

When it first turned that circle, and came near the starting-point, I was right in front of it; and I said then, and I believe still, it was one of the grandest sights, if not the grandest sight, of my life. Imagine a locomotive that has left its track, and is climbing up in the air right toward you—a locomotive without any wheels, we will say, but with white wings instead, we will further say—a locomotive made of aluminum. Well, now, imagine this white locomotive, with wings that spread 20 feet each way, coming right toward you with a tremendous flap of its propellers, and you will have something like what I saw. The younger brother bade me move to one side for fear it might come down suddenly; but I tell you, friends, the sensation that one feels in such a crisis is something hard to describe.

Not exactly scientific research, but a good read nonetheless.
Why were the Wright brothers so secretive ?
Listen to the beekeeper once more:

I may add, however, that the apparatus is secured by patents, both in this and in foreign countries; and as nobody else has as yet succeeded in doing anything like what they have done I hope no millionaire or syndicate will try to rob them of the invention or laurels they have so fairly and honestly earned.

The Wrights built on the published work of others, but had no desire to give away their own ideas – not exactly “scientists”:

They not only studied nature, but they procured the best books, and I think I may say all the papers, the world contains on this subject. When I first became acquainted with them, and expressed a wish to read up all there was on the subject, they showed me a library that astonished me; and I soon found they were thoroughly versed, not only in regard to our present knowledge, but everything that had been done in the past.

Anu
April 14, 2010 9:49 am

bubba gyro (18:46:53) :
“climategate” was all sizzle, no beef:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/jonesp
Phil Jones is laughing all the way to the publisher (book coming soon).
Convincing slack-jawed blog readers is not the same as convincing Parliament.
“Peer reviewing” – they decide who the peers are. Elitism from second rate scientists who don’t even follow the scientific method. Keep believing the orthodox faith of the warmist theologists.
What do you say about the few skeptics who manage to do actual science and get published, like Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Spencer ? Are these now “second rate scientists who don’t even follow the scientific method” because they managed to impress their peers enough to get published ?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0426(2003)20%3C613:EEOVOM%3E2.0.CO;2
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
Look, actual journals – Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, and Geophysical Research Letters. Gee, I wonder how skeptics were able to break through the monolithic AGW control of every single journal in the world…

Richard S Courtney
April 15, 2010 2:48 am

Anu:
Your post at (16:31:03) is so wrong it is ridiculous. So, at (01:23:02) I ridiculed it.
But you seem to be a ‘sucker for punishment’ and have come back with a response at (08:17:31) which demonstrates that you fail to recognize how daft your argument is.
“The Wright brothers were inventors, not scientists. They went out of their way to be secretive – their goal was patents, and profits, not publishing their results.”
Say what?
The Wright brothers conducted wind tunnel experiments to gain understanding of aeronautical effects then proved their findings by building and testing a practical aircraft. That is pure empirical science.
Clearly, according to you nobody who works for any industry is a ‘scientist’ because their goal is “patents, and profits, not publishing their results.”
Your assertions are pure nonsense. At (01:23:02) I showed that accepting your assertions as being true provides obviously nonsensical conclusions. But even that has failed to get you to recognise that you arguments and assertions are pure ‘La La Land’.
Your comments are so risible that anybody can see they are wrong, and you have failed to accept any help in getting you to understand your errors. Hence, there is no purpose in spending time replying to your postings.
So, I shall not waste my time bothering to reply to any more of your posts. You can continue to make them (and thus provide laughter for others) and I will not try to give you more help in understanding why others are laughing at them.
Richard

Anu
April 16, 2010 7:47 pm

Richard S Courtney (02:48:32) :
So, using that reasoning, I now know that aeroplanes cannot fly because the principles of aeronautics were devised by two bicycle salesmen who published their work in a journal on bee-keeping because ‘reputable’ scientific journals rejected it for publication.

You were called on your bogus “published their work in a journal on bee-keeping”.
And you folded like a cheap tent.
[snip]