Severinghaus and “Hide the Decline”
By Steve McIntyre
One of the very first contributions to realclimate was an FAQ from Jeff Severighaus on Dec 3, 2004. A year earlier, Severinghaus attempted (unsuccessfully) to get an explanation of the “divergence” problem from Mann and the rest of the Team. Severinghaus had become interested in the question following a presentation by Tom Karl of NOAA in which he had used a figure from Briffa and Osborn 2002, in which he wondered about the “flat” response of the tree ring proxies in the last half of the 20th century.
In nearly all defences of the deletion of the decline in spaghetti graphs that yield a rhetorical effect of coherence between the Briffa and other reconstructions in the last half of the 20th century, it’s been argued that the divergence problem was fully disclosed in a couple of 1998 Briffa articles and that this disclosure in the original technical literature constituted sufficient disclosure – a point that I contested long before Climategate.
The Severinghaus exchange is highly pertinent to this issue. Severinghaus was a climate scientist who was not a specialist in the area who asked specifically about a diagram in which the decline had been hidden (though Severinghaus was unaware that the decline had been hidden.)
Severinghaus was concerned merely by the flattening of proxy response. One can only imagine how the exchange would have read had Severinghaus been aware that the Briffa reconstruction actually declined sharply. Read and see whether Mann, Jones and/or Briffa drew Severinghaus’ attention to the early articles in which the divergence problem was disclose.
On the afternoon of Feb 1, 2003 California time (emails -2545, 19, 4355 Feb 2, 2003 00:15 GMT), Severinghaus wrote to Tom Karl of NOAA about his presentation at the MIT Global Change Forum the previous day. Severinghaus asked about the “flat” response of tree rings to late 20th century warmth, referring to an article by Briffa and Osborn in Science (2002). The diagram in question would be the following:
Figure 1. Briffa and Osborn (Science 2002) Figure 1.
Severinghaus observed that this lack of response is an “embarrassment” and that it “casts doubt on the integrity of the proxy”:
Subject: tree rings and late 20th century warming
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:15:04 -0800
From: Jeff Severinghaus
to: Thomas.R.Karl
Dear Dr. Karl,
I enjoyed your presentation yesterday at the MIT Global Change forum. You may recall that I asked about the failure of tree rings to record the 20th century warming. Now that I look at my records, I realize that I remembered this wrongly: it is the LATE 20th century warming that the tree rings fail to record, and indeed, they do record the early 20th century warming.
If you look at the figure in the attached article in Science by Briffa and Osborn, you will note that tree-ring temperature reconstructions are flat from 1950 onward. I asked Mike Mann about this discrepancy at a meeting recently, and he said he didn’t have an explanation. It sounded like it is an embarrassment to the tree ring community that their indicator does not seem to be responding to the pronounced warming of the past 50 years. Ed Cook of the Lamont Tree-Ring Lab tells me that there is some speculation that stratospheric ozone depletion may have affected the trees, in which case the pre-1950 record is OK. But alternatively, he says it is possible that the trees have exceeded the linear part of their temperature-sensitive range, and they no longer are stimulated by temperature. In this case there is trouble for the paleo record. Kieth Briffa first documented this late 20th century loss of response.
Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test.
Sincerely,
Jeff
Severinghaus obviously didn’t know that the Briffa and Osborn diagram had deleted the post-1960 decline from the Briffa reconstruction. Had they shown the actual data, the diagram would have looked more like the one shown below.
Read the full post at Climate Audit
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But here are the “lies” in Mann’s entire paper – in the entire hockey stick illusion that the IPCC used 7 times to create their CAGW scenarios with the very willing support of the Team and their hand-picked poor-reviewers in the CAGW-sponsored so-called “scientific” literature.
1) We KNOW – absolutely – from the satellite measured data for actual global temperatures – that global “average” temperatures (assuming such actually exists in any case) that the world’s temperatures randomly and irregularly jump and move up and down by 0.2 degrees while CO2 steadily rises. No, we don’t know “why” the global temperatures changes by 0.2, but they are measured as changing.
Therefore, any reconstructed data over any period of time must included that variation – regardless of ANY other measure or proxy, the actual temperatures are changing by that much, so even before any other error bars from the proxy analysis itself, the actual temperature can never be plotted or determined more accurately than +/- 0.2 degrees in any given year. Or over any given period.
2) Mann’s (MBH98, 99 and all their follow-on “studies) failed to even plot their own data properly: Their own graph shows clearly the Medieval warming Period and Little Ice Age. On of their graphic conclusions is the grey line: at 1500 AD, their line is decreasing from -0.80 degrees. Their own data at 1500 AD? -0.30, with a very small std deviation. They are 1/2 degree wrong in their own paper, their trend line (the slope at 1500 AD) is opposite of what is determined by their plot, – and they are proud of their results and are determined to defend their results?
