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
REPLY: I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not, if so use the /sarc tag
Okay, my previous post needed the /sarc tag.
Of another note, check the top right corner, is the chart predicting the red Methane levels into the future beyond blue CO2 levels?
Robuk said:
“What they show is that the popular belief that CO2 levels prior to the Industrial Revolution were a steady 280 ppm (parts per million) may be incorrect.”
___
I think you should be careful about using the term “popular belief” as the it would imply common or typical. The common person on the street has no idea what the CO2 level is now or in the recent or remote past. Readers on WUWT are far from common. We know that CO2 levels were around 260-280 ppm prior to the industrial revolution, but as as Vostok (and other) ice cores tell us, over the past 400,000 or so years, CO2 levels have varied greatly with the coming and going of passed glacial periods. The most important issue is that the fact that the current levels have spiked rapidly (geologically speaking) to levels not seen in at least 400,000 or even 800,000 thousand years and we still are not sure how sensitive the climate system is to this rapid spike.
Given the problems with CO2 seep out of ice bubbles, and the other discrepancies between Vostok and other data sources, I’d say the levels it shows should be increased by about 33% across the board.
There! All fixed.
Stay cool Anthony, he was being sarcastic in support of Wegman.
Some folks have a crucifix on the wall… others have a
representation of the Madonna.
Doctor Bradley has a chart.
What’s the problem ?
Granted, I just held a ruler up to the computer screen to come up with this, but the “Today” spot appears to be about 2500 years ago based on the scale of the x-axis.
Not Earth-shattering, but a bit funny. Wouldn’t a smart guy like that remember to put the present at 0 years ago?
I would love to see someone Photoshop-in the graph of the CO2 increases lagging the temperature increases by 800 years.
This post brings up some interesting points.
1. OK first (lets get it out of the way) Bradley’s graph is true to form (it simply follows MBH98 procedures) splicing the instrument record onto a proxy record even though (apparently from another quote herein from Realclimate) Manna says that’s never been done?!! Really!! If I did this sort of thing in my profession I would suffer chastisement and more that likely be academically castrated.
2. What I always find incredible is that the CO2 levels of the ‘globe’ are measured (or certainly quoted) at one site in the tropics in Hawaii. Aren’t there any other sites around the world to cross check these values?
3. OK. What I get from this graph is that either the Vostok cores do not reflect the ‘true’ CO2 concentrations (through degassing whatever) which basically means that the ‘true’ values in past were very much higher than indicated. And it follows that the 360 ppmv shown in the Bradley graph (and current value) would not be that unusual compared to the ‘true’ historical ice record values. Or if the CO2 concentrations where the Vostok samples were collected are historically much lower than measured in Hawaii then the Hawaii values are simply not “global”. Is this too simple a deduction to make ? I’d like to get comments from people here more familiar with the available data.
First, he’s pushing the CO2 is going to kill us all/temp thing.
Second, he didn’t choose a chart with the temps over laid on it…….
because that chart doesn’t work!
Well that’s kinda funny; because I was perusing an ice core graph that Ferdinand Englebeen was kind enough to post a link to; of the 800kyr Dome-C ice core, and amazingly it also shows tha present ice core CO2 way below the curent Mona Loa number.
In fact it even has an arrow at the present 390 ppm, and then just blank page down to the old 280 range.
Seems like ice core pyramid inches are different from atmospheric pyramid inches.
And since Dr. Bradley is expecting precision in attribution from Dr. Wegman, it seems only fair that he should add such a caption that clearly states what it is to his own web page, don’t you think?
This is apples and oranges, don’t you think? One is a cropped publicity photo. One is a report to congress! I expect considerably better citations in an official report than on a head shot.
“But it’s still data splicing, and that’s the whole issue. “
To some extent, all data is “spliced” since no two experiments are done in the exact same circumstances. The question is then “is the splicing significant enough that is deserves special note in a particular presentation of the data?” If I use a different multimeter tomorrow than I did today, I’m not going to note that on a graph even in a scientific publication (especially if the two results seem to agree, although I might well note it in a lab notebook). If I combine thermometer data to tree-ring proxies onto a single graph, then some mention SHOULD be made in even fairly casual presentations of the data.
