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
Academics are so …….academic!
I love your analogy of splicing Hawaii and Antarctica data together and splicing stock performances from two companies. I think that’s perfect! No true scientist would splice two different measurements together unless there was a very good proven correlation and/or causation between the two. For example, one could splice a temperature record obtained from mercury thermometers with one from thermocouples provided there’s accurate calibration between the two.
jimmi says:
November 24, 2010 at 8:50 pm [ … ]
You completely missed the point: the scientific method requires cooperation with skeptical scientists. Instead, the alarmist crowd deliberately obstructs the scientific method.
That’s not science; that is advocating an alarmist agenda. But Bradley is stuck in his position. If he started to follow the scientific method now, his entire CAGW agenda would go down in flames.
Bomber the cat has completely missed the point.
Data obtained one way (measuring CO2 now on Mauna loa)
cannot be compared directly with data obtained another way (from ice cores in Antarctica). For example, rapid changes, or peaks, in the past might not be visible in the ice core data because they would get smoothed out by diffusion.
It’s a dishonest data splice, and a favorite trick of the IPCC to mislead people. They do it with CO2 levels, with sea level rise, with temperatures, and of course with proxies (the infamous “hide the decline”).
John Marshall,
“According to direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 during the 1850′s this was from 420-520ppmv, using the same methods as is currently accepted as producing the correct answer”
The current measurements are made using spectroscopic techniques which did not exist in the 1850’s, and which are far, far more accurate. No 19th century values are accurate enough to be trusted. See this http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
if you want to know how it is done.
Smokey,
The scientific method does not require collaboration – competition works just as well if not better. All the data is there if you want to analyze it yourself.
James Allison says: November 24, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Then Smokey says, publish your evidence, etc. your credibility is shot, Bradley!
We need to look more closely at the story and the science. I’ve felt for a long time that this, the unholy Ice Hockey Stick, had not been receiving the attention it deserved. Bradley’s story can sound quite scientifically convincing… until we look at the practical details of CO2 measurement in ice cores… and the way the splice was actually carried out, with a similar omission to the “hide the decline” omission. See my page that introduces the first-rate and wrongly sidelined work of Jaworowski. Jaworowski, like Tim Ball, saw the corruption red in tooth and claw as it came into being, and later on his polemics tend to distract from the excellence of his science. Plus he got viciously attacked.
What makes the continuing CO2 rise difficult to explain naturally is that people forget the oceans’ thermohaline current that lags overall 800 years or so, because the cold CO2-rich water sinks and flows for a long time along the sea bottom before rising and outgassing. IMHO. Hence the smoothness of the CO2 rise, which simply does not match our own CO2 rise.
What gets me about Bradley is his DROPPING CO2 as a factor in treering sizes (Wegman put it in again), then he uses this graph. Since CO2 is well-known to influence tree growth especially pine-types, this omission/hyperinflation to me raises the 5-letter F-word.
Plus, the low CO2 levels that Vostok apparently shows should have resulted in the inhibition and shutdown of plant growth all over the world.
I think NASA have spliced proxy and direct measurements together on the CO2 graph on this page.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#SeaLevel
They claim it’s a proxy graph but curiously it matches the instrumental value at present day. Striking!
(PS I was looking for see level data – hence the link title)
Bomber_the_Cat … your argument assumes that the CO2 content of the ice core samples is an accurate representation of the true atmospheric levels throughout history.
Bomber the Cat … CO2 levels are not uniform around the earth … in view of this do the ice core samples truly reflect average CO2 content of the atmosphere?
Thanks to Dr. Bradley for posting here. Please stay around and discuss.
A couple of things struck me about this data. First, I was not aware that the Vostok core data begins at a depth of 150 m, where the ice is 5000 years old and the CO2 is “locked in” from 2000 years ago.
They must HAVE that first 150 m of ice core. What’s in it?
Now there is a natural objection to including CO2 from more recent ice core data because nobody is quite sure (as far as I understand) how to do time resolution for this data at levels where the CO2 is still understood to be settling to its permanent level. At any level near the surface one expects a mixture of gas from a fairly long period of time.
But SOMEWHERE around 50-80 m, according to the dogma of ice core sampling, present day CO2 levels is being locked in right now. Everything above this must be assumed to be present day level.
Well, this is an oversimplification — at that level one expects a mixture of gasses from the last 1500 years or so, but according to CO2 calibration dogma, that is about where current CO2 is dominant. But NONE of the CO2 at that level or above is any older than that.
Coming up higher, say to 30 m, one gets CO2 that is less than 1000 years old, just working from linear trend. At 10 m one gets CO2 less than 300 years old.
But this still gives an entirely wrong impression. If current CO2 levels dominate at 50 m it must ALSO dominate, even more, at 30 and 10 m. Indeed, at these levels we must have essentially pure present-day CO2.
One might object that there is compression in deeper ice so it is not helpful to compare the youngest ice. That may be true for some varieties of data. But if it is concentration of CO2 from air bubbles, this should be irrelevant: while gas may be more compressed further down, the component ratios of identical gas mixtures should be preserved. Yes, CO2 is also dissolved in ice, but as far as I know compression is not a significant factor in this.
