What with the ongoing catastrophe in Afghanistan and the earthquake in Haiti, among other news, you may have failed to notice that the IPCC came out on Monday with substantial parts of its long-awaited Sixth Assessment Report on the state of the world’s climate. This is the first such assessment issued by the IPCC since 2014. The most important piece is the so-called “Summary for Policymakers,” (SPM), a 41 page section that is the only part that anyone ever reads.
The IPCC attempts to cloak itself in the mantle of “science,” but its real mission is to attempt to scare the bejeezus out of everyone to get the world to cede more power to the UN. Beginning with its Third Assessment Report in 2001, the lead technique for the IPCC to generate fear has been the iconic “hockey stick” graph, supposedly showing that world temperatures have suddenly shot up dramatically in the last 100 or so years, purportedly due to human influences. The 2001 Third Assessment Report thus prominently featured the famous Hockey Stick graph, derived from the work of Michael Mann and other authors. Here is that graph from the 2001 Report:
As longtime readers here know, the Hockey Stick was then demolished by the work of Canadian mathematician Stephen McIntyre through his work at his website Climate Audit. The main issue was that the temperature “proxies” that had been used to create the “shaft” of the Hockey Stick, particularly various tree ring series, could not be shown to have any close relationship to actual temperatures; and moreover, there were strong reasons from many sources to think that the Medieval Warm Period (approximately 1000 – 1300 AD) had been warmer than the present.
And then came the ClimateGate emails of 2009. From my post of February 22, 2018:
The coup de grace for the Hockey Stick graph came with the so-called Climategate emails, released in 2009. These were emails between and among many of the main promoters of the climate scare (dubbed by McIntyre the “Hockey Team”). Included in the Climategate releases were emails relating specifically to the methodology of how the graph was created. From the emails, skeptical researchers . . . discovered that the graph’s creators had truncated inconvenient data in order to get the desired depiction.
One particular series that had gone into creation of the Hockey Stick had come from a guy named Keith Briffa. Briffa’s series diverged greatly from actual temperatures, going down (declining) substantially after about 1960 when temperatures measured by thermometers had gone up. This fact needed to be concealed in order to sustain the Hockey Stick presentation. So the creators simply deleted the inconvenient information. The most famous of the ClimateGate emails, copied among various Hockey Stick participants (including Mann), dated November 16, 1999, discussed the situation in these terms:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
In any rational world, that email alone would have ended the careers of all of these participants. In the actual world where we live, Mann continues to hold a prestigious position at Penn State University, and in February 2018 he won the AAAS award for “Public Engagement With Science.”
And with that background, we come to this week’s SPM. After a few preliminaries, here’s the big scary headline:
Human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years
And to prove it? Yes, it is another Hockey Stick graph. Although coming from different authors and seemingly different data, it bears a striking resemblance to the Mann, et al., graph of 2001.
McIntyre is promptly on the job again. Here is his post of August 11, basically dismantling the new Hockey Stick. If you have a taste for a lot of technical detail, I urge you to read the whole thing. But the gist is actually simple. This time these people were not going to get caught furtively “hiding the decline.” Instead, they announce boldly that they are simply going to exclude any data that do not fit the narrative that they are putting forth.
McIntyre goes through multiple of the data series that contribute to the “shaft” of the new stick. Most just appear to be random fluctuations up and down. But then there are the few key series that show the sharp 20th-century uptick needed to support the Hockey Stick narrative. One such series is the McKenzie Delta tree ring series from Porter, et al., of 2013. McIntyre goes back to that Porter article and quotes the passage that describes how the researchers chose those trees that would contribute to the series::
Got that? It’s a “divergence-free chronology.” You can get that by simply excluding any data that don’t conform to the result that you want. And you don’t even have to exclude whole trees from the series, but only those portions from a particular tree that just don’t seem to be going along.
McIntyre comments:
They took “hide the decline” to extremes that had never been contemplated by prior practitioners of this dark art. Rather than hiding the decline in the final product, they did so for individual trees: as explained in the underlying article, they excluded the “divergent portions” of individual trees that had temerity to have decreasing growth in recent years. Even Briffa would never have contemplated such woke radical measures.
I watch the CAGW fanatics on TV and think I am seeing three different types of action: Stupid, Delusional, and Dishonest. The Delusional ones manage to deliver their dire predictions with no signs of lying, this is the problem with Delusional. John Ketchup Kerry is simply dishonest, but enjoying the good life traveling around the world and lecturing everyone. Stupid? Well, scientifically stupid, most actors are in this catagory.
having read Kerry’s speech in which he describes co2 as being a thin band about 1/4′ thick surrounding the planet at the top of the atmosphere I certainly think he deserves inclusion in the stupid category .
I like the opposing statements in the second graphic (also the lead in graphic)
“Warmest multi century period in more than 100,000 years” (indicating a top of 1C)
AND
“Warming is unprecedented in more than 2000 years” (Observed)
It would seem to me that If the max was 1C in the last 100,000 years and the current is 1.2C that the second statement is incorrect OR it is false to begin with
Ron, I think Kerry has all the bases covered; Stupid, Delusional, and Dishonest.
One would think that ‘Hypocritical’ would fit in there somewhere, but there’s no room for that when someone like Kerry is stupid, delusional, and dishonest.
–
“What, me? I’m the greenest guy on the planet. I am. Really, I am.”
I’m pretty sure that’s how Lurch views himself.
“I’m the greenest guy on the planet.”
At sea, someone that is green is someone that doesn’t know very much and has little experience. (Or someone who is seasick but that is a different thing altogether.)
Maybe fits quite well in fact.
Well, at least they know they are liars and are not hiding that fact.
No, this piece is riddled with lies. It’s really just thinly-veiled click bait, but real skepticism is dead at WUWT so they’re readily ignored if they confirm the bias.
pLoydo : back to your playdo time .
Don’t forget to put it back in the container and put the lid on it .
I am skeptical of anything Loydo says … troll on little one 🙂
“real skepticism is dead at WUWT”
Please tell us, Lloydo, where we can find some of that there “real skepticism.”
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
…
Skepticism is Believing
You use “real scepticism is dead” in a barrage of unfounded accusations because you don’t want anyone to take notice of the criticism.
A good example of the sort of flak that you get when you’re over the target.
Ha ha ha, what YOU really mean to say is that you are so aggrieved by the smashdown by McIntire that you are in tears, which is why you are screaming out in anger with unsupported tripe because you can’t address it.
It is clear you have no counterpoint to offer but you do show an window to the irrational warmist/alarmist mindset.
The ‘Contrarian’ states that the Mann Hockey Stick included datasets from Keith Briffa that showed the ‘Divergence Problem’, and that Mann deleted the inconvenient portion in his study.
Both these statements are unequivocally false. ‘Anti-science’ indeed.
