Here is the web page for Dr. Raymond S. Bradley who is listed as:
University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences and Director of the Climate System Research Center (http://www.paleoclimate.org).
Readers may also recognize Dr. Bradley from his co-authorship with Dr. Michael Mann in the famous MBH98 paper which produced the embattled “hockey stick” graph.
Dr. Bradley has also gained some recent notoriety with his accusations of plagiarism regarding the Wegman report to congress, by Dr. Edward Wegman of George Mason University, which was critical of MBH98’s statistical methods.
Here’s Dr. Bradley’s photo from his UMass web page:
Notice anything interesting? Here are some hints:
His graph for CO2 data titled “Greenhouse Gas Record from the Vostok Ice Core” shows a value around 360 ppm for CO2 at the “zero date” of the present history. The photo must be old, since the current value in the atmosphere from Mauna Loa is said to be around 390ppm currently.
So, it’s an old photo, what’s the problem you say?
For readers not familiar with the CO2 data from the Vostok Ice Core, you can find the official data set here from NOAA’s FTP servers:
CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center)
ftp://cdiac.ornl.gov/pub/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2
NCDC (National Climatic Data Center)
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt
NASA Goddard also offers access to the official Vostok data here:
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_CDIAC_CO2_VOSTOK_ICECORE.html
…and they offer this helpful graph, which is time reversed from Dr. Bradley’s graph, with the present day on the left:
That’s odd, the Vostok CO2 data for the present is around 280ppm, way lower than the 360ppm shown on Dr. Bradley’s graph. Strange, but that NASA web page on Vostok Ice Core data shows the most recent update at:
So it must be current, right?
So let’s look at some other sources, maybe they are closer to Dr. Bradley’s value, surely there must be some update somewhere to this Vostok data that I’ve missed.
Let’s check Wikipedia, which always seems to be updated. Even though William Connelly doesn’t edit there anymore surely it’s been updated with this new data in the past year or so? Here’s the Wikipedia graph:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
That’s odd, the CO2 data there shows just over 280ppm of CO2 in the Vostok record. But they reference Petit, et al 1999 on that page. Hmmm, I went to find that paper, and was able to locate a PDF copy of it here: http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf and I saved a local copy here Vostok_nature_1999 to prevent overloading that website with downloads. Here’s the title of that 1999 paper from Nature:
Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica
J. R. Petit*, J. Jouzel†, D. Raynaud*, N. I. Barkov‡, J.-M. Barnola*, I. Basile*,M. Bender§, J. Chappellaz*,M. Davisk, G. Delaygue†, M. Delmotte*, V. M. Kotlyakov¶, M. Legrand*, V. Y. Lipenkov‡, C. Lorius*, L. Pe´ pin*, C. Ritz*, E. Saltzmank & M. Stievenard†
Oh, OK, that explains it, the CO2 levels in 1999 must have been 360ppm and that’s where that value on Dr. Bradley’s graph comes from. Let’s check the Mauna Loa record for 1999 here: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
The values for 1999 are:
1999 3 1999.208 369.46 369.46 367.90 26 1999 4 1999.292 370.77 370.77 368.19 30 1999 5 1999.375 370.66 370.66 367.84 29 1999 6 1999.458 370.10 370.10 367.87 30 1999 7 1999.542 369.10 369.10 368.42 30 1999 8 1999.625 366.70 366.70 368.21 30 1999 9 1999.708 364.61 364.61 367.95 29 1999 10 1999.792 365.17 365.17 368.41 31 1999 11 1999.875 366.51 366.51 368.58 29 1999 12 1999.958 367.85 367.85 368.58 29
Well that explains it then right? The value of the CO2 atmosphere in 1999 was around 360 ppm, so that’s what Dr. Bradley was showing in that old photo. And the 1999 Nature paper from Petit et al must show the same value, right? Here it is:
Huh, that’s strange, it only shows around 280ppm of CO2 at the “present” of 1999 when this graph was published.
