6 Apr

Global Warming Alarmists Continue To ‘Hide The Decline’

                                       

HideTheDeclineLarge

It’s interesting that over the years the skeptics who didn’t believe “the science was settled” on man-made global warming were raked over the coals. They were called heretics and compared to 9/11 twoofers. But now they don’t seem so crazy.

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010.

…The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.

The above article hammers the IPCC and their alarmist predictions from years ago. Predictions of rising oceans, melting ice, and cities destroyed. Predictions that were wrong, have always been wrong, and when called out on it the alarmists went into survival mode.

How did they try to survive and stay relevant?

By hiding information that directly refutes their theories. No one knew about their smudging of fact until the ClimateGate emails came out and specifically in the “trick…hide the decline” email. First some history prior to that email:

The trick email had its roots in the 1998 Mann and Briffa temperature reconstructions. Both were submitted independently in 1997 within only a few days of one another and published in 1998 within only a couple of months of one another. Both drew on very large tree ring networks, but their later 20th century results were diametrically opposite. Mann’s went sharply up, while Briffa’s went down. Disguising this inconsistency rather than explaining it led to much of the strange history in this field.

The Briffa reconstruction was based on densities from an extremely large network collected in the early 1990s by Fritz Schweingruber from over 400 sites in northern Canada, Siberia etc selected beforehand as being temperature-limited due to altitude or latitude. To this day, it remains by far the largest sample of this type. Despite relatively little centennial variability, Briffa’s reconstruction had a noticeable decline in the late 20th century, despite warmer temperatures. In these early articles, the decline was not hidden.

For most analysts, the seemingly unavoidable question at this point would be – if tree rings didn’t respond to late 20th century warmth, how would one know that they didn’t do the same thing in response to possible medieval warmth – a question that remains unaddressed years later.

The famous Mann reconstruction was published in April 1998, a month before Mann received his PhD. Mann also used a tree ring network of over 400 sites. But instead of limiting the network to temperature-limited sites, Mann included everything, even precipitation limited sites in the US southwest. Mann even included Graybill’s bristlecone pines, which had a pronounced 20th century growth pulse that the authors argued was due to CO2 fertilization rather temperature. Instead of using averages like Briffa, Mann used principal components – or rather his own adaptation of the method – a method that enhanced the contribution of bristlecones. In its first muddy version as shown here, it gave little hint of its later iconic status.

Contact between Jones and Mann commenced around this time. The first letters are polite. In the fall, Jones, Mann, Briffa and Overpeck correspond about the merits of paleoclimate proxies and how to attract attention to the field.

September 1998 brought very different fortunes to Mann and Briffa. Despite his very junior status – only a few months from his PhD – Mann got a big boost by being appointed one of only eight Lead Authors of the important chapter 2 of the forthcoming IPCC Assessment Report. Briffa, on the other hand, despite practicing in the field for many years, was facing the bleak prospect of unemployment at the start of the new year:

Mann to Jones, Sep 17 1998: I share Phil’s concern about getting things “straightened out” before the IPCC report. As one of the lead authors on the “observed climate variation and change” chapter for the 3rd assessment report

Briffa to Bradley, Sep 18, 1998: Also I must write my application to NERC for a fellowship – if this fails Sarah and I are unemployed after December as things stand. God knows there is little chance of success but the application must be in be the end of September and I have not started it yet. This is a big deal for me and I am putting you down as my primary suggested scientific referee.

A few weeks after his IPCC appointment, Mann submitted an extension of his reconstruction back to 1000, including the first recognizable version of the famous hockey stick. It was published in February 1999, fortuitous timing since 1998, with its huge El Nino, been exceptionally warm. Mann wasted no time incorporating 1998 temperature into his graphic, and introduced the now familiar phrases that the “1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium, with 1998 the warmest year so far”. Co-author Hughes proclaimed the long-sought demise of the Medieval Warm Period. The findings caused a sensation both in the scientific and popular press.

Mann’s newfound prominence enabled him to escape the precarious life of a post-doc, receiving a faculty position at the University of Virginia a couple of months later.

In May 1999, Briffa published the first assessment of Mann’s results, containing what, to my knowledge, is the first spaghetti graph of reconstructions. In this graphic, there is a new Briffa version – the one in pale blue – one which coheres much more closely to Mann’s. For the first time, values after 1960 were deleted. In retrospect, this article was the first bite of the poison apple of hide the decline. It seems to originate in an effort to minimize the 20th century discrepancy between the two reconstructions, since Briffa, like Mann, also believed that the 20th century was anomalously warm.

