Some background from the original “hide the decline” from Steve McIntyre here
Despite relatively little centennial variability, Briffa’s reconstruction had a noticeable decline in the late 20th century, despite warmer temperatures. In these early articles [e.g. Briffa 1998], the decline was not hidden.
For most analysts, the seemingly unavoidable question at this point would be – if tree rings didn’t respond to late 20th century warmth, how would one know that they didn’t do the same thing in response to possible medieval warmth – a question that remains unaddressed years later.
He writes now in Hide-the-Decline Plus
Indeed, they did not simply “hide the decline”, their “hide the decline” was worse than we thought. Mann et al did not merely delete data after 1960, they deleted data from 1940 on, You can see the last point of the Briffa reconstruction (located at ~1940) peeking from behind the spaghetti in the graphic below:
Detail from Mann et al (EOS 2003) Figure 1. Arrow points to Briffa series peeking out from behind the spaghetti
Had Mann et al used the actual values, the decline would have been as shown in the accompanying graphic:
Figure 3. Re-stated Mann et al (EOS 2003) Figure 1 showing the decline.
Had Mann and his 13 co-authors shown the Briffa reconstruction, without hiding the decline, one feels that von Storch (and others) might have given more consideration to Soon et al’s criticism of the serious problem arising from the large-population failure of tree ring widths and density to track temperature.
Read the whole article Hide-the-Decline Plus
Make this known far and wide.
I like “Meltdown Mann” to describe this new era
@richard and Lucy
Richard writes, “A claim that the deletion date makes it “worse than we thought” invites argument about splicing dates which can only obscure the fact that the splicing is unforgiveable whatever the date of the splice.”
That is the salient point. One can think of Anthony calling it ‘Worser that we thot’ or some other such bad-grammar parody because that is what it is: a parody of science.
Equally astonishing is Gavin’s management of the content and deletions at RC. I have appreciated the exposure (on another thread) of the ideology and financing, the support and backroom connections that led to the creation and continuation of this US Government Agency-tolerated attack on the academic and science communities and the knee-jerk defence of the indefensible.
Richard’s comparison of stitching together of monkey and ape bones with the stitching of strings of spreadsheet numbers is apropos. That is it exactly: knowing fraud advertised as fact for the purpose of reaping money from the gullible, defended by co-conspirators in return for a portion of the lucre. Others, not wanting to be left out, gradually add support to the ‘Piltdown’ claims with ‘maybes’ and ‘probablys’ to the extent they can get part of the gate receipts. The trading firms want to sell Piltdown futures and derivatives to ward off the (probable) coming invasion from the Planet of the Piltdown Apes.
As RealClimate is the most visible US advertising agency furthering the nefarious scheme (and involving some of the highest profile perpetrators), would it not be appropriate for the Department of Homeland Security to investigate the international and political connections leading through the agency that brought RC together to determine the domestic security risk posed by what appears to be a small group of local and foreign agents intent on gaining a powerful influence over domestic and foreign policy decisions? Their behaviour is not accidental. Speaking only of the RC connection to foreign interests, this is the work of a determined and well-connected group determined to silence a proper investigation of the links (if any) between AG CO2 emissions and climate change (if any). That the US-DOE funded or funds this years’-long attack on US-based science, academia and self-governance should also be of interest to the DoHS as the primary result has been (at the least) to denigrate the US in the eyes of the international community all the while extracting funds and where possible directing it to researchers whose agenda meets with their approval.
Why should US taxpayers fund that? Incredible!
This has gone on far too long. And the reason it has, I believe, is because we’re not asking the right questions.
Forget all of the temp reconstructions and rebuttals for a minute. Forget the “hide the decline” for a bit. Hiding the decline is every bit as valid as the methods used to construct the graph in the first place. Pick a graph, any graph, it doesn’t have to be Mann’s or Briffa’s or…. it doesn’t matter…..it is all invalid science and math. And it would be laughable if it not for so many people lending this madness validity.
Tree rings? Conifers grow when the mean temp gets ablove 46°F. For these, the growth season is about 6-8 weeks. (Think high elevations and places like Yamal) Tell me, what is the mean temperature when there is no tree growth. WE DON’T HAVE A LOWER VALUE TO DETERMINE A MEAN!!! It is impossible to get a daily, seasonal, yearly, decadal, or century mean by looking at tree rings! IT isn’t valid math. It isn’t valid science. It doesn’t matter what form of statistical wizardry one uses, it still involves inventing a number(and in most cases numbers) to get a mean. It is invalid, because the base assumption is invalid. YOU CAN NOT GET A MEAN TEMP FROM LOOKING AT A TREE RING! It doesn’t matter how you look at it.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/dividing-by-zero/
Anthony etal,
I called Congressman Ralph Halls main number, put the person there on to getting this thread to the attention of his staff help on the House Science Committee. I used 202-225-6673. Others here might know other members of the committee and pass it to them also.