Well OK, the archived NOAA data on the FTP server must be updated and have ~360ppm somewhere in the dataset, right? So I looked through it to be sure. Here’s the most recent data from: ftp://cdiac.ornl.gov/pub/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2
Hmmm, the most recent data is from 2342 yr BP (years before present) and shows 284.7. That can’t be right, because the distinguished Dr. Bradley shows the data at around 360ppm. Yet, the header shows the co-author names from the 1999 Nature paper on the Vostok ice core data analysis. Surely there must be an update to it?
Maybe the other NOAA data set from NCDC is what he used? at: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt
Well, it agrees with the CDIAC data, but there’s still no ~360ppm of CO2 listed in the data for the most recent readings.
Well gosh, how can this be?
The answer is seems, is that there is no new data from the Vostok Ice core. It ended, and the official repositories of that data have no new data. The last CO2 value for the Vostok Ice Core dataset is listed as being 284.7ppm.
So how does Dr. Bradley get ~360ppm? Easy, I think he uses the same technique he and his co-authors learned when writing the famous MBH98 paper that made the hockey stick -splice the instrumental record onto the paleo record:
Graph above from Fred Pearce’s Feb 2010 article in the Guardian shows the instrumental record attached to the ice core record.
And here’s a later version from 2003 showing the same instrumental record splice along with paleo data (Figure 1. from Mann et al. EOS Forum 2003):
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann2003b.html
So it seems rather apparent that Dr. Bradley (or whoever made the graph) simply took the Vostok Ice Core CO2 paleo data and “spliced” it with the instrumental record on the end. Or, as Joe Romm likes to say “make stuff up”.
The only problem is, as he presents it with the title of his graph: Greenhouse Gas Record from the Vostok Ice Core as shown below…
…it’s patently false in my opinion. Ditto for the red Methane line, but that’s another story.
Now here’s the problem. If you took surface temperature data from Antarctica, and spliced it with surface temperature data from Hawaii, and then presented it as the entire historical record from Antarctica, our friends would have a veritable “cow”.
Or, if you took stock performance data from poorly performing Company “A” and spliced on better performing stock data from Company “B”, and then made a new graph and used that graph to sell investors on Company “A”, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would have a veritable “cow” when they found out, wouldn’t they? People go to jail for such things.
But hey, this is Climate Science.
big h/t to WUWT reader Brian M. who sent the tip in via email.
Addendum: I should add that I have no evidence that this graph has been used in any scientific publications or professional presentations by Dr. Bradley, I’m only pointing out that for this photo, which appears to be staged, what is presented doesn’t match the actual Vostok data. Readers should not extrapolate anything beyond this scope until new examples are presented. – Anthony
Kev-in-UK says:
“ALL workings and data must be made available for appropriate peer review and testing.”
I could not agree more.
Thus, the stonewalling of MBH98 regarding requests for their data, methods and metadata for more than twelve years is not the scientific method.
They are anti-science.
Smokey says:
Which goes right back to my earlier posts: this is a POLITICAL tactic, and has nothing to do with Science. Accuse others of what you’re doing. How many of us now have been accused of being “anti-science”? And for what? Insisting on the Scientific Method? How wrong is that???
It is understandable that climate scientists would want to correlate paleo data series with modern instrument records. A great deal of research has gone into discovering correlations between the two.
If, as a researcher, you spend a thousand hours pursuing a correlation hypothesis and find a weak correlation, do you publish your findings and benefit those who come after you? However, if you cherry pick your data and do some adjustments you have discovered a strong correlation – you have just proven your hypothesis! With this “strong correlation” you can justify splicing the two data series and come up with a scary hockey stick graph.
Why do you do this? You do it because it brings fame to you and your academic department. Fortune follows in the form of grants for more research. You have learned this technique from years of experience and you use this wisdom to guide your graduate students. Your department expands and flourishes as new students flock to a respected field of study where they can save the world and prosper while doing it.
It’s spliced data, with no discontinuity in line colour, no clear labelling, nothing. I wonder how many conferences with policy makers this one did the rounds of. If Ray Bradley wants to defend this as valid science, where is the peer reviewed paper he published it in?