3) Look at their own data through every century. If they ever release their data and their methods, maybe we could actually plot real std deviations, but use the variation between lines to judge the trends between of their proxy studies for the following.)
800 AD. -0.50 degrees high std dev.
900 AD -0.30 degrees high std dev.
1000 AD -0.25 degrees very low std dev.
1100 AD -0.20 degrees very low std dev.
1200 AD -0.35 degrees very high std dev.
1300 AD -0.30 degrees low std dev.
1400 AD -0.30 degrees high std dev.
1500 AD -0.35 degrees very low std dev.
1600 AD -0.75 degrees low std dev.
1700 AD -0.55 degrees high std dev.
1800 AD -0.60 degrees very low std dev.
Mann is showing his own MWP at -0.30 degrees within very small error bands, and the LIA at around -0.75 within somewhat higher error bands.
But that result doesn’t match what he wants – what the team needs to push their religiously fervent dogma on their public.
crosspatch says:
November 28, 2011 at 12:03 pm
yes… sigh… Scientific fundamentalism, fear [by the Team] that is not even recognized as fear… because Science is so disused to observing the evidence from the half of reality that Science once tacitly agreed is no reality… because if Science were to claim inner reality as reality, then the Church would squash them out of existence… so the early scientists decided that half a loaf was better than no bread…
Now we reap the consequences. But seeing this is also the way forward. What makes WUWT and CA and all the rest so riveting is that we know that here, the fullness of humanity and integrity is not just respected but expected, and recognized as fundamental to good science.
At least some Christian fundamentalists have experienced transformed lives and miracles of healing – I’ve met them. That is more than the fundie scientists can say, unfortunately.
Maybe the word fundamentalist has a new meaning, To think of ways to pervert research in order to secure funding.
“To think of ways to pervert research in order to secure funding.”
No, that’s an enviroclimagrantologist.
More cracks in the foundation of ‘The Team’. I look forward to the ‘coming out’ as the walls crumble.
Will some reveal their own emails to prove they were wrongly held captive by ‘The Team’? This could be a block buster show.
We may ultimately have to determine who the the ‘turn coats’ are. The Outlaw Josey Wales comes to mind with the guy operating the ferry.
My own response is more cynical. I’ve seen this sort of snowjob in the humanities as well, and the person behaving a la Mann is not necessarily a ‘fundamentalist believer’ in global warming or his own science: quite the opposite. Crosspatch, Lucy, and others. you have got the source of Mann, Jones et al.’s fundamentalism wrong. The fundamentalism they display is to serve the anti-humanist ’cause’ at all costs – especially since there’s a lot of money to be made for them. The cause is political, not scientific: to punish selfish consumers of the developed world and selfish breeders of the developing world for their sins against Gaia.
When I see a snow-job like Mann’s responses to Severinghaus, my instinct is to think that Mann does not believe what he is saying to Severinghaus, but that he is trying to distract Severinghaus from focusing on the naked truth about Mann et al.’s attempts to simulate science. Mann is a fundamentalist believer of grants and his ability to wrest fame from science and influence policy: ie. he believes in his own power.
Somebody who lies like Mann is not a ‘religiously’ fundamentalist believer in his own science. You do true religious fundamentalists a discredit here, because fundamentalist Christians, for example, by and large are not ardently engaged in the duplicity combined with self-deception and self-aggrandizement embodied in Mann (unless you have in mind the equally fake televangelist scammers).
The tree rings should be able to replicate which temperature record?? Satellite, ground, raw, adjusted, global, local…????
Kaboom says:
November 28, 2011 at 10:02 am
If it doesn’t follow the measured temperature record it isn’t a proxy for temperature, end of story.
============================
Oddly the decline shown in Briffa 2001 (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/briffa-osborn_2002_gate.png) does have some resemblance to the measured N
H record as published in 1968 (http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/1107_FigureA.jpg) and 1976 (http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Northern hemisphere temperatures/NHNatGeo76small.jpg), i.e. the mid-60s in a trough about as deep as c.1900.
That second link: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Northern hemisphere temperatures/NHNatGeo76small.jpg
Still, it looks to me that the other researchers did not hide their decline, and that their proxies follow the measured temperature for a while after 1960, even accuratly describing a temporary short downward inflection at the end – great modelling really, Only in the most recent years did the observed temperature catapult away from the treerings. the fact that mann hid his declining results does not detract from the general idea of the hockey stick or am I missing something. For me the questions are 1) why the divergence between measured and proxy in recent years and 2) why do the proxy results of different researchers converge towards the present time ? ?
