Hiding the decline -- NOT!
World Meteorological Organization
"The graph above, which appeared on the cover of a 1999 report from the World Meteorological Organization, blends historical 'proxy' records of temperature (from tree rings and other sources) with recent records from thermometers. The graph below, which presents the thermometer records as a separate black line, shows that the proxy records diverged from the thermometer records in recent decades. Scientists preparing the top graph discussed how to 'hide the decline' in the green line, which was taken from recent tree-ring analyses they considered unreliable."
Climatic Resarch Unit/ East Anglia University
Tenney here: Have a good look at the black line -- it is based on REAL temperatures from thermometers, not from any type of proxy. The green line represents assumed proxy temperatures from ONE set of trees from ONE geographical location, NOT all the sets of trees studied from all over the world. This particular set of trees went haywire after 1961 -- but the other sets of trees did not. This is a known problem with one set of data points, and everything about it has been published in the peer-reviewed literature for more than 10 years, for all to see.
Thus, the "trick" mentioned in the hacked CRU e-mails is simply a common trick used by researchers to adjust for a known problem in a single data set.
This is typical of the denialists to smear someone with the word "fraud" when REAL temperatures were used, as was commonly known by all tree-ring proxy researchers.
Posts
3 comments:
BS - the Jones quote on the trick references all three data sets. Look it up. Look at the top graph, all of the plots are altered with actual temp readings.
The top graph was published on the cover a document intended to influence policy makers. The graph only references the reconstructions, no mention of the "blending." This is highly deceptive. Shame on them. Further, Mann himself is on record that blending actual temperatures with proxy data is not correct science.
Lastly, you have to ask yourself, if the actual temperature data diverged so wildly from the reconstructions in this modern period, how much value are the reconstructions during the period from say 1000 AD to 1300 AD?
If you're going to mislead, you'd better do a damned sight better than this crap.
First, this graph is TEN YEARS OLD. What possible relevance does it have now? None. How can you have the audacity to pretend this is important now?
As to your claims, you are lying. The issue with the graph had only to do with the one set of tree rings being strange. The "blending" you are talking about was nothing more than figuring out a mathematical way to have one data set pick up where another left off.
You say, "if the actual temperature data diverged so wildly from the reconstructions in this modern period" which is setting up a flat out lie. It wasn't THE constructions, which in English would mean ALL reconstructions, it was, as said by Tenney, ONE set of trees that diverged. There are dozens, if not hundreds of other sources of temp data. How can one set of trees set off the entire data set?
Further, one set of trees being off is not strange at all. Regional changes are common and expected. The Little Ice Age has been shown to be a largely Northern Hemisphere event, for example, and even then primarily affecting the North Atlantic. The important part is to figure out what causes some divergent regional responses, and whether they reflect weather or some other phenomenon.
As for the labeling, yest, it could have been clearer. So what? Did it affect the conclusions? No. Was their work upheld by subsequent review? Yes. Was it improved by subsequent work, and the time period showing warming extended even further back? YES.
You are being childish and dishonest. Your whining is equivalent to critiquing a book report done in 5th grade to assess the work of a graduating senior.
Grow the hell up.
And stop lying.
Age/relevance: I never said the information was new or even relevant now. It does not change the conclusion that Jones et. al. behavior at the time was deceptive and shameful.
1 strange set of tree rings, here is the e-mail:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
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. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
So, Jones clearly writes of modifying all three data sets. That is all of the data presented in the graph. Look at the lower graph, the lines stop in 1961, 1981 and 1981. Then look at the upper graph and see the lines continuing beyond those dates. Read Jones e-mail. Am I lying, or blind, or illiterate?
Divergence: It is not one set of tree data that is off. The graph plots three temperature reconstructions using tree rings, independently developed by Jones, Mann and Briffa. Each of these reconstructions is based on many tree ring records from all over the globe. Each of these independent reconstructions diverges from the temperature record, Briffa in 1961 and Mann and Jones in 1981.
"The important part is to figure out what causes some divergent regional responses..." Of course when the divergent response is hidden by Mike's Nature Trick, the important part of the figure is, well, not shown at all.
That is my 5th grade assessment. Where am I wrong, professor?
Post a Comment