Hockey Stick graph (WMO)
The infamous "hockey stick" temperature graph purporting to show a runaway acceleration in global temperatures beginning in 1850 was never accurate--and the Climatic Research Unit knew it wasn't accurate when they published it.
This is the only reasonable conclusion from an analysis of another data set, sent in 1999 by Tim Osborne to Michael Mann, and copied to Phil Jones and Keith Briffa, the director and associate director of the CRU.
The "hockey stick" graph (above), which appeared on the cover of the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999, is now known to have its basis in this e-mail (File 0942777075.txt) from Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes:
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
But what most readers do not generally appreciate is that, one month earlier, Dr. Tim Osborn, also of the CRU, sent an e-mail to Michael Mann (File 0939154709.txt) containing two columns of data from his study of tree-ring densities. That e-mail begins thus:
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure the same filter was used for all curves.
After the last paragraph, his data set appears. Associated with each year is a quantity called a temperature anomaly, which was the difference between the average temperature in that year from a baseline average of temperatures in the period 1961-1990. Note carefully the emphasized line about stopping the series in 1960.
Average temps from Tim Osborn's tree-ring data
A line graph of those data, prepared by this Examiner using the OpenOffice spreadsheet program and employing cubic-spline smoothing from one year to the next, appears at right. This graph shows a clear decline in temperatures beginning in 1960, to a low reached in 1978, followed by an uptrend, and then another downtrend.
Residents of New England should remember that the winter of 1977-78 was especially severe. Indeed, then-Governor Ella Grasso of Connecticut declared a total ban on motorized traffic on the streets and highways of Connecticut, that lasted for a day and a half and forced a cancellation of most classes during the full day at Yale College, where this Examiner was then a sophomore student. While most students lived on campus in those days, most faculty did not, and they found themselves unable to travel to the campus to teach their classes--except for graduate-student teaching assistants who also lived on campus, and at least one instructor who, on the morning of the second day, traveled from Hartford, CT, to New Haven, CT, wearing cross-country skis. The travel ban ended in the late morning of the second day, and one other instructor who had managed to travel to New Haven in time to teach a noon class, memorably quoted Herodotus' famous description of the Persian postal express, which may be seen along the roofline of the New York City Post Office:
Climatic Research Unit (Photo courtesy CRU)
Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.
That this winter corresponded exactly to the low point of the Osborn data set can scarcely be coincidental. Thus the Osborn data set is entirely in accord with this 1977-78 experience and utterly belies the "Hockey Stick." And as mentioned, the records show that Phil Jones was copied on that data set one month before he sent his e-mail describing the production of the Hockey Stick.
This, even more than the dubious choice-of-phrase used by Jones in his e-mail, constitutes clear evidence of wrongful data manipulation. Both Jones and Osborn, not to mention Mann, Briffa, Bradley, and Hughes, have a lot of explaining to do.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.
Comments
If you were a scientist in the fields of climate science or "tree science" you would know that the tree-ring series in question is usually "stopped" at 1960 because thereafter it no longer accurately represents temperature in the way it did prior to 1960. As in, it's usefulness as a proxy to temperature ends around 1960 in an explainable and not unusual way.
This has been explained by "tree science" and (very very simply) relates to the fact that prior to 1960 the growth of the trees in question was limited by temperature and therefore growth can be used as a valid proxy for temperature. Whereas it seems after 1960 another limitation is present with this set of trees that results in a divergence in tree-ring temperature records from other (plural) measurements and proxies of temperature.
A bit of context perhaps? Trick and hide have more than one meaning - in this sense, trick means technique, and hide means "reduce the impact of the erroneous data". Nothing sus.
AD,
If you were a scientist in the fields of climate science or "tree science" you would know that the 1960 divergence is not explained at all. It is still unknown why, if you read the peer reviewed literature what they do is ASSUME (not scientifically prove) it is some sort of anthropogenic caused response. They never explore the possibilities that this divergence issue could have a natural cause that limits the usefullness of trees as thermometers (the possibility that our confidence levels in dendro reconstructions may be quite incorrect). They say here is the data with this assumption. They don't say what other assumptions are possible and what that would mean to the analysis. So you either drink their kool-aid or you think for yourself.
AD,
Another point you raise up is why not include the post 1960 data and explain it, especially in the context of an IPCC report, rather than "hide" or "trick" it away (supposedly in plain sight). Such a huge convenient assumption should be asterisked and noted on every chart and in every result that relies on it. Could you imagine if they calibrated real thermometers this way?