Or even you Anthony might make sure the lawyers on that committee see the above fraud.
It is what it is. Acting together like they did makes them possible RICO con-artist.
Fascinating. I read where Steve McIntyre was trying to untangle the spaghetti and saw when he actually posted the result. So this is the other shoe.
I realize the money aspect of all this AGW stuff and I understand that jerks like Al Gore and grant grubbers stand to make lots of moola but what I simply will never understand is why, why, why are there so many enviros and politicians who do not stand to profit for AGW but who are still, in the face of literally no good, honest evidence, determined for a climate apocalypse to be true? It must be nothing more than a doomsday cult with a thin veneer of “science” as supporting its bizarre beliefs. Why wouldn’t anyone (except the likes of Mann, Hansen, Jones, Gore, Thompson, etc.) be damned glad that its just a hoax?
Don’t forget out Solar friend. TSI has a role also as plants utilise quantum effects in Photosynthesis. The quantum makeup of the photon has a role which is linked to TSI,
(i’m sure I can come up with some spaghetti graphs to prove it!)
I’m in hopes that: Especially, Dr Ball’s Attorneys are watching.
Question: Why doesn’t the snap shot of the close up of the EOS posted by Steve McIntyre match the actual EOS. Any takers??……….. (in original EOS…nothing crosses over the red line infront it)
Original:
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/Soon.EosForum20032.pdf
Steve’s Snap-Shop:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/mann_eos_emulate21.png
@Johnnythelowery
I think it is because Steve used a postscript version of the graph, which is much higher resolution and due to being vector based can be expanded to almost any size.
Theo Goodwin says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:28 am
“How can the record be a pretty good reflection of what we know from other data over the past 600 years yet the proxy understates the warmth to the degree found in hide the decline?”
That ‘pretty good reflection’ applies only to the period from 1400 to 1940. In other words it includes neither the warmth of the MWP nor the warmth of the late 20th century.
As I said, a shifting of climate zones leading to, over time, an interplay between cold and drought leads to a good match for cold periods which accurately reflect the cold induced growth slowdown but a bad match for warm periods because warm periods give drought induced growth slowdown.
So you get slower growth both in cold spells and at the peak of warm spells with the best growth in between when it is neither too cold nor too dry.
To explain that outcome one simply must acknowledge that the cause is a shift in climate zones especially the movement of the rain bearing jets first poleward and then equatorward. Probably in a long (in our terms) solar induced multicentennial cycle.
Dear ‘Dear!’ Steve: LucySkywalker posted a link to the EOS paper i believe you are discussing here. I note the plot on the original EOS paper is not the same as your pot shop blowup version and the version. Nothing in the EOS original plot passes over the big fat red line. They are not the same?? Just saying. —- Cheers Johnnnny
Steve – excellent question. It seems that there are TWO versions of this graphic. I downloaded the paper in Nov 2003 and was using the version as published at EOS. Lucy’s link is to a version posted at Hans von Storch’s website in which the order of line plots is different – so that the big red line is on top of all others.
——————————————————-
Thanks Anthony. Steve posted a response i pasted above. Never mind. Sorry all.
Once again, since I can draw a horizontal line through nothing but grey (error range of the postulation), I can just as validly assert that mean global temperature has remained precisely constant for the last 2000 years.
Why can I not get an award, applause, and a perpetual pension?
log onto http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au australian govt will not release climate paper saying only 1mm or less sea level rise in sydney very interesting
Veritas, now you see why GS won the Climate Communications Prize!
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/a-deserved-award-for-gavin-schmidt-of-real-climate-and-nasa/
NK says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:36 am
“The CO2 theory is a valid theory of physical science;”
That makes it a valid theory, something quite different from a fact
Johnnythelowery says:
December 1, 2011 at 8:22 am
Question: Why doesn’t the snap shot of the close up of the EOS posted by Steve McIntyre match the actual EOS. Any takers??……….. (in original EOS…nothing crosses over the red line infront it)
Original:
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/Soon.EosForum20032.pdf
Steve’s Snap-Shop:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/mann_eos_emulate21.png
==============================================================
You’re referencing a different graphical representation….. that’s why….. go here for the one I think Steve is using…. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2006Q2/211/articles_optional/Mann_on_Soon2003.pdf
Of course, this is interesting all by itself………
Spaghettigate!