John: The MC was referring to the presentation of the hockey stick plot in the IPCC AR4, not the Nature papers. In the AR4, he was attempting to show how other data sets “confirmed” the Nature plots. But the Briffa data sets went down when the hockey stick went up.
The diagram in the AR4 deletes this downturning section. Unequivocally TRUE!
Nice try but nope.
The 2001 Third Assessment Report thus prominently featured the famous Hockey Stick graph, derived from the work of Michael Mann and other authors. Here is that graph from the 2001 Report.
and the illustration is unequivocally Mann Bradley and Hughes 99. The exact same picture was featured at this very site.
One particular series that had gone into creation of the Hockey Stick had come from a guy named Keith Briffa. Briffa’s series diverged greatly from actual temperatures, going down (declining) substantially after about 1960 when temperatures measured by thermometers had gone up. This fact needed to be concealed in order to sustain the Hockey Stick presentation. So the creators simply deleted the inconvenient information.
There’s no way this is anything other than Menton falsely accusing Mann et al of fraud.
I think you mean AR3, and again, nope.
https://deepclimate.org/2010/06/29/revisiting-tar-figure-2-21-part-1-another-false-claim-from-steve-mcintyre/
Loydo
Pray tell where and please include your sources
Thank you (not that you will respond with data sources)
You must not stay up too long past your bedtime, you your brain cells cannot take the strain of thinking about reality!!! You just get tired & irritable & start stamping your feet & screaming with your fingers in your ears, get some sleep, you know it makes sense!!! 😉
Ex cathedra statement.
Certainly Loydo has credentials, a certification of any kind of diploma stating his competence to evaluate the presence, absence and level os skepticism.
So, please, Loydo, tell us where you have made your studies, and eventually where you obtained your PhD diploma in “Critical Studies of Skepticism”.
Loydo is skeptical of the skeptics.
Actually, he’s just trying to diminish a website that challenges the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.
On a second thought:
This Loydo comment is riddled with lies. It’s really just thinly-veiled click bait, but the real Loydo is dead so this fake Loydo will be readily ignored by everyone, even by those who believe in AGW.
More projection from Loydo. Color me not surprised.
Once again, the “Hockey Schtick” is not science, but statistical malfeasance.
AS I asked before in a different thread, I really wonder at which point this “academicmisleading” becomes a criminal offense, given that this diagram is published in a summary for policy makers deciding among other things about the financial future of these authors
I think we are going to have to wait a loooooong time before any of this “anti-science” becomes a criminal offense.
Lysenko was deemed a Hero of Socialist Labour (the academic equivalent of the Hero of the Soviet Union).
He was also awarded the Order of Lenin EIGHT TIMES for his anti-science.
The veracity (or lack thereof) of the science does not matter, under authoritarian regimes all that matters is that your “science” matches what those in power require.
Yeah, and that chart in the head post is lying when it describes the temperatures as “observed”. The actual observed temperatures have been manipulated in a computer and changed.
No historic, unmodified, regional surface temperature chart from anywhere in the world shows a Hockey Stick chart “hotter and hotter” temperature profile. They all show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
The bogus Hockey Stick charts are distorting the temperature record in order to sell the Human-caused Climate Change scam.
Here’s a regional surface temperature chart that does not have a Hockey Stick chart profile, the U.S. Hansen 1999 chart. The U.S. temperature profile, showing it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, is representative of all regional surface temperature charts from around the world.
And then you have the bogus, bastardized, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart which looks completely different from the regional charts.
So how do you get from the U.S. profile to the bogus Hockey Stick profile? The only thing I can think of is to fraudulently manipulate the actual temperature data until it looks the way you want it to look.
The regional surface temperature charts tell the story of the climate in our recent past.
The bogus, computer-generatied Hockey Stick is a falsehood hiding behind science, and meant to sell an agenda. Without the Hockey Stick chart, the alarmists would have nothing to point to that would scare anyone.
The unmodified, regional surface temperature charts represent the REAL temperature profile of the world. We shouldn’t let a cabal of bastardizers to change our view of the Earth’s climate.
The REAL surface temperature profile of the Earth shows we are not experiencing unprecedented warming, as the alarmist claim, and therefore, we have no reason to worry about, or regulate CO2. That’s what the real data says.
“So how do you get from the U.S. profile to the bogus Hockey Stick profile? “
How about the fact that the contiguous US is just 1.5% of the Earth’s surface?
How about the fact that the contiguous States have most of the weather stations in the world historically and thus are most representative of the global temperature in the northern hemishpere.
How about the fact that other regional charts from around the world show the same temperature profile. Combined they cover the entire world. And they all show the same temperature profile.
So how do we get from that profile to one that looks nothing like it? We have regional charts that dispute the global temperature profile. Which profile should we believe? I’ll go with the one that was created before politics got into climate science, the one shown in the written, historic temperature records of the world.
In fairness to Briffa he wasn’t the one who truncated his series. it Was Mann, and I have heard it suggested that Briffa may have been the source of the leaked climategate emails
In fairness to Briffa he was only saved from investigation into his involvement with Mann by being off work on sick leave.
At exactly the same time that all the evidence of malfeasance was gathered in the ‘Harry_read_me’ file inside UEA CRU.
The police worked out that Russian spies targeted the UEA by infiltrating it, gathering that data in an English named file and then… walked out without taking it so as other Russian could hack the CRU to get it. A strangely inefficient tactic but the police were convinced.
Climategate!
Then they circled the wagons and Briffa was welcomed back in – can’t afford to have him telling what he knew about Mann’s Nature Trick.
So we should be grateful to Keith Briffa.
The only person with then means, motive and opportunity to leak Climategate.
I love how the Russians are always at fault…never the CIA, Chicoms or DNC 🤔
Shirley it would have to have been a mail server administrator that could access, search and scrape the archives to compile the files?
Any one of Briffa’s rank could have requested it.
Internally.
There was the little thing of the data being a complete dogs breakfast of disarray … so much so that it was the only real slap on the wrist that Phil Jones and the others at the CRU received during the white-wash.
“Shirley it would have to have been a mail server administrator that could access, search and scrape the archives to compile the files?”
Not necessarily…and don’t call me Shirley.
Briffa doesn’t deserve any slack. He was as complicit, and dishonest, as the rest of them. His Yamal “one tree” is proof of that.
“What with the ongoing catastrophe in Afghanistan…”
Will there will be a Taliban representative coming to the Glasgow COP26 in November? I’m not trying to be provocative, there is a serious question here. Does anybody expect the Taliban to honour Afghanistan’s commitments to the Paris Agreement?
Afghanistan Submits its Climate Action Plan Ahead of 2015 Paris Agreement | UNFCCC
No, Talibans’ crop of choice, grows larger fruit in the warmer weather.