Since the truncation is based on an assumption, they should present what these reconstructions would look like without that assumption (including recalculated error and confidence). Or they should scientifically prove the basis of the assumption.
Instead they truncate post 1960 based on an assumption, which to a reviewer means they need to truncate the whole pre-instrumental period too because we don't know what causes the divergence and whether/when it existed prior.
AD, you haven't been reading the literature. The talking point was - again - shown to be false by a recent paper.
Sorry.
You must have been wishing earnestly for your typing to be true.
Best,
D
Terry Hurlbut:
Thank you for coming to conclusions based on out-of-context e-mails. Keep it up.
And when you continue ululating over "trick" , please also mention why you continue to fetishize over a, 11-year old first paper, and please mention the subsequent studies that have replaced the totem.
Thank you in advance.
Best,
D
Either they were too stupid to realize recent therm data may have poor correlation with dendrochron data, OR they purposely combined the 2, with some smoothing, to more greatly contrast supposed past cool periods with supposed present warming while hiding the divergence.
Either way, the graph is useless and certainly not important enough to influence policy.
Sounds reasonable to me dude!
RT
www.ultimate-privacy.br.tc
Excellent! I KNEW there was more justification to keep polluting! Let's bring back CFCs and freon!
@AD Upon exactly what do you base your statement that "the tree-ring series in question...accurately represents temperature...prior to 1960?"
The data, as charted here, goes back to 1400. It wasn't until the 1700s that thermometers had developed to the point where they were even mildly consistent/reproducible.
If the divergence, which occurs when the most accurate data and the greatest range of data is present, cannot be explained, why should older data be trusted, at all (other than it is obviously well suited toward the bias of some researchers)?
I'd like to point out, urban heat island effect may also mean recent therm data is WORSE than tree ring data and may be why the curves diverged.
again, why combine them if not to deceive?
I dunno why there seems to be some double posts. There is no method for editing that I can see.
sry
Kennedy assassination anniversary - the UFO factor, and Climate Change Data.
www.examiner.com/x-2383-Honolulu-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2009m11d22-46th-Kennedy-assassination-anniversary---UFOs
I love how the AGW proponents scared for their livelihods are trying to debate the issues in the emails one point at a time. Claiming that it is not bad if you just look at one scandal and ignore the rest of them.
They know that to look at all the scandals at the same time shows a deliberate plot to deceive and cheat for the goals of money and ego.
And to claim that an 11 year old study that falsified the results had no effect on future funding for research is a laughable lie. Why has more than 90% of all climate science in the past decade gone to pro AGW proponents, and next to no money for scientists who question the AGW theories?
Past deception influences current beliefs. So past deception is as relevant today as it was when the lie was first told 11 years ago.
it's a conspiracy to use global warming to establish a global government and enslave humanity, all the cool kids know this...
This was part of the plot to bring America to it's knees. First, they spread our money thinly around the world via false wars. Then they start "green" initiatives which go against everything America is, as far as consumers. Now we are severely weakened and will be desperate for a helping hand. This is where Hitler came in when Germany was in a hole. I fear we will not make it through this one.
Everyone: No, Examiner.com does not provide a method for users to edit or delete comments. Moderation of comments is my job. I'll remove duplicates as I see them.
@AD, perhaps you can explain why Tim Osborne even *had* a dataset that extended beyond 1961. And more to the point: you cannot deny that that dataset, when honestly interpreted, accounted exactly for the bitterest, most blustery winter in recent memory in New England. I repeat: I was there. I was a student at Yale University from 1976-80. In the winter of 1977-78, then-Gov. Ella Grasso of CT *did* ban all motor traffic for a day and a half.
More to the point: every time Algore opens his gob, the earth takes a chill. Global-warming events have had to be postponed on account of snow! But the CRU never acknowledged these inconvenient facts. And now we know why.
I wonder if anyone else has been toying with the possibility that members of the public and Businesses worldwide could start a class action suit naming the scientists and the research facilities/Universities involved with deception and collusion?
I am sure hundreds of billions of dollars will be sucked from the pockets of ordinary families, & hundreds of billions more will be sucked out of Businesses profit margins. If the taxes are based on deception by so called scientists & universities, then shouldn't they be held responsible in a civil case?