Jimbo says:
November 28, 2011 at 11:36 am
Eureka!
Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test.
Sincerely,
Jeff
March 19, 2008
WUWT Bristlecone Pines: Treemometers or rain gauges ?
One of the graphs Steve McIntyre recently produced was this one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would think GROUND temperature is the deciding factor for temperatures. Seeds do not sprout and crops do not grow until the ground is warm enough after that it is nutrients, sunlight, length of day and rainfall that are the factors. Some plants, mainly annuals like rye or pansies, have an upper temperature limit but most plants tolerate a wide range in temperature and still grow if there is enough rain and sunlight.
Once the GROUND is warm enough, I would think water, sunlight and nutrients are the deciding factors with water (rain) being the most important. You are not going to get a growth spike from nutrients without adequate rain fall, and the rain has to have a reasonable distribution. Drought all summer with a few hurricanes dumping several inches is not the same as gentle rain a couple times a week.
The only reason I can see for trees to correlate at all with temp is because the ocean cycles link to wind patterns and you get warm/wet vs cool/dry or whatever at various locations as the wind patterns change. (Stephen Wilde’s “loopy Jets” and El Niño/trade winds)
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Extreme_2010_Russian_Fires_and_Pakistan_Floods_Linked_Meteorologically_999.html
El Niño and Trade Winds: http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html
You also can not leave out the sun and cloud cover.
Mr. Moderator,
You should be informed that the Facebook box in this posting overlaps the graph next to it. The box insists on being bigger than the margin all other ads are living in.
This is very aggravating as ti covers the 20th century which is the part of the graph being discussed.
@Rational Debate
Just a note on your comment on the Severinghaus quotation — he does not necessarily share in the ‘illogic’ of The Team in the use/misuse of paleo records, since one part of his quote does include the (somewhat cryptic) remark that “In this case there is trouble for the paleo record.”
In other words (unless I am misreading his admittedly brief remark), he may be gesturing toward “trouble” in potentially many eras of the paleo tree-ring records and not only toward a contemporary time-frame. At least, I have not seen where Severinghaus believes or assumes that the paleo tree-ring approach has been validated across centuries and millenia of data.
In any case, my comment has no bearing on misbehaviors of The Team etc., it’s simply pointing out that Severinghaus does not seem to share in their outlooks and behaviors from what we have seen so far…. (???)
vigilantfish says: November 28, 2011 at 6:47 pm
ok let’s do best scientific practice between us. Your criticism alerts me to distinguish between Jones whom I regard as principally a fundie believer, temperamentally vulnerable to the nasty intensification of Milgram programming (do read up Milgram, it’s quite a revelation); Mann whom I regard as an egotist, bully and serial liar, for whom fame was the prize to keep at all costs, and Trevor Davies whom I regard as the money-grabber. Davies the Dosh needed Jones the saintly front. Penn State needed Mikey the showcasing showman. So – imo the Team has a full range of science-obliterating characteristics from saintly fundies to fear-based greenies to bullies, whose common language looks like salvational science; their roadies are the money people whose spoken line is “we know AGW is probably real, but we need the research to nail this to help us establish global limits; can you sciency people help us?” and whose unspoken line is “always stay one step ahead of the others, if you want to make money”
That better??
@ur momisugly Lucy Skywalker:
Thanks for reminding me about Milgram. I am a great admirer of your comments and am willing to concede game, set and match to your masterful and insightful analysis. I had been inclined to see Jones and Mann as the obverse US/British sides of one coin, but you have been following this story with great dedication and obviously have detected nuances which have passed me by. If the Milgram context applies to Jones, how much moral culpability does he carry? Authority is a powerful moral neutralizer for the weak, which is what Jones would be if this were the case.
An important source of nutrients for plants is airborne dust. In the industrial era this included particulates from burning of coal and other fuels. These particulates increased until around 1960 then decreased as clean air acts were introduced in the developed world.
This explains the rapid rise in tree ring proxy derived temperatures through the late 19th and 20th century and the decline post 1960.
It also explains the divergence post 1960 as decreasing particulates and aerosols substantially caused the rise in the thermometer temperature record, by causing an increasing Tmin due to increased early morning insolation (in the absence of aerosols/particulates aka smoke and haze).
If I am right there should be a large divergence in tree ring trends between places like the USA, Russia and India.
I think what everyone missed in Mann’s work was the “and then a miracle occurs”, which completely explains the divergence between the proxy and the actual temperature.
Or it could be that the bristlecone pines are racist deniers. I can’t decide which.
If the past and present can be manipulated, the future can be manipulated.