I suspect that Afghanistan’s economic development will meet their Paris targets under the Taliban.
Well why shouldn’t the Taliban queue up with all the other kleptocrats and dictators to get their greedy little mitts onto the climate cash that we are shelling out. After all they have Swiss bank accounts too and provaly super -yachts and Rolls Royces to buy too.
Reading the headlines yesterday it was not so much horror that the taliban had taken over Afghanistan, they were more concerned that there would be no violence in the takeover, in fact stating there had been a agreement between the Afghanistan authorities and the taliban,even as the president fled,the civilian Airport was reported closed,while the military part under control of uk,usa was open ,so there must of again been a agreement with the taliban. That to me sounds like the west conceeded the inevitably of taliban back in power.
Does anybody expect the Taliban to honour Afghanistan’s commitments to the Paris Agreement?”
Its a hard one to call, but their wheeling and dealing in the background its possible.
The religious purges are sure to follow at some point.
Where? And who? Aren’t the majority of Muslim faith, the only difference is the interpretation of the faith?
I think you just answered your own question, with that key word: interpretation. Anyways I think the religion is just a veneer over the warlord core. Anyone the top leadership has suspicions about had better be already out of the country.
Islam has always been its own worst enemy. To a fundamentalist Taliban Suni, there is approximately 10% of the population who are “criminal”, Shiite heretics. That’s roughly 22 million people they can start with. Now there’s a real project for them to get their teeth into.
The savagery of the Taliban sect prior to the 2001 invasion is well documented. I recommend reading:
https://www.jihadwatch.com
Warning, not pleasant.
It shouldn’t be all that hard for them to show reduced emissions. Their country is in a shambles, what emissions can a stone-age economy possible have?
My father, who gets all his news from CNN, is also an avid warm-monger on climate change. He claims that the latest IPCC report was so bad that Toyota and General Motors will only manufacture electric cars, and no more gasoline-powered models.
If they want to go broke, that is. Given the price and weight of the required batteries, their competitors will undoubtedly fill the vacuum with cheaper gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. No wonder even Sleepy Joe, who canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, is now begging OPEC to export more crude oil.
By the way, Middle East crude is heavier and has a much higher sulfur content than fracked oil from Texas and North Dakota. If Sleepy Joe loves the environment so much, will somebody ask him why he wants to import acid rain from the Middle East instead of using cleaner crude oil from Texas and North Dakota?
It’s a complicated question, better ask others 😀
You really meant to say:
It’s a Question, better ask the others…
“If Sleepy Joe loves the environment so much, will somebody ask him why he wants to import acid rain from the Middle East instead of using cleaner crude oil from Texas and North Dakota?”
I think Jen Psaki will have to circle back to you on that question.
PSnarki is on vacation, so the circle has large radius.
The flaming red circle of denial in the White House Press briefing room.
Does burning firewood to heat your home and cook count as renewable biomass or horrible smog causing pollution?
And how does the Paris agreement treat indigenous tribes and primitives such as the Afghanis?
Irrespective of Sulfur content of crude, the specification of Gasoline (and other products) remains same. There are appropriate technologies to do that job. Basically it will need more of hydroprocessing /hydrotreating followed by more load on ARU, SWS, SRU.
Hydro- here means processes involving hydrogen which will combine with Sulfur to take it out as H2S. And that H2S will ultimately produce liquid sulfur in SRU.
The professional scammers Climate Change zealots have two solutions and only two: if the peasants give up their liberty and money the scammers will protect us. No matter how many times they’re caught out, their motto is, “Never give up the con!”
The temp went down 0.5 C in 900 years?….then rose 1.0 C in 150 years? What’s the problem?
As I have previously asked about tree-ring proxies –
if the later proxies were found to be so unreliable that they were found to be unusable, what’s to prove that the centuries-old proxies were also so unreliable as to be unusable?
(In which case, the whole “hokey-schtick” construct would be bollocks?)
I feel like the section marked “reconstructed” should extend all the way to the far right of the graph.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
As the narrative starts to evaporate, the rhetoric ramps up to fever pitch. Those that have been caught up in the lies will do ANYTHING to avoid exposure as frauds. I mean ANYTHING. There will be absolutely no tactic that will be out of bounds.
The same thing is happening here in Australia with “the virus” as it has been renamed. The police are just allowed to make up new rules on the go- no vote in Parliament. Our freedoms and basic human rights are being suspended by the day.
The ever more shrill by the day rhetoric for cAGW and “the virus” is a sign that growing numbers of people are waking up. It is up to US to wake up more people by leading them to ask themselves the questions to wake themselves up. Questions break the spell of propaganda.
Questions are the answer.
The rhetoric will ramp up as WE work against the clock to get to the critical mass of people that have woken up to the sinister motives behind the perpetual scare. We need to get to 10% woken up to see the message go viral. We will just have to survive the “vaccine” for the deadly disease-Awareness (the deadly disease for those that seek to control ALL of us) which will be tyranny.
The same is true of this COVID-19 nonsense. As the evidence of failure of the so-called vaccines mounts, those bought of by Big Pharma get more and more shrill. These people would rather cut off both their thumbs than to admit a mistake or give up 1 nanometer of power.
The parallels between COVID-19 and “climate change” are eerily similar. Both use slurs to try to discredit anybody who dares to do research. The solution to both is less liberty and more government control. Both are promoted by a very vocal minority and not believed in by the silent majority. Both are based on some truth mixed it with a mountain of lies.
That’s because they are virtually being used for the same purpose. Whether it’s gain of power with “climate change” fraud of “gain of function” in the C-19 fiasco, it’s all about control. And yes rational voices are being silenced and cancelled, discredited and gaslighted. Half truths also figure high in any government involved conspiracy.
The vaccines are actually doing incredibly well compared to what a lot of researchers were hoping for when the pandemic began. No idea where that comes from.
As of the beginning of August about 60% of Israel’s serious cases were fully vaccinated. The challenge in making a Corona virus vaccination was never to make it effective but to make it persistent given the high rate of mutation. Many experts voiced this opinion before the government/MSM complex closed ranks. As was predicted, the virus is out-evolving the vaccine. Fortunately even the variants remain largely mild, there is broad and persistent natural immunity throughout the world brought about by normal healthy exposure of immune systems to the disease as opposed to the ephemeral resistance brought about by vaccination. Viruses normally present themselves in waves brought on by mutations but almost never remain problematic for more than two years. In spite of the valiant attempts to lengthen the curve, the large number of people exposed to the virus means that the story is almost over in spite of failed vaccines, failed lockdowns, failed social distancing and failed frenzy of face diapers. The take home message-if you are in a category that is vulnerable, don’t rely on governments or the UN to protect you. They don’t really care if you die because if they did they would have given Ivermectin, chloroquinine and vitamin D to everyone for a tiny fraction of the cost of the vaccines and the pointless tests.