Smokey says:
November 25, 2010 at 12:02 pm
absolutely – but of course, this is exactly what some of the warmists are doing in their ‘world’. Jones is another prime example – no publication of data or method means no chance to verify (or repudiate) his work. The really bad thing is that any peer review is done by buddies in the same gang!
To me, the climate gang assume we are all idiots, a bit like those online betting sites – where basically you bet on some digital (allegedly) card/game/etc and they will tell you if you have won! Sounds fair? Strangely, I understand that folk actually fall for that method of gambling! LOL
>>Does that graph show what has and is going on with atmospheric CO2 over time?<>Yes it does.<>So, get over it and stop trying to find someone else to pick on.<<
That's right. Stop criticizing my religion or I'll chop off your head!!!
Dr. Bradley,
The picture behind you represents an act very similar to “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline.” The main point is that it is scientifically illegitimate to mix two separate data types into the same graphic, unless some direct correlation between the two datasets has been firmly established. Has the Mauna Loa data been correlated to the Vostok data is some way? When Mauna Loa is measured at 360 ppm, will Vostok also be measured at 360 ppm? I don’t think so. And I think a graphic splicing one type onto another dataset is just plain wrong – scientifically and ethically.
“since the current value in the atmosphere from Mauna Loa is said to be around 390ppm currently.”
That’s bias slipping in. Is “said” to be? No. It IS.
But this is WUWT
REPLY: Oh, please. What next, attacking the placements of commas? But, your comment is truly the laugh of the week. Happy Thanksgiving. – Anthony
@ur momisugly Ray Bradley: ” it takes many years before gas bubbles in polar ice sheets are sealed from contact with the atmosphere …. Thus, ice cores will never record “today’s” level of greenhouse gases”
Firstly, thanks for comment and welcome to the site.
The sealed ice (starting at the base of the firn) records a meainingful signal. Surely it must follow that the firn carries exactly the same signal. (No signal in the firn = no signal in the ice.)
The only question would then be how to sample the air carried in the column above the sealed ice. What are the issues that render this impracical and leave us waiting years to measure the putative signal?
Use of Mauna Loa and temperature data without proper attribution to the sources may be considered plagiarism by the authors of these data sets.
crosspatch: “That said, there is no doubt that burning fossil fuel adds CO2.”
Perhaps the ambiguous point is whether by saying “adds CO2”, you mean “has increased pCO2”.
A question – It is frequently claimed that burning fossil fuels has caused some/all of an increase in pCO2. Hidden within this type of statement is an assertion about what pCO2 would have been today (some lower value), absent our emissions. I’m not sure this is testable (other than by models) and I therefore wonder whether isotope ratio is reliable as evidence that we have “increased pCO2”.
Kinda like mixing batches of purple paint (always to the same hue) where blue paint contains two dfferent isotopes of a certain element. Start with a prepared batch which uses only one isotope then mix more paint using the other isotope. All we have shown is that the same hue can be produced with different isotope ratios. So what – the outcome is the same colour every time. (The paint mixing process is not far from a continuous process – just as our CO2 emissions join a continuous process of CO2 exchange in the natural environment.)
George E. Smith says:
November 24, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Do you believe that the CO2 trapped in ice cores must be equal to the CO2 which is in the atmosphere at the same time ?
Yes it is, be it not equal to the atmosphere above the ice sheet, but equal to the atmosphere at the same depth, which is near the same as above the ice sheet, but somewhat older, due to decreasing pore diameter with depth which hinders rapid diffusion. See the Law Dome ice core data:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_overlap.jpg
Well what do you know; the atmospheric pressure up there is much lower than at sea level; and maybe the gases remain in the ice at different rates depending on the atmospheric pressure.
That is why CO2 levels are expressed as ppm by volume in dry air: the volume ratio doesn’t change with atmospheric pressure, neither the composition in dry air, wet air shows large differences in water vapour with pressure, which is of no interest for CO2 levels.
Well we all know that CO2 is quite soluble in water; and more so in cold water. That ice probably is the result of precipitation of moisture that originated somewhere else and was at high altitude when the droplets formed and dissolved the CO2.
