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
Aren’t the implications of this completely “earthshattering”, first it calls into question all of the Vostok data, because in 1999 Vostok measured 284ppm while Mauna Loa measured 360ppm, then even if that is ok, there have been periods when CO2 was just has high as it is now? How was this missed? It seems like this should have been caught and exposed by a skeptic, or else the tracks covered by the warmers.
One question that maybe relevant.
Is this a graph that he might present in class to students, and
whether the splicing issue is mentioned along with the inherent
dangers in doing splicing.
This is from Eric Steig’s May 2006 review, posted on RealClimate, of Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth:
“Several of my colleagues complained that a more significant error is Gore’s use of the long ice core records of CO2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two. The complaint is that the correlation is somewhat misleading, because a number of other climate forcings besides CO2 contribute to the change in Antarctic temperature between glacial and interglacial climate. Simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the temperature in 2100 A.D. somewhere upwards of 10 C warmer than present — rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here). However, I don’t really agree with my colleagues’ criticism on this point. Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO2 scaling is. He is making a qualitative point, which is entirely accurate. The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO2 changes (as we have discussed here). In that sense, the ice core CO2-temperature correlation remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO2 on climate.”
“NicklasE says:
Anthony, I actually looked at this data just a few days ago. If you look very carefully at the Wikipedia image you will notice a very very small error. The y-axis of the top most graph is slightly more to the left than the two bottom graphs. I made a new graph (slightly different) here:” http://www.ekstrand.org/climate/iceage20101122/all.png
Not to change the subject, but it looks like “Dust” has a better correlation to “temperature” than CO2. Then again, I’m just an old construction worker.
It is assumed that “colder dryer temperature caused more dust”
O/T; but, there have been some discussions re e-mails.
NOAA has an e-mail machine also.
>>> “I believe we owe it to everyone to provide the best estimates we can where direct measurements are not possible,” she wrote”.
“In the e-mails, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Jane Lubchenco, cautioned a colleague about how to present the government’s findings: “I believe we owe it to everyone to provide the best estimates we can where direct measurements are not possible,” she wrote. “We also need to be forthright about how certain we are about each number, which we’ve done.”
“Obama Administration Surrenders Gulf Oil Leak Estimate E-Mails
CBS NEWS ^ | 11-24-2010 | CBS
Obama Administration Turns Over Internal E-mails by Government Scientists Concerning Estimates Now Acknowledged as Too Low
(AP) The Obama administration late Wednesday defended the integrity of its estimates – which turned out to be inaccurate – during the summer of how much oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico, turning over thousands of pages of internal e-mails written by government scientists who worked on the project.
In the e-mails, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Jane Lubchenco, cautioned a colleague about how to present the government’s findings: “I believe we owe it to everyone to provide the best estimates we can where direct measurements are not possible,” she wrote. “We also need to be forthright about how certain we are about each number, which we’ve done.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com …”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2632751/posts
Once again, Anthony is directly over the target, if the reaction from alarmists is any indicator. Bradley’s who live in glass walled Co2 chambers should not throw stones.
This is not much different than the graph presented by Ben Santer at the recent Congressional “hearing” where it was made to look like temperatures sky rocketed straight up after 1975 and the scaling for the CO2 made it appear to correlate perfectly with temperatures through 2010. By looking at his graph an uninformed person (e.g. most politicians) would conclude it’s “worse than we thought”.
What a dishonest motley crew this bunch is.
Rises in CO2 follow temperature rises, rises in CO2 don’t precede rising temperature.
Since CO2 is a function of temperature, it is not the cause of rising temperature.
And using a normal y-axis, we can see there is no reason to panic.
There is no testable, empirical evidence that CO2 causes measurable warming. The IPCC is simply lying about the effect of CO2. So is Mr Bradley.
nofreewind,
“because in 1999 Vostok measured 284ppm while Mauna Loa measured 360ppm, ”
Vostok did not measure 284 ppm in 1999 – look up how ice cores are measured.
FrankK, and George E Smith,
Vostok is not the only ice core – there are at least 30 different sites – not just Antarctica but Arctic and even tropical regions. There are even sites which get close to present day , for example Law Dome which records up to mid 20th century. The 280 ppm figure is taken as typical of interglacial periods. The Law Dome measurements indicate ~280ppm till early 1800s. EPICA is an even longer sequence than Vostok – they agree on most details, but don’t take my word for it – look them up.
The graph that has generated so much interest was probably based on Figure 4 in the article by Raynaud et al (1990) published in Quaternary Science Reviews, but there have been so many other versions of that reproduced, I can’t be sure of its exact source. It is one of many figures and photographs which decorate the walls of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Your readers may be interested to learn that it takes many years before gas bubbles in polar ice sheets are sealed from contact with the atmosphere. Just how long it takes depends mainly on the accumulation rate, as that determines the depth at which the snow becomes compressed, from snow to firn to ice. Thus, ice cores will never record “today’s” level of greenhouse gases—they only provide historical data to compare with instrumentally recorded data. Where ice cores have been recovered from locations with very high accumulation rates a record of greenhouse gases can be obtained which extends in time up to a few decades ago, and these perfectly match the measured greenhouse gas values from remote locations around the world. Thus it is quite reasonable to plot the ice core greenhouse gas data with the instrumentally recorded data. This is well understood by students of paleoclimatology, but I can understand why it might not be so clear to those less familiar with the field.
Those who would like to learn more could take a look at Chapter 5 in my book, Paleoclimatology (Academic Press, 1999).
In a word: No.
It’s not easy to say when CO2 started rising. You could make the call before 1800, but it certainly started its current (annually) monotonic rise by the late 1800s. (CSIRO graph)
Temperature, however, didn’t hit its minimum until about 1910.