The one thing going for us in the covid nonsense is that a lot of people who go into medicine actually do so for altruistic reasons. They want to alleviate suffering and help people. These people have been horrified by the “there is no treatment” rules and have continued to seek out treatments. It is no surprise that treatments do exist and are both effective and cheap. As more and more truth about corona viruses and the origin of Covid 19 come to light, people are becoming less willing to accept the new rules and restrictions…at least I fervently hope that is how it is going!
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Alliance-I-MASKplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf
I don’t suppose there is a lot of concern about masks, social distancing or jabs in Afghanistan at the moment
I’m sure Afghanistan has very little interest in C-19. There are better and bigger fish to fry there and no real government to benefit from the covid fraud.
The IPCC has gone into Lysenko territory here. The “results” fit their politics, so they no longer care.
That AR6 SPM had to reincarnate the infamous AR3 hockey stick con is, IMO, a good sign—they know their scare messaging isn’t working. FAR WG1 was about 400 pages. AR6 is almost 4000. More verbiage does not provide more enlightenment. It only covers up the many past abject IPCC prognostication failures, cause nobody will read it.
Weather Extremes are not more extreme.
UK children still know snow.
Polar bears are thriving.
Tuvalu is still there, with a new airport.
Renewables are failing as penetration increases.
China and India don’t care.
The bits of the SPM I saw were unreadable word salad.
That hockey stick is not happening because hockey stick and yet it happens.
Just as Carlo said, above … word salad.
The comment is not happening because the comment and yet it happens?????
Loydo is not making sense because Loydo, and yet it comments.
If it didn’t make sense you wouldn’t have got it, yet you got it.
So easy to trigger these Hockeystickistas with actual hockey sticks when the whole human endeavour has been hockey stick shaped.
More word salad. Somehow you don’t get that you’re the butt of the joke.
The hockey stick implies Edenic stasis. All of alarmist climate “science” is built on the myth of a past Edenic stasis of a perfect and unchanging climate. This never existed and never will exist.
So obviously true. You wonder why it is so hard for people to understand.
Eh?
Have you been on the sauce?
Translation here? Anyone? My parser died.
Where does this fit in your hockey stick?
AR3 = TAR, Third Assessment Report!!! We have had FAR, SAR, then TAR, then they got to the fourth, & realised they’d got things wrong & couldn’t go back to FAR, so they simply changed the nomenclature to AR4. That simply suggested to meat the time that the whole scam was a child’s game!!!
They probably discussed the obvious abbreviation ARF, and decided it sounded too much like the bad joke it is.
The IPCC does not care about the truth, or accuracy or even rebuttals. They know that ALL of the global NWO media will run with the report, and the sheeple will not look any further, or be skeptical. Mission accomplished.
Just look at this blog. Even when most are on the same side there have been feverish debates and bitter disagreements on the finer points of arguably the most complex subject on the planet. No wonder the IPCC can get away with being the go to source for MSM. They can make up any gibberish they want and have the imprimatur of the (infallible) UN and Nanny governments. The IPCC was incorporated to do exactly that. The public can’t know the truth.
If I recall correctly from having read reports 1-4, not just the SPMs, the basis of these so called reports was to take into account ALL aspects contributing to so called Climate Change, to include both natural as well as manmade contributions, yet the first objective was to totally dismiss ALL natural contributions unless they could be tagged into being a result of Human influence!!! I still have a problem with the casual dismissal of variations in Solar output as insignificant, when the Sun is a giant fusion reactor converting Hydrogen into Helium & possessing in excess of 99.99% of the mass of the Solar System, apparently has no effect on the Earth’s climate!!! I recall a BBC Horizon programme years back on the Sun, with beautiful photography & imagery, & the pig-ignorant actor doing the commentary sating at the end of the prog, “No one can fully explain what effect the power of the Sun has on the Earth’s climate, but whatever it is, it’s already been overtaken by manmade climate change!”, the most bizarre non-sensical non-scientific statement I have ever heard!!! Oh well, I wonder what a globul guvment will actually look like outside the UN’s fantasy world, full of un-elected, un-democratic, un-accountable, & un-sackable bureaucrats, paid vast sums of money barely taxed, their offspring schooled in the finest educational establishments OPM can buy!!! Just like the EU, special schools will established, costing £000s per year, teaching them how to be good Europeans – rulers that is, they would never be dictated to!!! The UKs is in Oxfordshire at a place near Culham. Oh how I do hope Poland splits from the EU, they’ve never truly known freedom & democracy, they were liberated from the Soviet Bloc, only to be subsumed into the EU!!!
I agree with your assessment. However, the problem is, those who discount the importance of solar fluctuations in the whole scheme of things are so practiced in their complex calculations, complete with energy budget this and heat transfer that squared, by so many watts per square meter over 1/4 of the TSI divided by the hypotenuse of the albido times two … both sides are now at logger heads and both sides are divided into various camps none of which will budge an inch from their rigidly held points of view. They’ve all spent so long in conflict defending their hypothesis they’re virtually unable to see anything contrary to their POV.
It’s all an easy target for the politically minded government apparatchiks looking to take over the world. They don’t care about the finer points or the complex proofs or the science or the ethics. They care about power and control.
Here’s what I don’t understand. Why do they have to use thermometer data at all? Just update the tree rings etc. up to the current data. If the tree ring data spikes like the thermometer data, they you have a rock solid case. If if doesn’t, then you don’t have a case.
It’s that simple. Of course, they don’t want simple. They want the narrative and updating the tree rings would fit the narrative. That’s not science. But you already knew that.
The real fact is: tree rings (dendrochronology) simply don’t make very good thermometers, regardless how gently they massage the proxy data. Mostly, any trend relies heavily on expectation bias.
This is actually an extremely good suggestion. Shirley someone can do this? If it shows no hockey stick, and I’m betting it won’t, then the handle or the blade of this hockey stick is bogus.
The only thing a tree ring tells you is if it was or wasn’t a good year for the tree or not. The thing it doesn’t tell you is why.
One particular series that had gone into creation of the Hockey Stick had come from a guy named Keith Briffa. Briffa’s series diverged greatly from actual temperatures, going down (declining) substantially after about 1960 when temperatures measured by thermometers had gone up. This fact needed to be concealed in order to sustain the Hockey Stick presentation. So the creators simply deleted the inconvenient information.
Sadly Mr Menton does not have clue one. The Briffa (and Osborn) studies that showed a decline were not used in the Mann et ‘Hockey Stick’. Mann did not delete or truncate anything. Not even the Auditor makes that claim. The Briffa studies were confined to the extratropics north of 20N and these data were not in the Hockey Stick multiproxy papers.
I know you guys like your stolen mails so here is one:
Mail from Dr Mann to Tom Karl.
