Guest post by Barry Woods (please bookmark his blog RealClimategate -Anthony)
Judith Curry has tackled the ‘Hide the Decline’ issue at her blog Climate Etc. The issue is that data was hidden from policymakers (and the public) so not to confuse them… and other data spliced in to perhaps give a very different message?
As published using Mike’s Nature Trick to “hide the decline”
Mike’s Nature Trick not used. Thermometers and spliced in tree ring data removed.
As temp reconstructions proxies (tree rings) were used to explain or ‘sell’ that modern temperatures were ‘unprecedented’ so global warming ‘must’ be down to humans and that policy makers should something now.
The fact that the proxies temperature decline when the thermometer readings are going up, would indicate that they are NOT a good proxy for past temperature.
I think even the most unscientifically trained politician and member of the public could see this, especially if you look at the 2 graphs above..
The screen captures are from the video Judith Curry links to (part I):
No point talking here about it here, go to where the debate is.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/23/hiding-the-decline-part-ii/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/24/hiding-the-decline-part-iii/
At the Bishop Hill blog, at least one scientist has chimed in to support Professor Judith Curry
Professor Jonathon Jones (Physics – Oxford University)
”If you’re wondering who I am, then you can find me at the Physics Department at Oxford University.”
Professor Jonathon Jones:
“People have asked why mainstream scientists are keeping silent on these issues. As a scientist who has largely kept silent, at least in public, I have more sympathy for silence than most people here. It’s not for the obvious reason, that speaking out leads to immediate attacks, not just from Gavin and friends, but also from some of the more excitable commentators here. Far more importantly most scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so, and are also well aware that most scientific questions are considerably more complex than outsiders think, and that it is entirely possible that we have missed some subtle but critical point.
However, “hide the decline” is an entirely different matter. This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science.
The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong. The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science, declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down. I don’t know who they think they are speaking for, but they certainly aren’t speaking for me.
I have watched Judy Curry with considerable interest since she first went public on her doubts about some aspects of climate science, an area where she is far more qualified than I am to have an opinion. Her latest post has clearly kicked up a remarkable furore, but she was right to make it. The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science.
If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.Judy’s decision to try to call a halt to this mess before it’s too late is brave and good. So please cut her some slack; she has more than enough problems to deal with at the moment.If you’re wondering who I am, then you can find me at the Physics Department at Oxford University.”
Feb 23, 2011 at 10:29 PM | Jonathan Jones
Phillip Bratby
Indeed. Dr Schmidt and his people remind me of the Yorkshire saying – what they know will fill a book, what they do not know would fill a library. What is good in their one book will be lost to the library if they do not acknowledge this error of judgment on the process.
nb – why are there so many Yorkshire people on sceptical blogs?
“However, “hide the decline” is an entirely different matter. This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science”
Thank you, Professor Jones for having the courage to put your head above the parapet. You have won the admiration of very many people today and it is to be hoped that you will be emulated by many of your colleques in the days and weeks to come.
Thanks also to Judith Curry for continuing to insist that integrety has to be evident in the debate.
Its down to all those silent scientists, regardless of their disciplins, to recognise bad scientific practice and to roundly condem such practices in public. In my opinion, that is the only way back for science and it will be a long journey, best to start right now.
Leed United!
Answer to the headline question: NO.
gman says:
February 25, 2011 at 9:41 am
Mann and his gang are certainly guilty as charged.But I think they are just useful idiots who were promised purple robes and fame,we have to look further up the ladder for real truth of where this really began.A good place to see this is at THE GREEN AGENDA site.
Really, bear in mind that ‘Mike’s Trick’ isn’t what’s shown above, his paper in Nature clearly showed the distinction between the reconstruction and the thermometer temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg
The legend clearly spelled out that the red line was temperature.
As far as Briffa was concerned rather than ‘hide the decline’ in the tree proxies he wrote two papers in prominent journals pointing out the decline!
As far as deception goes check out the second graph above, the black curve claiming to be from Briffa, (QSR, 19,87), well it isn’t, I guess the physicist who ‘understands graphs’ is pulling a fast one?
JohnWho says:
February 25, 2011 at 8:49 am
Well, as long as the AGW “wagon” can be hitched to an environmentalism “horse” of some color, I suspect we’ll be seeing it for quite a while. Those horses can pull a wheelless wagon very long distances from what I’ve seen.
I cannot resist: a wheelless wagon is called a sled, and it will be sliding over all that white from AGW landscape /:)
Phil,
Mann’s hockey stick chart in your link is no longer published by the IPCC because it has been debunked.