My two cents: Multiple tree ring chronologies were not a problem til Mann began reinterpreting them and creating his own to show new, “exciting” results for largescale warming. Boring, pre-1998 chronologies (Huber Lamb, for example) pointed toward a localized: warm Roman Period, warm Medieval Period between the 11th and 14th centuries, cooling Little Ice Age, and slightly warmer 20th century. In other words, just what other proxies and historical records already showed.
Steve McIntyre documents in his article how Mann went from his position as a young climate researcher to a known figure in 1998 when he began to prominently featured his own graphs of unprecedented 20th century warming, using principal component analysis. IPPC appointed him to a lead author position for that year’s report – and Briffa was left behind, apparently out of work
The modern “divergence” quandary seems less a problem if we remain skeptical of the instrumental temperature record as well as the tree ring records. If the e-mails show one thing, it is that ALL the records have issues if they’ve been created in an atmosphere of agenda-building. Flags for such issues probably first appeared with the first proclamations that “global warming” and “global cooling” were, in fact, “problems”.
Because then “an avalanche of answers must be found too fast.” E.g., about the veracity of their idols and trusted sources. And their echo chamber. If they were wrong about this, what else might they be wrong about?
And also because they’ve seen what happens to those who break ranks (e.g., Dyson)–shunning or maligning. It’s safer to be one of the herd of independent minds.
And because they want to maintain their stance as outsider/rebels, accusatory prophets. They don’t want to make their peace with The System in any shape or form. That reduces their “cred” among their coterie.
@Johnnythelowery
“Question: Why doesn’t the snap shot of the close up of the EOS posted by Steve McIntyre match the actual EOS. Any takers??……….. (in original EOS…nothing crosses over the red line infront it)”
++++
I understand from reading at CA that there is a sescond possible explanation which is that McIntyre reproduced the work from the data. That explains how he was able to produce the plot showing what the rest of the curve looks like if you do not delete the data. Not so? When re-running the plot he can make whichever line he wants to appear on top. Otherwise, where did the plot of the rest of the data come from? It was not the intention of the authors to let anyone know about the rest of the data because it undermines their core claim that tree rings are relevant to temperature reconstruction.
With due respect, I disagree. At best, AGW rises to the level of hypothesis. Others argue AGW never left the realm of conjecture, given that as a hypothesis (or theory), it is unfalsifiable (any weather event, it seems, is blamed on AGW). If something is not falsifiable, it is at best a weak hypothesis, or just plain old conjecture.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:37 am
Stephen, what you offer are hunches, very sophisticated hunches. I believe that we should demand rigorously formulated and well confirmed physical hypotheses about the many factors that affect tree growth, factors such as changes in moisture and sunlight. To ask for anything less is to settle for something less than science. The Team led everyone to believe that their graph reflected empirical research. We must emphasize that they were not truthful in that claim.
While I’m not ready to state that we can’t learn anything from tree rings, these shenanigans cause me to wonder whether it isn’t time to consign dendroclimatology to the dustbin of history along with other pseudosciences like phrenology.
It is understandable that Mann and his co-conspirators fight so hard to obscure the truth. They find themselves in the unenviable position of having spent their entire professional lives engaged in a “science” with no greater power of discerning past climate than charting bumps on peoples’ heads was in discerning their character and intellectual abilities.
Richard Courtney sez:
“Simply, the splicing of parts of two different data sets is not acceptable: it is plain wrong. And I have been saying it is wrong since the week that MBH98 was published. Nothing should be allowed to distract from the facts that the splicing is plain wrong and was done with malice of forethought.”
The same can be said for splicing the *daily* CO2 record from Mauna Loa onto the ice core CO2 proxy data, which reflects app. *1500 year* mechanical smoothing.
And it is with malice aforethought.
They had to get rid of the decline, and they did.
They had to get rid of natural variability, and they did by:
Getting rid of the MWP and the LIA, and
Getting rid of the warming of the 1930’s and the cooling from the 1940s to the 1970’s.
They had to get rid of the UHI.
They had to do something about the empirical refutation of the missing upper tropospheric fingerprint or hot spot – so Ben Santer rides to the rescue to smear the error bars.
It goes on and on and on. Basically any threat to their claims is “gotten rid of” with a bogus paper or counter-paper, and professional retaliation and career destruction of the scientists and journal editors in question.
Regards,
Apparently Mann and friends are very familiar with a couple of Murphy’s law variants. The first variant is, Given careful control of temperature, light, humidity, and pressure, the damn thing will do whatever it wants. The second variant is, First draw your curve, then plot your points.