Another one to add to my list of lies and myths about the Hockey Stick.
Peruse McIntyre and McKitrick’s brutal takedown of Mann’s hockey stick and get back to us. You can quibble all you want about “lies and myths” about the hockey stick but the hockey stick itself was a monumental lie and a myth.
https://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
Philips purpose here is to detract and mislead ,a trick he uses is to post on a thread a day old or so to disagree to provide a false narrative,
He knows everything he writes is utter balderdash. He specializes in half truths and long memory holed information to support his attacks.
Well, getting back on topic MC alleges Mann et al deleted adverse data, which would be a prima facie case of research fraud. You may be aware that Mann is currently suing Mark Steyn for defamation after Steyn made similar allegations of data tampering. I don’t suppose Mann would bother with a minnow like MC, but if he did he has all the ammunition he would need. The usual course would be to provide evidence of such allegations before posting which would be challenging – as there is none.
“. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the
inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. ”
https://web.archive.org/web/20100215071321/http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
The so called inquiry committee was a internal committee, they circled the wagons to protect mann and their own reputations , exactly as the university of East anglia did ,white wash,
The proof of man’s fraud is the emails which have been used and twisted in further legal arguments, if theres nothing to hide why have they not been made available legally ,you yourself over the last 3 days have mentioned them 3 times in the context of stolen, there are some 12,000 emails relating to this case with mann (climate gate) i have read several of them and there damming they read about minipulating data omitting data and adding data , these said emails have become the centre of a legal battle in a 2012 Court, where the judge at that time still refused to order their release ,, if there’s nothing to hide why not make them available,
If you think a internal inquiry is raising mann out of the swap of controversy think again, as Rory pointed out half truths and long memory are your trolling tactics , for instance you have never mentioned court cases mann has lost and ongoing cases , your injection on “stolen emails” 3 days ago is very telling ,telling of your game plan.
i have read several of them and there damming they read about minipulating data omitting data and adding data
Well – please furnish a single valid example.
The Penn State probe was indeed an internal enquiry. Remarkably, despite all the thousands of words expended on critical blogs, nobody had the guts to step forward out of their safe spaces to make an offical complaint, so the University had to ‘synthesise’ their own allegations.
There were, of course several other inquiries:
Myth: The University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.
Fact: Not true. Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.
US EPA
You know, there comes a point when the cries of whitewash, conspiracy and coverup – all with zero evidence – get just a little foolish.
Do you understand the term whitewash, a internal investigation by one’s own colleagues whose own reputations hang on said inquiry is questionable at the very least,
Exactly the same with the east anglia internal investigation, but that went a stage further with the sponsors of said university doing a investigation compounding the cover up.
If you think your own colleagues and peers can do a impartial investigation your deluded particularly when their own reputations and university reputations hang on a favourable conclusion.
So whats your beef philips who are you ,why at this point in time are you defending mann ? By your own statements mann is vindicated so why are you so worried?
“Do you understand the term whitewash, a internal investigation by one’s own colleagues whose own reputations hang on said inquiry is questionable at the very least”
Cuts both ways. If they conclude, as they did, that they examined all the evidence and found no indications of misconduct, and then it emerges that there was such misconduct, then their reputations are shot. But, as I said, nobody was willing to stick their neck out and make a formal complaint against Dr. Mann. Draw your own conclusions.
It’s been over two decades now, and the Hockey Stick has been the subject of hundreds of blog posts, many peer-reviewed papers, two national panels and and even a Congressional Hearing. No valid evidence of data manipulation has ever been uncovered. On the emails, these have been investigated by House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Science Assessment Panel,the Independent Climate Change Email Review,the US EPA, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce and US National Science Foundation. None of these bodies found any scientific misconduct.
As i said, there comes a point where the cries of conspiracy and coverup just become silly.
But you say you have read damning emails. I look forward to you sharing.
” Cuts both ways. If they conclude, as they did, that they examined all the evidence and found no indications of misconduct, and then it emerges that there was such misconduct, then their reputations are shot. ”
As earlier which you ignored there was a court case in 2012 were the judge for some reason would not allow 12,000 emails to be seen public , thats evidence that was brushed under the carpet , if theres nothing to hide why have the emails not been made public.
Your part answering, deflection to my posts is very telling philips
Eg
So whats your beef philips who are you ,why at this point in time are you defending mann ? By your own statements mann is vindicated so why are you so worried?
Heres a little something I hope you enjoy reading philips
Graham
Spanier, the Penn State president forced to
resign over Sandusky, was the same [one]
who investigated Mann. And, as with
Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to
find one of its star names guilty of any
wrongdoing.
If an institution is prepared to cover up
systematic statutory rape of minors, what
won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the
Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, [sic] he
remains the Michael Mann of climate change,
in part because his “investigation” by a deeply
corrupt administration was a joke.”
Fbi investigation philips, the same guy who so called investigated Mann
c CORRUPT
do you see why internal investigations don’t work and you philips hang weight on a corupt investigator, your a chancer ,a manipulator who hides the real truth .a little silly philips ?
” Well – please furnish a single valid example ” …….Happy to oblige . Tom Wigley’s infamous 1940’s blip email https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/climategate-email-warmist-tom-wigley.html
Your spin on Mickey Mann’s alleged lawsuit is amusing.
If you want to talk about ammunition, how are you going to avoid this shot across your bows? In the real world an ancient tree under a glacier demonstrates very quickly that the hockey stick is junk, or are you going to claim the tree trunk was hidden under the glacier by Steve McIntyre? Maybe Dr Soon managed to hide trunks under Swiss glaciers? Perhaps employees of evil Big Oil snuck off to Patagonia to continue the tree-trunk hiding activities?
It would be great fun to hear your excuses…
He is YADA, certainly.
I love it when people point at a huge chunk of website and say ‘the answer’s in there’, rather than, you know laying out a few basic arguments.
McIntyre’s critiques have all been shown to be one of two types
1 May have some merit but no impact. An example of this would be the non-centred PCA, which biases the outcome by a massive 0.02C (as shown in Wahl and Ammann 2005).
2 Would have an impact but has no merit. Examples of this would be the Red Noise nonsense and the accusations of invalid proxy selection
Read Wahl and Ammann. Read this. Then go Google Realclimate.org for ‘False Claim’ and ‘McKitrick and McIntyre’. The answers are all in there. 😉
PS McIntyre’s objection to the IPCC graph is a Type 1.
You seriously used Realclimate.org as a reference point of authority? Really?
That’s kind of like pointing to WUWT as hard evidence of the contrary point of view. WUWT has utility as a starting point but isn’t generally evidence. Same would be very true of Realclimate and I’m being generous with them.
You seriously used Climate Audit as a reference point of authority? Really?
Fixed that for you.
Not a very intelligent reply phillips ,looks like 24hrs have worn you out.