HadCru
NASA
However you measure it, the CO2 rise started first.
Haha….. AGW hypothesis and proponents PWNED, once again!….:-)
Well, at the end of the day, it’s still all about those models, isn’t it?
And when have ~any~ of those models ever predicted the recent weather with even a modicum of accuracy?
WHEN? Right: NEVER!
If they can’t predict the weather now, then WHY on Earth would anyone in his right mind be expected to believe a prediction several decades hence?
They predicted MORE hurricanes, but those didn’t happen.
They predicted MORE hot weather, but that didn’t happen either. The cold weather arrived here (western Washington) more than two weeks earlier than usual, and brought snow with it.
The predicted an ICE-FREE North Pole, but that hasn’t ~even~ come close to a reality.
They predicted sea-level rises of Biblical proportions, but that hasn’t happened either.
I’m surprised they haven’t predicted a plague of frogs and locusts!
Virtually ALL of their predictions have fallen through the thin ice of their own failed suppositions and are rapidly sinking to the depths of junk science.
I’ve watched 1950’s science fiction B-movies which had far more credibility than the crap being tossed our way as ‘science fact.’
And BTW, Anthony, thanks for another revelation into the inner workings of what now passes for ‘academia.’
Sorry, Wombat, your graphs either show temp or CO2. Nice cherry-picking. But check out the provenance of the ones I posted, and you will see that you’re wrong.
But even if you can’t see you’re wrong, everyone else can.☺
Ray Bradley said………….”Your readers may be interested to learn that it takes many years before gas bubbles in polar ice sheets are sealed from contact with the atmosphere. ”
========================================================
Pfft. No news to us mate. We probably knew that before you did. Don’t come the all knowledgeable omnipotent one with us.
…So you willingly admit that the graph that appears behind you is wrong, misleading and meaningless….. You admitted you spliced the proxy with the instrument record without labeling that fact on the graph…… Bit silly wasn’t it?
Ray Bradbury said…. “Thus it is quite reasonable to plot the ice core greenhouse gas data with the instrumentally recorded data. ”
========================================================
I’m sure there are better ways of showing comparisons?
He’s wearing a cardigan in front of a white board with numbers and lines on it, this is a marginally better photo than the tired old polar bear drowning or the steam rising out of a cooling tower of an industrial landscape of doom.
You’re not supposed to look at the numbers any more than you’re supposed to remember that polar bears can swim or that Swedes take steam baths because you might remember there are no actual numbers in support of any of this crap.
@RAYQ MCMULLEN Bradley, I’m sorry professor but your excuse doesn’t wash and borders on fraud, despite your argument from authority.
Fix Bayonets.
Can you believe Mr. Bradley implied that we don’t understand the subject matter?
I emailed Raymond Bradley and received the following response.
—————————-
The graph that has generated so much interest was probably based on Figure 4 in the article by Raynaud et al (1990) published in Quaternary Science Reviews, but there have been many other versions of that reproduced that I can’t be sure of its exact source. It is one of many figures and photographs which decorate the walls of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Your readers may be interested to learn that it takes many years before gas bubbles in polar ice sheets are sealed from contact with the atmosphere. Just how long it takes depends mainly on the accumulation rate, as that determines the depth at which the snow becomes compressed, from snow to firn to ice. Thus, ice cores will never record “today’s” level of greenhouse gases—they only provide historical data to compare with instrumentally recorded data. Where ice cores have been recovered from locations with very high accumulation rates a record of greenhouse gases can be obtained which extends in time up to a few decades ago, and these perfectly match the measured greenhouse gas values from remote locations around the world. Thus it is quite reasonable to plot the ice core greenhouse gas data with the instrumentally recorded data. This is well understood by students of paleoclimatology, but I can understand why it might not be so clear to those less familiar with the field.
Those who would like to learn more could take a look at Chapter 5 in my book, Paleoclimatology (Academic Press, 1999).
Raymond S Bradley
Distinguished Professor
Director, Climate System Research Center
Dept of Geosciences
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA 01003-9297
Tel: 413-545-2120
Bradley, your credibility is shot.
The scientific method requires that you provide your raw data, metadata and methodologies to any skeptical scientist [the only honest kind of scientist] who requests it, and answer their questions. Instead, you hide out.
You and your clique of grant hogs ignore the scientific method, making you anti-science. You have made climatology akin to Scientology, phrenology and astrology. McIntyre and McKittrick have your back up against the wall, and you’re desperate.
People are onto your CAGW scam. You are no longer believable or credible. And it is your own doing. You have sold out scientific integrity for grant money and notoriety. But the worm is turning, and CAGW charlatans are now playing defense. And it will only get worse.
Howdy, Orville Redenbacher! ☺
Good reading…
Spliced data of differing types…..
No way to match current readings on CO2 concentrations and long term levels so their is NO COMMON GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION.
I wonder when these folks will learn that truth in advertising is in their best interests?
If Wombat is correct about his Co2 timeline, that makes sense since we have been steadily warming out of the LIA. Thanks Wombat.
Wow, real classy. Attack the victim. Maybe you’d like to suggest that Dr. Bradley should have buttoned one more button, or that he’d had too much to drink.
I probably should have said…… “you admit that the proxy record is spliced to the instrumental record…. Since of course you are saying that you didn’t do the graph and it appears in “the article by Raynaud et al (1990) published in Quaternary Science Reviews.” So it is not your graph…. just a “graph on a wall” among many, etc.
But because it is not labeled as a mix and match of different records….. It’s a misleading graph and a very silly way of presenting a comparison… etc. You would have to agree, would you not Mr Bradley.
Tamsie,
Bradley is the victim like Elmer Gantry was the ‘victim’.
The true victims are the hard-bitten taxpayers being forced to fund the CAGW scam.