You can imagine what happened next. Mann, being the arrogant blowhard he is, and now gaining power and prestige, made demands of Briffa that he withdraw any criticize of Mann’s work. He even sent a demand to Science magazine, the very prestigious journal where many peer reviewed papers appear, that they not continue to publish Briffa’s work writing “Better that nothing appear, than something unnacceptable to us“.

Mann’s supervisor at the time was aghast:

Bradley to Sciencemag Apr 18, 1999: I would like to diasassociate myself from Mike Mann’s view that “xxxxxxxxxxx” and that they “xxxxxxxxxxxxx”. I find this notion quite absurd. …As for thinking that it is “Better that nothing appear, than something unnacceptable to us” …..as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable.

Mann DOES believe he is the gatekeeper to all that is acceptable fact…..even when his supervisor dissociates himself from his stance he still tries to take credit for work he didn’t do:

Mann to Sciencemag, Bradley, Jones, Briffa May 12, 1999: Thanks all for the hard work and a job well done. I like to think that may feedback helped here–so I take some pride here as well.

Bradley to Briffa and Jones May 12, 1999: Excuse me while I puke.

Mann and the IPCC then begin to pressure the authors of chapter 2 to disregard Briffa’s work because

Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!

Briffa doesn’t agree at first but then relents to the pressure:

Matters settled down quickly, with Briffa apologizing to Mann for his temporary pangs of conscience. A couple of weeks later, Osborn (on behalf of Briffa) sent Mann a revised reconstruction, one with more “low-frequency” variability but with the characteristic decline.

In the graphic here, I’ve shown the different rhetorical effect of including the deleted data.

briffa reconstruction

However, Mann’s spaghetti graph in the First Reviewer Draft a few weeks later had no inconvenient 20th century decline. It used what Jones later called Mike’s trick. While climate scientists later described the trick as “sophisticated”, its main element was very coarse – adverse data after 1960 was simply deleted. A second element of the trick was a little more subtle. Any smoothed series requires forward values to calculate the smooth. It appears that Mann substituted instrumental data for actual data after 1960 to calculate the smooth before truncating the smooth in 1960. This pulled up the end values of the smoothed series, further disguising the decline. The truncation was not reported and is not readily noticed in the tangle of spaghetti strands.

Then comes “trick…hide the decline” email a few weeks later. Of course no one knew about this email just yet, until ClimateGate. But a few years later, in the 3rd IPCC report, Mann’s “hockey stick” made its first appearance and became the defining image of the report, used widely by the media and alarmists. Thus began the hide the decline era of the IPCC, Mann, and other researchers.

Internally they were all saying that they didn’t know why there was decline after 1960 but it didn’t really matter so why not just hide it to quiet down the skeptics? This is a very simplified version of events that went on over a number of years but the end result was that….

They hid the decline.

Many people noticed and demanded to see internal communications between the authors, sending FOIA requests, which caused the authors to start deleting emails:

Jones to Mann, May 29, 2008: Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. …Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. …Cheers Phil

Mann to Jones, May 29, 2008: Hi Phil, … I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: xxx@xxx. talk to you later, mike

But once the emails were released it all came to a head. It was proven that they used a “trick” to “hide the decline”. A decline that made their theories seem like gibberish.

As is almost always the case, the cover-up is always worse than the actual crime. If they had put out ALL the data, said they didn’t know why there is a decline, and let it stand as is none of this would of come to a head. But instead their feverish belief in man-made global warming could not take such a hit. So they covered it up.

And continue to do so. This time Shaun A. Marcott and friends moved data around by 100′s of years to hide the same thing that Mann and company were trying to hide.

The decline.

In the end their continuing shenanigans have proven one thing, being a skeptic was not heresy. Instead being a skeptic was being a REAL scientist:

Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson has filled it.

So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn’t come along with it. The reason he’s a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.

“I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Exit quote:

If climate scientists are unoffended by the failure to disclose adverse data, unoffended by the trick and not committed to the principles of full, true and plain disclosure, the public will react, as it has, by placing less reliance on pronouncements from the entire field – thus diminishing the coin of scientists who were never involved as well as those who were. This is obviously not a happy situation at a time when climate scientists are trying to influence the public and many have lashed out by blaming everyone but themselves, using the supposed exonerations by these ineffectual inquiries as an additional pretext.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in ClimateGate, Environment, Global Warming. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, April 6th, 2013 at 11:08 am
| 1,282 views

28 Responses to Global Warming Alarmists Continue To ‘Hide The Decline’

  1. john says: 1

    The US Navy seems to think that this “decline’ will continue and that the Arctic Ice Cap will be gone in summers around 2020. That means no hiding place in the summer for our missile subs. The US Navy Chief of Operations asked for a study on this. They believe the planet is warming and that it is being driven by humans
    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/01/us-navy-chief-oceanographer-i-was-formerly-a-climate-skeptic/
    Our government NOAA says that 2010 is tied with 2005 for being the hottest years ever. so yeah I guess there has been a decline since 2010.