“A Disgrace to the Profession”, i.e. Mickey Mann
Forget the profession bit, he’s just a “Disgrace”!!!
Indeed.
You’re talking utter nonsense, double talk and half truths, as usual, especially edited to confuse those who aren’t familliar with the finer points of this fiasco … or simply can’t remember. A trip to McIntyre’s blog, Climate Audit can easily destroy your clutter with facts. If you actually believed the nonsense you write you’d have to be an idiot. But it’s clear you’re not that.
MBH (98) was utterly destroyed by M&M and I can still hear Mann’s squealing and hurt feelings now. The international cabal of climate frauds tried everything but science (ad hominem and gaslighting figured high) to discredit McIntyre and McKittrick, to no avail. The climategate emails nailed the lid on the AGW coffin … enter th equivocal term “climate change”.
Well said Rory,
Sorry, but Phillips is right, as far as which datasets Mann used. His Hs was, and is, still utterly bogus. But the author of this article doesn’t have his facts straight.
Wrong. I suggest you go to Climate Audit and learn the facts. It really has little to do with Mann’s data sets. The author of this article has done just fine. The only time Phillips was ever right was a complete accident.
It is everything to do with the datasets. MC is alleging Mann deleted adverse data, a serious and potentially actionable accusation to make with no evidence
. https://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
Where at CA does McIntyre assert that MBH used and then truncated ‘Briffa’ data, as alleged above?
As we’re interested in facts, all of a sudden.
I’ll wait.
This guy is picking up shtick from Nitpick Nick.
If I were to go to a public place and wrongly state you’d been committing fraud in your professional work, that would be a nitpick?
No Rory, I’m not wrong. I’ve been reading CA for over a decade. Please post a link to a CA article which supports the article author’s claim.
It has very much to do with Mann’s datasets. The only dataset he used which supported the idea of a hockey stick was bristlecone pines. Then he overweighted them by something like 400 times when he ran it through his algorithm.
“Hide the decline” was referring to Phil Jones truncating Briffa’s data for a WMO report, if I’m not mistaken.
Get ready for the downvotes, Jeff 😉
It has very much to do with Mann’s datasets. The only dataset he used which supported the idea of a hockey stick was bristlecone pines. Then he overweighted them by something like 400 times when he ran it through his algorithm.
That’s just another tired old Hockey stick myth. Actually the Gaspe series of Cedars has a more pronounced HS shape. Also Wahl and Ammann reproduced the MBH reconstruction and found removing the Bristlecones had minimal impact (Scenario 3 – the green line in Fig 2.). They also found that removing the bristlecones reduces the reconstruction skill, which ‘suggests that bristlecone/foxtail pine records do possess meaningful climate information’.
“Hide the decline” was referring to Phil Jones truncating Briffa’s data for a WMO report, if I’m not mistaken.
That’s correct, it had nothing to do with the Hockey Stick. Jones was tasked with producing the cover art for the 1999 WMO State of the Climate report. He plotted thee long term series of which one was Briffa, and he replaced the proxy data with instrumental in recent decades. Not something you would in an academic article, but this was cover art. The data sources were properly described in the legend:
Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal. Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov).
Some idiots describe this as ‘fraud’. LOL.
“That’s correct, it had nothing to do with the Hockey Stick. “
It had to do with a different hockey stick.
“Not something you would in an academic article, but this was cover art. The data sources were properly described in the legend”
Describing data sources is only part of the story.
Nowhere in your quoted text does it say that they truncated data after 1960 and replaced it with instrumental data, because the proxy data started going the wrong way. That’s the fraud part. And yes, it is.
They stated that the plots were a combination of proxy and instrumental data, so clearly there had to be a splice point somewhere. You’re getting a bit worked up over the cover of an obscure booklet, in my opinion.
Given that this graphic was not mentioned by anyone in print or online, ever, before it was highighted in the purloined emails a decade later, who do you claim was ‘defrauded’?
“That’s just another tired old Hockey stick myth. Actually the Gaspe series of Cedars has a more pronounced HS shape.”
Not a myth at all.
“which ‘suggests that bristlecone/foxtail pine records do possess meaningful climate information’.”
Which is why the NAS 2006 panel said that they shouldn’t be used for that purpose. Right.
“Also Wahl and Ammann reproduced the MBH reconstruction and found removing the Bristlecones had minimal impact”
This Ammann?
https://climateaudit.org/2008/08/08/caspar-ammann-texas-sharpshooter/
“Which is why the NAS 2006 panel said that they shouldn’t be used for that purpose. Right.”
If I had a dollar for every time McIntyre repeated that selective and outdated quote, I’d be a rich man. In fact the panel chair, Gerald North later clarified that the restriction only applied to the last 150 years, outside the timeframe where they have even minimal imfluence on the Hockey Stick.
“The tree ring people are well aware of the problem you bring up. I feel certain that the most recent studies by Cook, d’arrigo and others do take this into account. The strip-bark forms in the bristlecones do seem to be influenced by the recent rise in CO2 and are therefore not suitable for use in the reconstructions over the last 150 years. One reason we place much more reliance on our conclusions about the last 400 years is that we have several other proxies besides tree rings in this period.”
Also as you say, the NAS Panel report dates from 2006, more recent work indicates the problems may have been overstated, eg Salzer et al 2009 ‘Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes‘ has as one of its conclusions:
The modern trend is not related to the difference between strip-bark and whole-bark growth forms. Both forms show the same levels of growth in the 20th century when samples are collected at similar elevations and when no distortions are introduced by standardization.
Mcintyre, of course, is aware of both these points. For some odd reason he just does not mention them.
The whole thing is moot anyhow, more recent work shows a hockey stick without any tree-ring data, never mind Bristlecones.
This Ammann?
For a start, that blog post is on a separate issue and does not refute the point made in the peer-reviewed paper about excluding Bristlecones having a negligible effect. The absurd claim that the Hockey Stick is derived solely from Bristlecone proxies and the MBH method overweighted those proxies ‘400 times’ is just wrong.
Secondly, it’s a great example of why McIntyre does not get much traction outside his bubble. He has an issue with the way Ammann handled the RE stats. Fair enough. That’s not unusual, statistics is often not clear cut and statisticians disagree in good faith the whole time. McIntyre could have written up his objections in a dispassionate way and submitted them as a comment to the journal.
But good faith is not the McIntyre way is it? He writes an attack piece, larded with sarcasm, on his blog where can and does make up his own rules and mark his own homework. He apparently finds himself convincing, I don’t.
https://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
A great many of the links on that page are dead.
I guess it’s your loss, then. You’ll have to live with your ignorance like all the other true believers, I guess. The information is available. I’ve started you on the path to enlightenment. The rest is up to you.
So how did they know that all the earlier proxies would not also have diverged from actual temps if thermometers had been invented back then?