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?
Whilst titling should be clear, your analogy is wrong. The results are correct; and certainly for any academic work the source of data should be made clear.
Like it was in, for e.g., the 2000 Briffa Quart. Sci. Rev. paper.
“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.”
No, it’s like taking the measurements of something over 20 years with a ruler, and then switching to measuring it with a tape measure, and then splicing the two together. You’re measuring the same thing, not different things.
Bomber_the_Cat says:
See? This is what I’ve been talking about.
Really Bomber? Are you actually under the illusion that what the graph shows is essentially correct? REALLY?!?! You actually don’t understand why this is even in question, do you???
Even though we can’t see if there are any notes on the chart, I’ve agreed that in would have been a good thing to color code the chart or have a break that clearly delineates the different data sources. Also, this notion that it was some obvious attempt to decieve by placing the Dr. where he was so has to accentuate the end of the chart– it was not to decieve but a highlight the important point of the chart–the extreme anomaly that the current growth in CO2 represents when compared to the past 400,000 years! The chart’s label may be only 99.9% correct as that is the portion of the data that came from Vostok, but its representation of CO2 levels over tme (regardless of source) is 100% correct.
I find it amazing that an entire thread could have been dedicated to this simple issue, but I suppose considering the level of acrimony between “warmists” and skeptics, I suppose not so amazing…
REPLY: And yet you never seem to see any of your long drawn out arguments over minutiae here in the same light. – Anthony
Jimmy Haigh says:
November 25, 2010 at 6:38 am
Thanks to Dr. Bradley for posting here. Please stay around and discuss.
—————————————-
Methinks anybody who is the subject of a post on WUWT should be emailed a link with an invitation to comment. It would be easy to do and a fair thing to do.
It would also be good marketing for WUWT.
Jimmy Haigh said on November 25, 2010 at 6:38 am:
Bradley’s response looks identical to his response to James Allison’s email.
Offhand it looks like we got a drive-by cut-and-paste “response to my critics,” which I shall presume was used more than for just those two instances. You might as well give thanks for “helpful information” from an automated telemarketer and hope they call back.
jimmi says:
“The scientific method does not require collaboration – competition works just as well if not better.”
That is incorrect. McIntyre & McKittrick spent many years trying to get cooperation from Mann, Bradley and Hughes, to no avail. They were stonewalled every step of the way. They spent thousands of hours laboriously trying to replicate MBH, before finally succeeding in exposing the cherry-picked data they used, and replicating, testing and falsifying their methodology.
That, my friend, is not how the scientific method works.
Smokey says:
November 25, 2010 at 9:00 am
Jimmi does have a point, as does Smokey!. Though the scientific ‘method’ is really based on trial and error (or hypothesising if you like) and then experiment, observation and (hopefully) replication.
Both collaboration and independent works are valid approaches but with different benefits:
a collaborative approach allows for many ‘thoughts’ to be placed on the table and bandied around but may also ‘fix’ or ‘limit’ the direction of interest…
an independent approach (especially of the mind) can often ‘look’ into areas not envisaged by others or ‘discounted’ by the collaborative ‘concensus’.
As with most things, there are advantages and disadvantages.
The key point is that in order to VALIDATE any work – as required by proper scientific methodology – ALL workings and data must be made available for appropriate peer review and ‘testing’.
“Excuse me while I puke…”
‘…It’s nice to not to have to go look for mushrooms sometimes…’ An Obscure Chinese Proverb’ (I made it up actually)
The warmists ENRON approach to Science is why we are here and why this is the #1 Climate Science blog in the world. This is fantastic Work. Playing ‘spot the lie’ will not always be this easy though. Have a great thanksgiving everyone at WUWT!
My thanks.
The use of non attributed sources on ones documents, is there not a name for that. 🙂
Mick.
R. Gates,
You are delusional if you think the CO2 levels shown on that chart have anything to do with reality. The CO2 levels of the Instrument portion of the chart are only valid for the station that took those measurements with their associated data filtering and adjustments. (Oh, you didn’t know they had to filter the data?? HAHAHAHAHA)
As far as the Vostok ice cores, there is no empirical data supporting the relationship of the measured gasses in the ice cores, after they have been substantively mishandled, with whatever the actual CO2 levels were in the presumed periods they THINK it represents.
Tell me, when did science start to represent as hard facts things that are on the level with reading chicken gizzards??
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 …….
Not quite on topic, but why do these guys photo’s always appear so smug?
BTW, a large dose of white looking “global warming” hit us in the N.E. lastnight/today.
Readers of this blog, should read this definitive statement by kuhnkat, then look on the mis-interpretation of this data as being “proxy data” by the post’s author; and then compare these statements with Dr. Bradley’s succinct and accurate explanation of both the science, and the location of the photo backdrop.
This information makes this post a candidate for the most mis-leading post ever on this site. Even though I had low expectations for logic, knowledge, and understanding amongst the regular commentators here, but these comments hit a new low.