So …
* is there a reason to question the accuracy of the ice core method? ( You seem to accept it at face value in your blog)
* is there reason to question the accuracy of the current Mona Loa measurements? (no one seem to seriously question this)
* is there reason to think Hawaii and Antarctica have significantly different CO2 levels? (again, this doesn’t seem to be a major issue)
Is any of this truly significant enough that an issue should be made of a publicity photo? I think not
Is any of this significant enough that an issue should be made of it in a scientific publication? Certainly it is! But it WAS noted in the scientific publication.
As I said before — this all leads me to view this as a non-story …
REPLY: Well non-story by your opinion or not, it remains. – Anthony
So the figure from the core rose to about 280 and any sane mathematical projection therefrom leads to a current value of 360. What’s the problem?
Or are you just busily smearing Bradley because he dared to protest when he discovered Wegman had plagiarized and distorted his work?
You’re so transparent, Watts.
REPLY: Ah, insults from another anonymous coward, always a pleasure. Explain why Dr. Bradley waited four years (from 2006) to bring up plagiarism charges, and then also explain why data splicing of dissimilar data sets is acceptable, and then you might have an argument. – Anthony
Anthony says
———
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”.
————
It’s a false comparison.
Temperature varies with latitude so splicing temperature records from different places makes no sense.
CO2 is relatively well mixed in the atmosphere so splicing data from different places is sort of OK in a quick and dirty kind of way.
REPLY: I should have been clearer, I was thinking temperature ANOMALY data, as we are often presented with. In hindsight what I should have done was published some such silly combination first, let the squalling commence, and then publish this story, then use the “but you said data splicing wasn’t OK in the last post” comments 😉
– Anthony
I emailed Raymond and suggested he should come on over to this post and explain the chart to us.
Holding breathe – waiting…..going blue…..
Observing past Team Tactics its likely the headshot & chart will simply disappear into cyberspace.
FerdinandAkin says:
November 24, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Gentlemen,
I find this to be an appalling case of guilt by association. Here we have a photograph of a chart with Dr. Ray Bradley in the foreground. I simply cannot understand why this chart is characterized as false simply because it is in the same picture with Dr. Bradley.
This chart has done nothing except being photographed in the wrong place at the wrong time.
REPLY: I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not, if so use the /sarc tag
But the issue is data splicing of two different data sets. And the fact that this photo seems to be staged so that the chart is the most prominent portion of the photo, as Dr. Bradley leans to the left to expose it clearly and the full title. – Anthony
———
My oh my the apologists are stretching things! As Anthony suggests this composition of this photo was no accident – unless you think that this chart snuck in behind him while he was not looking to be “photographed in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
It was obviously put in the right place at the right time and is just another not-so-clever attempt at brainwashing. And, of course, this method allows this argument that it was just an ‘accident’ while still sublimally delivering the scary hockey stick message to gullible viewers.
In any case, great job Anthony! And in case FerdinandAkin doesn’t get your point about convenient splicing, how’s this:
“Gentlemen, I find this to be an appalling case of a photograph of a chart which seems to be staged so that the chart is the most prominent portion of the photo.”
P.S. Putting that ‘Mission Accomplished’ sign up behind Bush was just an accident too.
Should have gone to Specsavers.
Tim Folkerts says:
November 24, 2010 at 11:22 am
“Looks like an amazing non-story to me.
Who would ever have thought that a cropped publicity photo might not have all the details listed and visible? ”
I just downloaded the actual slide, the details are not on the actual slide, the photo isn’t cropped.
http://www.pages-igbp.org/products/overheads/raynaud.vostok.ppt
REPLY: That’s a similar graph, but not the same one behind Dr. Bradley. Note the Y axis labels are different as is the title slightly different. – Anthony
Forgive my uninitiated ignorance, but isn’t Lake Vostok like umptillion leagues beneath the surface of Antarctica, in which case how could any core sample ever represent any point in the current epoch ?