    ReplyReply
  2. theBuckWheat says: 2

    The single constant in the ongoing discussion about the condition of the climate has been that those who insisted that humanity was causing runaway warming always proposed mitigation that implied far bigger government and far fewer personal liberties. Climate change as a subject was far more about a way to advance the collectivist agenda than about honest concern for the well being of humanity or the planet’s ecosystems.

    Personally, given the percent of time in the recent past that the earth was nearly entombed in ice, I would like to know what the optimum temperature is and if we are above it or below it.

    ReplyReply
  3. John says: 3

    More ‘facts’ from ‘scientists’ hired by the oil industry, lol!

    ReplyReply
  4. Mike_in_Kosovo says: 4

    @John:

    More ‘facts’ from ‘scientists’ hired by the oil industry, lol!

    “He who hires the piper calls the tune.”

    •The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
    •Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in.

    ReplyReply
  5. Bookdoc says: 5

    Follow the money. If you are a climate scientist and you don’t toe the line there are no federal grants and no tenure. Most science I see is “directed science”. “Here’s the conclusion-verify it. There’s a $100K grant riding on it.” There’s more scientific method on “Mythbusters” than there is in most scientific studies I’ve seen.

    ReplyReply
  6. Mike_in_Kosovo says: 6

    @Bookdoc:

    Absolutely!

    ReplyReply
  7. very interesting to see a report enhance by a few degrees by the aggressive global warming planet
    tom tom all over to keep their job,
    what would they do without their followers drinking their cool aid,
    so miserable liars and given big money to keep the candle light,
    they are disgusting.

    ReplyReply
  8. JustAl says: 9

    Well, if the Navy says so, LOL, would that be the same Navy that tied up 5 aircraft carriers next to each other so that a single highjacked airliner could have taken them all out at once? Yeah, they’re so smmmmarrrtttt.

    ReplyReply
  9. Jim Hlavac says: 10

    The climate is changing somewhat because the magnetic north pole has been moving — and since the 1950s it has migrated some 1500 miles to the Southwest – and thus the jet stream which flies around this pivot point has moved. This means that in some areas, such as the Western US, it’s been colder and wetter, while in the Eastern US it’s been hotter and drier. And this is true in Europe, where before England had no snow and Russia a lot, it’s switched to a great degree. And while it may be a good idea to get a handle on pollution and things, we’re not going to do a thing about the movement of the magnetic pole.

    ReplyReply
  10. Jim Hlavac
    that is very interesting, I had read something like that
    a couple of years ago,
    it does make sense,
    thank you

    ReplyReply
  11. Pingback: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor | The GOLDEN RULE

  12. Spartan
    I like the view of Michael, it has become a religion,
    the young are needing so much to hook on a cause ,
    they are passionate on what they choose to believe, and thirsty, they want to believe and love,that’s their normal age
    of searching the one to admire
    and give all their feeling toward the target,
    they should temper their inner feelings and take a judgement more reasonable,
    we note that in their belief in OBAMA the man, and the rhetoric, which they take it as
    also a religion,
    the proof is the the many teachers teaching the pure, the perfection the almighty,
    the power, the lies of all he preach, they will defend him ruthlessly from any young who dare to bring
    an opinion using his logic mind, to question the teacher’s imposition of his own agenda of indoctrination of the young source from OBAMA AGENDA,, like HITLER did,and the young would have a better chance if they turn that passion to GOD
    the legitimate CREATOR of MOTHER NATURE, the whole WORLD , the COSMOS, the HUMAN and HIS SOUL,
    you cannot miss on targeting GOD as your ALMIGHTY, supreme power above all HUMAN
    which come and go, as oppose to the forever LIVING GOD,
    and HIS COMMANDS, all TEN of it to follow them is to survive in this WORLD of so many deceitful words from leader
    who carry an agenda UN- AMERICAN and try so hard to indoctrinate the good and tolerant PEOPLE un informed of his PERILOUS agenda for all ages to follow their message of ruins and death of the SOUL

    ReplyReply
  13. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  14. johngalt says: 13

    To the ‘true believers’ in AGW:

    You must ask yourself the question, “if the science is settled, then why does every major report on the proof of AGW end up with the scientists who authored those reports having misled or outright falsified data to provide their proof?”

    Being a skeptic is a good thing. They are not deniers. They simply want to see the “proof”, with non-falsified or misleading adjustments of the data, to show them what you all say is happening.