Osmosis.
“and that the MBH reconstruction tracks the instrumental record quite well through the very end of our calibration interval”
No, it doesn’t. It tracks the bastardized instrument-era temperature record, not the historic, unmodified, written temperature record.
with the fall of Afghanistan the ipcc report became a three day news story with no legs .live by the media , die by the media .look for a new shocker of some kind between now and Glasgow to recapture attention .
It made a on day news item in Australia with the odd left journo bringing it up in following days.
Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ has as much scientific credibility these days as ‘Goldilocks and The Three Bears’.
Now, now. Let’s not insult perfectly good fairy tales!
As I understand it, they heavily weighted data that showed a 20th C uptick because it was good data, even though the pre 20th C data still varied dramatically. Averaging random data tends to give flat trend, like the 20th C data does without weighting.
Do the reverse – heavily weight the data that shows a flat trend before 1900, because that is good data – and you will most likely get a constant temperature post 1900.
What I don’t understand is how they still managed to get a decline in the tree ring data despite massaging the data rather than deconvoluting.
Steve Macintyre is a true hero of our generation. Reading his work you sense the deep sadness of a brilliant mind confronted with egregious dishonest malpractice which is solidly entrenched in the power structures of a society that has sold itself all in for the climate disaster story and its attendant agendas. Something analogous to a Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Steve McIntyre is the very model of scientific integrity, ethics and consistency. I’ve seen him flatten bad arguments and weak science on both sides of the question equally.He’s the epitome of even handed honesty … unlike much of what he forensically analyzes and deconstructs.
I am not sure if it was warmer but maybe more on par.
The Roman Warm Period is a different story as there is evidence that the tree line in the mountains was significantly higher as today, growing grapes in England etc.
This paper shows a reconstruction from Scandinavia where the temperatures have been higher during Roman times:
https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Esper_2012_NatureCC6.pdf
Interestingly, the lead author was part of the PAGES2K until a couple of years ago. The dissenting views about how to handle the “divirgence” in tree ring data might have been one of the reasons.
PAGES2K are just a chorus of Mike Mann cheerleaders. Steve Macintyre has exposed them as guilty of the same dishonest practices. They deliberately look for the worst, not the best, climate proxies.
Call me when there are hippos in the Thames again. Those Neanderthals and their jet planes and V8s!
Since the Taliwackers now run UN IPCC what do you expect?
Here’s an interesting observation from the “divergence-free” paper:
A unique feature of divergence in the Mackenzie Delta is that it occurs in two phases.
The first phase spans ca. AD 1900-1950 when tree growth overestimates summer temperatures, and the second phase follows when tree growth underestimates temperatures
Now, if NOAA et al. have been gradually lowering the pre-1950 temperature record and raising the post-1970 temperature record to manufacture the appearance of 1 degree centigrade warming, it would stand to reason that a proxy measure, such as tree rings, would likely not agree with NOAA’s fabrication. The proxy record would appear to be too warm prior to 1950 and too cold after 1970. That is what this paper’s authors found.
Whenever I have inspected original records from individual US rural land based weather stations, I cannot find a century long warming trend. In general, peak warming was in the 1930s, then cooling after 1940 to around 1970, then warming from 1970 to around 2000, with 2000 below the 1930s peak. It looks like a 60-year cycle that peaked at a lower high around 2000.
NOAA’s reported warming appears to be largely a result of their ‘temporal homogenization’ process. The ‘change’ is almost all subjective data adjustments by their staff, not a trend in original readings.
“It looks like a 60-year cycle that peaked at a lower high around 2000.”
That’s what it looks like to me, too.
The U.S. surface temperature chart, Hansen 1999, shows the cyclical nature of the climate:
This chart only goes to 1999, but keep in mind that 1998 and 2016 (the hottest year evah!) are tied for the warmest year since the 1930’s, which means the U.S is still in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s. No Hockey Sticks here.
That graph does not correct for the biases caused by station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, etc. Can you post a graph that considers those non-climatic effects so that we can see them side-by-side?
Are you suggesting that Hansen was incompetent?
No. I’m saying I think the graph was created from a run of GISTEMP using the GHCN-M qcu file.
Wherever it was created, it was created by NASA, and I assume James Hansen or one of his helpers, and appeared on NASA’s website side-by-side with a Hockey Stick chart for many years.
I used to link to that website when talking about the differences between the U.S. regional chart and the bogus Hockey Stick chart.
And then one day, not long ago, that NASA webpage disappeared from their website for some reason.
Here’s the url:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
It gives a “not found” page now.
I tried putting the url in the Wayback machine but did not come up with anything. Maybe I didn’t do it right.
Anyway, I didn’t make that chart up, James Hansen created that chart, so if you have any problems with it, take it up with him.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research//briefs/1999_hansen_07/
Thank you, jarves!
Well, at least NASA didn’t disappear the webpage, they just moved it.
I thought maybe they had erased it because I was always making fun of Hansen’s lame excuse on that page for why the U.S. temperature profile looked so different from the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart sitting next to it.
I’m not saying you made the chart up. I’m saying that based on the information I’ve seen the chart does not include adjustments for all non-climatic bias. According to the GISTEMP changelog the earliest I see biases considered was 1999 (See Hansen et al. 1999) and they only switched over to the adjusted USHCN dataset in 2000. And FWIW it is my understanding that the TOB bias is particularly acute in the US after WWII and accounts for the bulk of the difference between adjusted and unadjusted. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
The future is certain; it is only the past that is unpredictable.
The Peril of Politicizing Science
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c01475#
That’s correct. It is addressed in the GISTEMP FAQ.
“In the Hansen et al. (1999) paper the GISS analysis was based on GHCN data alone; in the meantime, the group working at NOAA/NCEI had taken a closer look at the US data, an investigation that resulted in substantial modifications compensating for station moves, procedural changes, etc. These corrected data were made available as “adjusted USHCN” data. The adjustments and their effects are described here, with a graph showing the effect of each of the five individual adjustments here. These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990. They had no significant impact on the global mean. About half of that increase was due to information obtained about station moves (mostly from cities to airports where conditions were generally cooler), the other half from changes in the time of observation (mostly as a consequence of a concerted effort to transition to a uniform time of observation for a whole network of stations).”
Thank you. Somehow I missed that commentary. It does settle the point that the graph Tom Abbott keeps posting is the one contaminated by known biases.
No problem.
Phillips still some answers you need to supply further up the page
Not cowering in the corner are you?
Thanks. Yeah…that’s a pretty big difference.
“which means the U.S is still in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s.”
Really (LOL)
Figure 2. Annual average temperature over the continental U.S. with respect to the 1951-1980 period (black line), and the average of the 5 years centered on the given year (red line). Image credit: NASA/GISS.