Phil, the only place where the tree rings match instrument temperatures…
….is around 1900 – 1950, where the tree rings were calibrated to temperature
You would sorta expect them to match temperatures at the exact spot where they were calibrated………………
…..the rest of it is garbage
OT but does anyone know which two new studies these Dems are hanging their hopes on?
“Two key House Democrats called on Republicans Thursday to hold a hearing on the latest climate science amid efforts by the GOP to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate authority.
In a letter to the top Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) pointed to two new studies that link climate change to extreme weather.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/145937-house-dems-call-for-climate-science-hearings-amid-gop-efforts-to-block-epa-climate-rules
Methinks that they are confusing this process witha UK whitewash.
Just as I am bound, as a citizen, to dial 911 (US) if I see an armed man holding a gun on the clerk at the local Stop-n-Rob, scientists (educated by tax money and/or drawing a government paycheck) are citizens who are obligated to stop robbers who are hiding behind spurious science.
While I am greatly heartened by Prof Jones’ entry into this arena and thank him heartily for it, I am seriously pissed by the hundreds of scientists who know the AGW crowd are charlatans and will do nothing about it.
It is truly refreshing to read Dr Jonathon Jones’ statement above. What a change from the garbage from all of the ‘researchers’ who are tying themselves in knots attempting to defend the indefensible. Bravo Dr Jones!
Here is the link to Richard Muller’s video that Judith Curry links to..
Her webpage is a bit slow to load for me (must be all those comments)
The whole video is well worth watching, Richard as I, clearly believes in the possibility of AGW, the issue is of course is the degree (sorry) of it. And he takes the alarmists to task. (ie 20 foot sea level rise, Hansen, etc)
The actual section where the screen caps above are taken from is at about 3o minutes in, and his words are harsh.
@ur momisugly Al Gored –
From The Hill article:
In the first study, scientists from Canada and the United Kingdom examined the increase in severe rainstorms, snowfall, and other weather events in the Northern Hemisphere. Using detailed computer models, the scientists concluded that these increases are the result of rising greenhouse gas emissions, not natural variability in the atmosphere. They also found that the likelihood of extreme precipitation on any given day rose by 7% over the last half of the 20th century. In a companion study, scientists at the University of Oxford examined the severe rains and floods that afflicted England and Wales in 2000. They found that rising greenhouse gas emissions “substantially increased” the risk of these floods occurring by up to 90%. These peer-reviewed studies were published in Nature, one of the world’s premier scientific journals.
Oh, those authritative studies. LOL
Yeah, let’s bring them up to scrutiny. Can’t wait.
JDN says:
February 25, 2011 at 9:56 am
In my past life (product mktng mgr in High Performance Computing at HP) I had frequent occasion to speak with scientists working in the area of climate computations. One of the most memorable was a discussion at lunch with a group from Hamburg (Klimatrechenzentrum Hamburg). I was asking about the modeling grid – one of them proudly said – we’re down to 100Km! Another said, but not for Paleo. That pretty much summed it up, and they were just as insecure about their values for vulcanism. This was in 2006, they got a new box since then, but I don’t think their grids are 10x better, nor are their parameters replaced with actual measurements.
Kevin MacDonald says:
February 25, 2011 at 9:01 am
Looks like it, smells like it, oooh it is BS. What drugs are you on? Must be good
The problem is the money. When you have the people associated with pushing policy making a direct financial gain from that policy, it leads to skepticism:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/new-soros-hedge-fun-profiting-obamas-green-energy-push-hires-top-
So here you have one of the major financiers of one political party pushing the “Green” agenda making a mint on that policy. You then have the makers of that policy getting jobs in companies created by that policy.
It is robbery of the taxpayer. It is corruption on a scale this country has not seen since the Robber Barons. In fact, it is a huge new crop of robber barons.
In regards to the Honorable Henry A. Waxman and Bobby L. Rush request for a hearing to review the two new studies as noted by
“Al Gored says:
February 25, 2011 at 12:10 pm
OT but does anyone know which two new studies these Dems are hanging their hopes on?”
I think it would be a good idea as I think Willis covered the University of Oxford studies validity at this recent post- http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/24/nature-magazines-folie-a-deux-part-deux/
I agree with the honorable house members comment that “We cannot legislate wisely if we do not know what we are doing.”
Barry Woods says:
February 25, 2011 at 8:20 am
Has anyone updated the proxies since ?