Or do I just not know what the heck is going on down there ?
Seems that “Ashleys Book of Knots’ is required reading for climate scientists. As any mariner knows a splice is a trick to make a rope longer. sarc/off
I’ve had academic photos taken. The photographer just wants to pose you an in academic looking setting – some maths scribbled on a whiteboard – pointing at something on a computer screen – whatever. I wouldn’t want to judge anybody on the basis of what appears in the background of a posed photo.
REPLY: Oh I understand where you are coming from, though I doubt the photographer got to make the choice. He needed help, either from Dr. Bradley or an assistant to setup a projector and choose a slide. In my experience people generally want to be photographed in front of things they are proud of or want to convey. Unlike being in public, the great thing about such photographs is that you can choose the setting and refuse to be photographed in settings you don’t agree with. Dr. Bradley obviously thinks this graph important enough to be seen with, otherwise we’d just have a head shot.
Curious though that he didn’t choose one of the more famous graphs like the one from MBH98.
Either way, data splicing has always been a point of contention, and that’s an issue again here with this graph. – Anthony
My climatology prediction program is pointing to a message from an irate photographer claiming that a copyrighted image has been purloined, and must be taken down.
This would then classify this event as: a Bradlification, though a Briffacup in execution, followed by a Gavinaction.
Glossary of terms:
Bradlification: Pompous scientific hypocrisy
Brffacup: A scientific mistake or gaffe
Gavinaction: Aggressive and shrill legal threats
What is the point of this post? Is the information about CO2 concentration false, or is their another motive for this post?
Here is a reference which discusses the Vostok ice core data, and it says pretty clearly in the text that data after 1958 is from the air record:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html
The second graph (Data 3) is for the past 200 years. This time period includes all of the Industrial Revolution which began in the mid-1800s. The start of the Industrial Revolution marked the beginning of the large-scale exploitation of fossil fuels. The small dip in temperature in the early 1800s was caused by volcanic eruptions which reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. CO2 inflection points are visible at around 1860, 1950 and 1975. After 1958, the data are from annual air measurements, not ice core proxies, and are therefore of higher quality.
So what is the problem? Where is the deception? Was this made an issue because the problems with the Wegman Report have hit the fan?
REPLY: Its curious because this is the first time I’ve ever noticed the “instrumental splicing” on other proxy data. The deception comes in from not delineating the two sets of data, either by a break mark ~//~ in the line or a change in color, leading one to believe that the data is contiguous from the ice core, when in fact it is not.
At least in MBH 98 and again in 2003 in the graphs shown above, they delineated the colors so the observer knew what they were looking at. In Dr. Bradley’s backdrop and in the graph cited in comments above here: http://www.pages-igbp.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/products.woa/wa/product?id=99
seen here as an image: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/raynaud-et-al-2000-vostok.png
Have no delineations or even labels/notes on the graph to delineate the data sets.
The first graph you cite here… http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html
…has the same problem for the CO2 record; single color, two data sets, spliced, no notes or break. The point is that data splicing without delineation will land you in jail if you are in stocks and pushing combined data in a prospectus without notice, and if I did something like that here and presented two pieces of data spliced into a single graph, with no mention of it being spliced, a lot of people, and especially you (who howls at everything here) would be all over it once they figured it out.
Don’t bother replying, because I have no interest in wasting several hours arguing with you as you do others here, I have far more important things to do. – Anthony
There have been a couple of comments/questions on the measurement of atmospheric CO2. Such as: what is it in Antarctica and why is the data from Hawiai always quoted.
There is lots of information on the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) site
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
In particular, data from a variety of sources is given at:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/
There are probably other sources but I would suggest people interested in the measurement of atmospheric CO2 could learn a lot from here.
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.
I miss the temperature record on the graph , which shows, well, nothing.
http://p6.hostingprod.com/@treks.org/arctic_vostok-ice-core-petit.png