Even though I do not believe in Intelligent Design, I see it as no more damaging as fictional climate research & criminal collusion. I would be amused if the churches got involved with any class action suit and did so with the aim of eventually getting a judgment so high that they would effectively own Universities and research facilities worldwide. Then the Universities can go from teaching climate change lies to intelligent design. Iro
Human-caused global warming is the consensus opinion of organizations like the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. sponsored agency) and NOAA, (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a U.S. Govt. agency), not to mention many other scientific panels around the world. These organizations are overseen by the best-qualified scientists available. Their findings are based on innumerable studies published by thousands of scientists. Naturally, some scientists will dissent, and there is always some room for doubt.
Some paranoid fools feel they are smarter than these scientists and organizations. They think that one dissenting study carries the same weight as the consensus opinions of organizations like these.
Worse yet, some deranged people actually believe that NOAA, IPCC and all the others are engaged in a vast conspiracy to mislead the public about global warming.
Is this blogger foolish, deranged or paranoid? Hope not. One wonders.
Timbo
The argument of the intellectually bankrupt. To claim that your opponent is too stupid to argue the points.
Skeptics like myself have been asking why there seems to be fictional data and collusion by AGW scientists for years now. We have been told over and over that we were just conspiracy theorists as this is a convenient way to question the intelligence of your opponent. Now we have the proof that we were correct all along. We are not letting this go.
So please be intellectually honest and debate on topic. Why did climate change proponents feel the need to fake results, lie, and collude to hide their lies?
Wow, and I thought the Hockey Stick graph was CO2/time measured part per million and had risen from 280ppm to 387ppm in the last century and a half. All along it was just a fake temperature graph and had nothing to do with CO2.
If you just took the time to travel all over the World and see so many places going dry, you would understand that Global warming is a fact.
You will only acknowledge it, they day you will have to face its consequences, then it shall be too late.
There is no better blind than those who want to be blind.
Can you please explain why polar caps are diminishing??
I'm sure you will find a "scientific" explanation to state they are not.
@ROFL--Have *you* traveled the world? How do *you* know that the polar ice caps are melting? The entire body of assertions now requires re-examination.
And what "consequences" are you talking about? They wouldn't be the "consequences" that Ben Santer proposed to visit upon Pat Michaels, would they? Because they're the only "consequences" that make a bit of sense. The entire notion that puny human beings could affect something as big as the earth is total hogwash--as Rush Limbaugh and others have repeatedly said.
@Timbo: You now need to read my most recent submission. Senator Inhofe has vowed to investigate the IPCC. I'd say that a lot more investigations ought to be required. What we see here is the Big Con of all time.
Wait a minute... what does a winter storm have to do with a study of growth rings in trees? Trees don't grow in the winter! Fact of the matter is that that study has little or no correlation to winter weather.
@ Timbo - Actually, if you look at the members of the IPCC, you will find many of them are NOT scientists, they are members of Greenpeace and other environmental activists. Also, where do you think the IPCC was getting their info from, the CRU maybe? I think thats the point. Another point being made by the article is that there WAS a conspiracy to hide info from the general population regarding climate change, and it even presents the proof of such. Did you not read the article, or any of the other article's going around the net right now? because there is many of them, not just this one blogger, whom you slandered for no real reason. And, with regards to your claims about the general "consensus" that man-made global warming is real, have you ever seen what has happened to any scientist who claims otherwise? How many scientists do you think would be willing to put their ENTIRE career on the line because they THINK something sounds fishy. There never was a consensus.
Global warming is occurring on Mars, too. Other planets as well; even Neptune - look it up, climatards.
Human generated CO2 has obviously been poisoning the ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM! Why can't the climate change deniers see this simple fact? Perhaps they need another graph.
A Solar Federation Cap-and-Trade program, along with a 95% reduction of the human population, is the only thing that will save our solar system, if not the galaxy.
Pay no mind that the Solar Federation and clean, energy-efficient terra-forming and interplanetary travel don't yet exist. The Benevolent Al Gore will invent it all shortly; we shall be awed, even beyond our everlasting reverence for his invention of the Internet. Well, those of us lucky enough to be in the 5% that remains to serve the elite after they lovingly murder billions of our fellow useless eaters.
Climate change deniers, being mentally ill freaks, should be among the first to feel the elites' unconditional love.