CO2 is not soluble in ice or snow. Antarctica is a desert: extremely dry. All water is ice, except at the ice-air surface, where some waterlike layer of a few molecules thick may be present (until about -32°C). Hardly a hiding place for CO2.
But the “air” that is trapped in those pockets in the ice, was air that as at ground level when it became trapped.
At local near ground level, which at the South Pole is about the same as at Mauna Loa or Barrow (Alaska) or in 95% of the atmosphere.
Ron Cram says:
November 25, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Has the Mauna Loa data been correlated to the Vostok data is some way? When Mauna Loa is measured at 360 ppm, will Vostok also be measured at 360 ppm? I don’t think so.
There is no possibility to measure 360 ppmv in the Vostok ice core, as the bubbles are closing only at some 150 m depth, where the ice is already several hundred years old. The 360 ppmv is measurable somewhere in the transition zone between firn and ice, but due to the large smoothing (some 600 years for Vostok, you have to wait another 300 years to see the average increasing to 360 ppmv…
But it is possible to compare the Vostok ice core with other ice cores, each with increasing accumulation rates and therefore faster closing time, better resolution and more recent CO2 data (even with a 20 years overlap with the South Pole data). That results in the following graph for the past 10,000 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_010kyr.jpg
And I think a graphic splicing one type onto another dataset is just plain wrong – scientifically and ethically.
Although in this case it doesn’t make any difference, it should have been clearly marked with different colors and/or clearly said in the caption.
un-ethical, un-scientific …… UN !
Mike Jonas says:
November 25, 2010 at 11:29 am
Many thanks, Lucy Skywalker and others, for your analyses/information, in particular the Jaworowski paper in http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm. It seems that the ice core records which R Gates asserts are “100% correct” are nothing of the sort. Neither the CO2 levels nor the timescales are reliable.
This throws open the whole CO2-temperature debate yet again. In an earlier dialogue with Ferdinand Engelbeen on WUWT, I argued that in the absence of fossil fuel CO2, the atmospheric CO2 levels would have risen, but probably not by much. But the “not by much” was based on the ice core record, so I must now retract that bit. Without fossil fuels, it is now possible that CO2 levels would have risen appreciably.
Just shows – I should have been reading Lucy Skywalker’s blog. If only there was enough time for all this…
I know, Lucy (hi Lucy) still believes Jaworowski. I don’t. He has a lot of objections against ice core measurements which are physically impossible, even the opposite of what he claims. And he didn’t read the scientific literature since 1991, where many of his objections were clearly refuted or explained. Especially the work of Etheridge of 1996 by drilling three ice cores at Law Dome with different drilling techniques (wet and dry), measuring CO2 top down in firn until closing depth, etc.:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95JD03410.shtml
unfortunately behind a paywall.
Here my opinion about Jaworowski:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
Jordan says:
November 25, 2010 at 3:37 pm
The sealed ice (starting at the base of the firn) records a meainingful signal. Surely it must follow that the firn carries exactly the same signal. (No signal in the firn = no signal in the ice.)
The only question would then be how to sample the air carried in the column above the sealed ice. What are the issues that render this impracical and leave us waiting years to measure the putative signal?
Etheridge e.a. have done measurements top down in firn by inserting double seals in the drilling hole and extracting air out of the firn layers in between the seals. This shows a small gradient with depth, at bubble closing depth (72 m for Law Dome) some 10 ppmv below the atmospheric CO2 content of the air at the surface. Thus there is little difference in age (some 7 years) or CO2 levels of the average air between closing depth and the surface. Something similar for Vostok, but closing depth is much deeper there (much colder).
The problem is that it takes years from start closing of the first bubbles to full closing of all bubbles. Thus some enclosed air in the same ice layer is older, some is younger. The necessary time depends on the accumulation rate: 8 years (1.5 meter ice equivalent per year) averaging for Law Dome to some 600 years (a few mm/year) for Vostok.