What’s the “raw” data look like, Anthony? You are showing a bastardized, manipulated U.S. chart.
As Hansens charts shows, the 1930’s were warmer than 1998. Hansen says 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998. The year 1998 is statistically tied with the year 2016 for being the warmest year since 1934, according to the UAH satellite data. That means that 1934 was warmer than both 1998 and 2016, so yes, the United States is currently in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s.
Laugh that off.
You know what the “raw” data shows. You posted it afterall.
There are two graphs being discussed. The one in which known biases have been addressed and one that is contaminated by those known biases.
The graph Anthony posted is from Hansen’s GISTEMP dataset. It is the one that is bias corrected. It clearly shows the 2000’s being warmer than the 1930’s.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/foiad-emails-from-hansen-and-giss-staffers-show-disagreement-over-1998-1934-u-s-temperature-ranking/
“Email Response from James Hansen to Damian McLean, August 14, 2007: “…We have not changed ranking of warmest year in the U.S. As you will see in our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998. We still find that result. The flaw affected temperatures only after 2000, not 1998 and 1934.”
end excerpt
The Climategate emails also corroborate that 1934 was warmer than 1998. At the time, Hansen said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, and one of his colleagues emailed him, as cataloged in the Climategate emails, and said he came up with almost the same figure. His figure was 1934, being 0.49C warmer than 1998.
Above, Hansen is downplaying the amount that 1934 exceeded 1998, but he said 0.5C before the major bastardizations started, and he has corroboration for that figure enshrined in the Climategate emails.
Hansen didn’t have much reason to fudge the temperature figures before the end of 1998, because the temperatures were going just the way he thought they would be going: up.
But after 1998, the temperatures started going down, and that’s when the Data Manipulators really sprung into action.
Their current bastardization of the temperature record shows 1998, 0.4C cooler than what the UAH satellite shows in relation to the year 2016.
The Data Manipulators cooled 1998, in their computers, by 0.4C to give them the opportunity to declare 15 years of the 21st century as being the “hottest year evah!”.
But they couldn’t have declared any of those years as the hottest year evah! if they went by the UAH satellite chart which shows 1998, as being warmer than any subsequent year except for 2016.
Here’s the UAH satellite chart, look for yourself:
So you take a 1998 point from one dataset, GISTEMP, then hop over to another, UAH to draw conclusions about the next two decades. Do they measure the same thing? No, UAH estimates temperatures in the lower troposphere, GISTEMP is the surface. UAH is known to be more responsive to ENSO fluctuations for one thing.
Let us see where 1934 sits if we stay in the same dataset … Oh, 1934 is more than half a degree cooler than 2012 and eighth-warmest overall.
2012 1.82
2016 1.65
2017 1.43
2015 1.35
2020 1.34
1998 1.26
2006 1.25
1934 1.16
If you’re going to make comparisons, do try and compare the same things.
The Data Manipulators needed to cool 1934 in order to keep the meme going.
You bought into it. If you want to trust data manipulators, that’s your business. I’m not buying their lies.
Climate4you has great graphs showing the trends of “processing” between each version of the datasets.
Miraculously, they continuously cool the distant past and heat the recent past and present from each version to the next.
Coincidence? Every time? Hard to believe.
I don’t think the article’s summary of Mann’s hockey stick is correct. There was no mention of Mann’s “novel statistical methods”, or of the gross overweighting of one proxy series which drowned out all the rest.
The thing I find most amusing is: notwithstanding so called “peer review”, his papers don’t even qualify as scientific submissions, since they lack general access to all aspects needed to reproduce his results. They’re basically very exotic birdcage liner. The reason he claims to be holding the material back is its proprietorial nature. Mann; “why should I let them have my work for free?”
For you downvoters, show me where I’m wrong.
Displaying the data as a global average temperature removes the latitudinal influences. Pages 2K global mean relies on a database biased with Northern Hemisphere tree ring proxies which do not preserve long-term temperature trends of the polar regions. The overall effect of the Pages 2K dataset and mean is to flatten temperature trends backwards in time, especially during the RWP and MWP which are key present-day analogs.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/03/global-mean-temperature-flattens-the-past/
The latest output from the IPCC, is a classic example of propaganda hype. The more far fetched and unbelievable the unbelievable position becomes, the more bizarre and increasingly wild exaggeration is needed, to maintain the believers faith.
The similarities/echoes of a religious cult can’t be ignored.
“Got that? It’s a “divergence-free chronology.” You can get that by simply excluding any data that don’t conform to the result that you want.”
Is that the new name of “cherry picking”?
Or is it a “science-based” method of cherry picking?
The Lying Liars of the infamous IPCC are the Taliban of science and truth. Despite all their pretentions, we know who and what they are. Their Hockey Stick graph is stark proof of that.
I found the following by chance recently, the links may (?) prove useful to others.
Start at the main AR6 (WG1) “Download” site.
[ URL 1 : https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ ]
Near the bottom of the page is a “Data Access” section, with a link to the CEDA website.
[ URL 2 : https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/ae4f1eb6fce24adcb92ddca1a7838a5c ]
Open up the “Datasets (9)” section, and find the “Figure SPM.1” sub-section (they are not in numerical order !).
Clicking on the relevant (dark blue) “Download” link sends you to a “FTP access redone as a HTTP webpage” site.
[ URL 3 : https://data.ceda.ac.uk/badc/ar6_wg1/data/spm/spm_01/v20210809 ]
Within the “Readme_for_figure_SPM1.txt” file on that webpage is :
Note that the “panel_a/SPM1_1-2000.csv” file on that “FTP-like” website actually contains PAGES2k (annual global means) “year,temp,5%,95%” data from 5 (AD) to 1995, not “1-2000 CE” (which I’m guessing is from being “decadal smoothed”).
I made a similar mistake once while trying to clean up an audio series. I put a too tight filter on it, but then started wondering if I was artificially creating the signal I was looking for. So I put the same filter on a white noise signal, and sure enough, I was still able to find my desired signal.
My point? Basically, if you remove anything that you don’t want, you will always find what you do want. Even if your source is just noise. Using their method, you could have shown that the temperature was declining just as easy as they showed it increasing.
Major challenge:
The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The new study, a paper by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA).
That’s not a “paper”.
It is an opinion piece.
It is a paper and peer reviewed ,why do you feel the need to lie troll
“The paper by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different
countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics
(RAA). The paper, which is the most comprehensive to date, carries out an analysis of the 16 most
prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC. “
Of Hockey Sticks , Hominids ,Hot Air ,and the Hubris of the Homunculus with Hemorrhaging Hemorrhoids
I don’t understand this at all: If the proxy data does not match the recorded temperature data for part of the dataset, then the entire set is useless because there is no way to know what actually impacts it. Why would anyone (anyone honest, that is) use it at all?