Stephen McIntyre gave a presentation at Ohio State Univ. in 2008 with the title “How do we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium?” There he presents a rather humorous story of updating a proxy. In the copy I have this begins on page 15 with a question, namely: “Why haven’t the proxies been brought up to date?” An update with photos is then described.
With computer and server changes since the fall of 2009, my links to that no longer work. Maybe someone can find it.
Its very simple guys. anytime anyone trys to defend HTD (hide the decline)
ask this simple question.
1. Please defend this practice as the best practice to show the state of knowledge and uncertainty in reconstructions of past temperature.
Just ask that question.
Kevin MacDonald says:
February 25, 2011 at 9:01 am
“Prior to this very recent divergence the proxy record in question showed good agreement with the other proxies over a six hundred year period. From that it is reasonable to infer that the proxy is a fair historical record.”
No. it shows that all the proxies are too coarse or inaccurate to adequately reflect climate variability.
Note too that the problem is at BOTH ends of the chart. The handle of the hockey stick is too flat due to inadequate proxies and data ‘adjustments’ which removed the MWP and LIA. The blade of the hockey stick is affected by UHI contamination, more data ‘adjustments’ and, yes, a little bit of natural warming.
Nice try, Kevin, but it doesn’t stack up.
JDN says: February 25, 2011 at 9:56 am
“Actually, is there anyone here from a computational physics background that works with climate modelers? If so, what have the discussions sounded like?”
This year we intend to subject the debris to an extreme level of laser cooled magnetic confinement to try and demonstrate that the radius of rotation of the some of the quarks constituents can actually be less than the plank length!
Ppffft, that’s nothin I’m gonna model the climate on the earth for a thousand years on my I-Pad this afternoon. I’ll send you an autographed screen scrape later. Oh, and by the way; My grants bigger that you grant, Na na na na na.
It is great to see the 2 pictures, it makes so simple to see what is about the “hide the decline” trick. It is clear also why there was strong resistance to make the raw data available.
“Scientists with genuine misgivings about the state of climate science have to be “brave” to voice their concerns.” tells a lot about the situation we are in.
Thank you professor Jones, thank you dr. Curry and thank you Anthony !
@Phil – wikipedia was obviously updated later – see the link here with the original graph.
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/wmo913.pdf
found from climate audit:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/
Private expressions of concern amongst experienced, capable and well respected scientists are increasingly common regarding the malpractice, flawed conclusions of mainstream climate science.
While the MSM, politicians and NGOs propagate and amplify the flawed ‘science’ to achieve political agendas, public channels of communication remain closed to the ‘silent majority’.
There are many able scientists with relevant Ph.D.s and familiarity with the peer reviewed literature that comment on the blogs. These people are ignored by the MSM and others who often measure credibility in terms of seniority of Government or Academic position rather than on the rational and scientific merit of the arguments put forward.
It is only by people in recognised academic positions, with credible careers at stake, like Judith Curry, Jonathan Jones and Paul Dennis (UEA) identifying themselves and making public statements through the blogs that there is any chance that the MSM will begin to wake up.
Sadly much of the scientific research that is vital to our future progress and well-being depends on political and public support. Science and scientists are becoming increasingly discredited in the view of the public as the AGW alarmist bandwagon rolls on. The appalling behaviour by a relatively narrow group of climate ‘scientists’ and their supporters is already misdirecting funding from more important priorities and is a very real threat to future scientific progress.
It is time for credible academics, particularly physical scientists and engineers, to identify themselves, contribute openly and publicly through blogs such as Judith’s and WUWT and help to stop this unscientific disease that is being spread from within the climate community.
Stephen Wilde,
A word of advice from a fellow non-believer.
No, it shows that majority of people have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time when it comes to a field of Science in which they are not a specialist.
There are at least two types of tree ring proxies, those where the tree ring widths are predominantly dependent on changes in precipitation levels, and those where widths are predominantly dependent on temperature. The problem is that
many people, including some so called experts in the field of tree ring proxies, do not distinquish between temperature dependent and precipitation dependent tree-ring proxies. Hence, the (totally) unnecessary confusion.
If you take the time to specifically select trees that have tree-ring widths that are strongly temperature dependent, you find that the proxy temperature records agree very closely with other totally independent temperature proxies e.g.
isotope abundances in corals and stalagmites.
I am a strong skeptic but I will not stand ideally by while others use the general ignorance of the public to destroy a valid scientific tool for climate research.
Stephen Wilde says:
February 25, 2011 at 3:07 pm
I agree: A proxy may agree nicely with another proxy, but it’s still just a proxy and NOT a true measurement of actual conditions that once existed.
Not only that, but proxies tend to blend into mush over time.