Thus it isn’t of much help if you measure in firn, the transition zone may be more interesting…
R. Craigen says:
November 25, 2010 at 7:27 am
My point is that there doesn’t seem to be a good reason to omit the first 150 m of data for CO2 levels. Indeed, one should it to contain a MORE AND MORE ACCURATE reading of CO2 levels as one nears the present (though without a clear time resolution). Above a certain level there should be a very large sample containing essentially pure present-day atmospheric gases. Surely this data is recorded somewhere. My thought is that it is essential information for calibrating the ice core CO2 record.
Where is this data? What does it say? Does the record calibrate well with modern-day CO2 levels, starting around 50 m, as one would expect?
There is a very good reason why the first 150 meter are not used: it is firn, not fully closed ice, where still open pores allow diffusion of air from/to the atmosphere. Levels of CO2 there are near equal to surface air, but older in composition when going deeper as the pores are more and more closing and reduce the exchange speed (firn/ice density is a good measure of that process).
For a few cores, the firn data are known, see e.g. Law Dome:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_firn.jpg
“Now here’s the problem. If you took surface temperature data from Antarctica, and spliced it with surface temperature data from Hawaii, and then presented it as the entire historical record from Antarctica, our friends would have a veritable “cow”.”
Not to be critical because overall I disagree with splicing the two together like Bradley has done, but this analogy is not necessarily accurate.
Greenhouse gases are well-mixed in the atmosphere meaning that generally speaking the measurements at mauna loa will be accurate when compared to Antartic ice cores. An example is the good agreement between law dome in antarctica and mauna loa for CO2 measurements. Local temperatures are not globally distributed so the analogy kinda fails in that sense…
Ferdinand Engelbeen,
My comment must have been poorly written as you have misunderstood me. I understand the time delay issue of Vostok ice cores. My comment did not relate to the ice cores but to CO2 measurements of the atmosphere in the Vostok region similar to the atmospheric measurements taken at Mauna Loa. I do not think you will find a direct correlation. It is certainly unscientific for Bradley (or whoever was responsible for the graphic) to splice data measuring atmospheric CO2 in Hawaii with CO2 trapped in ice cores in Russia.
Jordan says:
November 25, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Perhaps the ambiguous point is whether by saying “adds CO2″, you mean “has increased pCO2″.
It is both: no doubt that humans have added a certain quantity of CO2 by burning fossil fuels and little doubt that that has increased pCO2 as well as in the atmosphere as in the oceans’ surface layer. This was discussed at WUWT in four guest posts by myself, with all together a few thousand reactions… But I have made a web page where most arguments are condensed:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
I therefore wonder whether isotope ratio is reliable as evidence that we have “increased pCO2″.
It is only one of several indications, not a full proof, but together with the rest of the evidence, there is little doubt left.
MattN says:
November 24, 2010 at 11:05 am
I’m thinking of a 5-letter word that begins with “F”…..
Mmmm. What could that be….
a) FALSE
b) FRAUD
c) FAKED
d) FINTO (Italian)
e) FATTO (Italian)
f) All of the above.
Not personally a skeptic… I visit here to try to gather what all sides are saying. And I’m sorry, guys, but if this is the best you can do, it isn’t much.
You’re not advancing your cause with this kind of …. [I’ll snip the end of the sentence myself!]
latitude says:
November 24, 2010 at 2:17 pm
You’re left with only two choices:
1. Dr. Bradley actually knew what was being photographed behind him,
and he approved.
2. Dr. Bradley is totally unaware of his surroundings, had no idea that
chart was there, has never seen this picture, and should not be allowed
to cross the street alone.
Either way, you’re choice…………but spliced is spliced.
latitude you have (nearly) hit the nail on the head.
It is very simple, as explained by one of my own favorite sayings:
Telling Lies
OR
Incompitent……
Your Choice.
Correction.
That should read:
latitude you have (nearly) hit the nail on the head.
It is very simple, as explained by one of my own favorite RESPONSES:
MattN says:
November 24, 2010 at 11:05 am
I’m thinking of a 5-letter word that begins with “F”…..
Mmmm. What could that be….
a) FALSE
b) FRAUD
c) FAKED
d) FINTO (Italian)
e) FATTO (Italian)
f) All of the above.
Or maybe it was just FOLLY
Or possibly it is FACT? (is ? a letter)
You get the message.