Timbo,
A huge nuance you are missing is this:
Yes there is general consensus that CO2 can cause SOME level of warming (not catastrophic as a first order forcing itself). BUT:
There is not consensus over much more important parts of the alarmist theory: the magnitude and even the sign of feedbacks, the pre-instrumental temperature reconstructions (whether the current warming is unprecedented over 2000 years), over how well a model can predict 100 years out through extrapolation with so many assumptions as inputs, over how well the surface thermometers can capture temperature trends vs satellite data.
@Terry - Did you just cite Rush Limbaugh as a reliable source for news or any facts whatsoever? You do realize he's an entertainer?
Your right, a couple of e-mails throws the whole thing out the window. Unfortunately, its simply too late to look at the data while the ice is melting. Just look at the NW passage.
To Bob, worried about the ice melting - read the interview at
money . cnn .com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm
an exerpt:
I know you think there's been something of a hysteria in the media about melting glaciers. Could you explain?
Ice melts. Glaciers are always calving. This is what ice does. If ice did not melt, we'd have an ice-covered planet. The fact is that the ice cover is growing in the southern hemisphere even as the ice cover is more or less shrinking in the northern hemisphere. As you and I are talking today, global sea ice coverage is about 400,000 square kilometers above the long-term average - which means that the surplus in the Antarctic is greater than the deficit in the Arctic.
Please correct me if I am wrong but the AGW Theory states that CO2 ,from Human activities, is causing the earth to heat up due to the gases ability to insulate the earth? AGW proponents seem to ignore the fact that insulation is governed by the law of diminishing marginal returns. (i.e. If I have sheets of insulation that will each trap 50% of the heat or energy in an area the first sheet will trap 50% of the heat, the next will trap 50% of 50% and so on.) Since the earth produces about 95% of the CO2 released into our atomosphere it would appear to be impossible for Human activities to have such a dramatic affect on our climate. The more more reasonable explaination for the heating and cooling cycles that have occured in the earths life is that the earths temperature changes are due to the energy input from the sun. If someone would have a scientific explanation for how the last 5% of CO2 could be affecting our climate so drastically I would love to hear it.
Having been a computer programmer myself, I'm fully aware of how data can be manipulated. Graphs can be produced that tend to deceive the average person. It's done all the time in business and in politics to sell a story line.
It should never be done in science.
Thanks Examiner, FU MMGW trolls...."Mike's Nature Trick" is going to be the identifier of this scam just as BJC's I did not have Sex, RMNixon's "I am not a crook" the
Wow---so much wrong here. You may want to note how a "cubic spline" is not a 40-year running average. Then you point out that the data show decline in areas where the folks who collected the data TELL YOU the data are no good. Of course, that's just silly conspiracy, right? Other than the fact that he tells you the growth there was due to non-temperature effects and that's why the data are not a good proxy for temperature anymore.
Oh, and no, there is no global warming on Mars or Neptune.
this is one email. stolen, intentionally taken out of context. read other articles on this before judging.
also, no scientist would tell you that one set of data is enough to make an arguement for something.
also, why doesn't let us open the images in this article so we can actually read what the headings on the graphs say.
To you supposed authorities. I studied atmospheric science and
earth science. a graph is meaningless if you can't read the parts
on the sides that tell you what the points on the graph represent.
You are ridiculous, the posted commments refers to sea ice... that has nothing to do with Global Sea level rise. See Chen et al. 2009, Velicogna 2009, Rignot et al. 2008a, Rignot 2008b, Cazenave et al. 2009 or Allison et al. 2009 who all indicate that Antarctica is LOSING ICE SIGNIFICANTLY AND CONTRIBUTING TO SEA LEVEL RISE much higher than IPCC predictions... you shouldn't post if you're an idiot.
There is a difference between being a scientist and being a science supremist. The NAS highly despises the latter. The thought line that scientists are superior and therefore not subject to public scrutiny is preposterous. Especially since it is the publics money who pays them to produce what is supposed to be reliable, fact verified by real physical evidence and reproduceable circumstances. The hockey stick, no matter how argued, can never meet these basic conventions. The fact it ignores and denies the @little Ice Ages" and the Medieval warm period (which does contain the true hottest year) proves the data is compromised.
Additionally that the hockey stick was accepted as fact, without peer review prior to the acceptance, proves that the normal constraints of scientific investigation were not followed.
Add to that the deliberate attempts to discredit and defame any scientist who opposes this view based on its inconsistant data sheets (ignore the graph) and lack of reliable prox
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!