    ReplyReply
  15. Ditto says: 14

    New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

    A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere.

    NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.

    Well, there goes the whole CO2 causes AGW argument.

    ReplyReply
  16. Jim HLavac
    hi,
    do we know what make the MAGNETIC POLE move,
    and why WEST SOUTH,
    what is pushing or pulling it, do we have an idea?
    that could tell us a lot ,I THINK.

    Ditto
    remember we had similar comment on it,
    some few years ago? it was on another climate issue,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  17. Ditto says: 16

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Basically the ferrous outer core creates a sustained geomagnetic dynamo enhanced field. Because molten ferrous material is attracted to the positive and negative poles, it collects in those areas adding to the field strength. The reason the poles continually drift, is because there is nothing to force the molten magnetic field elements to stay in place. This field is not beholden to the centrifugal force of the Earth’s rotation, although magma currents certainly can push the floating magnetic poles around.

    ReplyReply
  18. Ditto
    I like that, it make a lot of sense, and the wonderful thing is that the NORTHEN ANIMALS
    follow the curve,
    the MAGNETIC POLES are taking us for a ride,
    now what come to my mind, if I can get it in words,
    do you think it could have a connection with the several collapses we notice,
    a sudden hole deep sucking what is on top,
    that man in his bed just dropping down into a moving earth, as example,
    and other here and around the WORLD,
    I bet the under earth is sensitive to those MAGNETIC POLES,
    to the moving and melting giant ICEBERG, the VOLCANO eccetera,
    bye thank you for the info,

    ReplyReply
  19. Ditto says: 18

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Sinkholes are geological event unrelated to the Earth’s magnetic field. Usually sinkholes are caused by; either erosion via underground water streams which eventually create caverns which undermine the foundation of earth above, or the collapse/opening of geological substructure due to seismic activity. The last of which may be resultant from magma pressure changes.

    I haven’t seen any research relating said magnetic field’s effect on icebergs.

    ReplyReply
  20. Ditto
    thank you for the PRECIOUS INFRMATION,
    best to you.

    ReplyReply
  21. Kuni says: 20

    Another fraud those who want to commit mass murder on a global scale are peddling is the BS that “Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago.”

    Here is what they are leaving out:

    They are picking only two points in time. One where we at a peak in the natural warming cycle, and the second when we are at the bottom of a natural cooling cycle and pretending that a linear trend exists between just those two points: August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina.)

    They are comparing a loaf of bread that just came out of the oven to a loaf of bread that was in the freezer and trying to claim that proves something other than the fact that they are lying.

    ReplyReply
  22. Kuni
    hi,
    that is a new one, I never heard that one,
    it’s quite interesting, is in it,
    to collect all the opinions,
    and so many virulent enough to sell their opinion.
    bye

    ReplyReply
  23. Ditto
    can I ask what would it take to keep the MAGNETIC POLES to stay in places,
    did we extract too much FERROUS elements over x period, for our uses, COAL to heat ourselves, building and to sell in other countries and to create our cars and weapons and tractor and trains, and so much more,
    and how would we have extracted it, that is from the debt of the EARTH we took it from underneath, here my sink hole all over resurface to question.
    could it be possible that we depleted the iron so much as to BE the one responsible for the move of the MAGNETIC POLES?
    and what effect does it have, what difference does it make
    I COULDN”T RESIST THAT LAST LINE ,
    now it fit perfectly.
    bye

    ReplyReply
  24. Ditto says: 23

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    what would it take to keep the MAGNETIC POLES to stay in places.

    Well, I suppose if we move the Earth out into deep space or extinguish the Sun the Earth’s molten levels would eventually cool and freeze solid. Not to be a “smart-Alec” but other than that happening I don’t see anyway possible, nor do I know why you would want to.

    did we extract too much FERROUS elements over x period, for our uses, COAL to heat ourselves, building and to sell in other countries and to create our cars and weapons and tractor and trains, and so much more,

    No. to all. Mining (hopefully for the miners sake,) only enters into the cool outer crust and has no effect whatsoever on the Earth’s magnetic field. Most miners would notice the intense heat radiating into the nearby rock long before they would break into a magma chamber. Not to say it couldn’t happen, but it would be very stupid.

    here my sink hole all over resurface to question.

    While it is possible for someone to dig under a building or space and have it cave in (ie. undermining the foundation,) that is totally unrelated to the natural process that creates sinkholes. Sinkholes are a natural, mostly unpredictable, occurring events. Only fictional characters such as Superman, Lex Luther, Paul Bunyan, etc have been able to create or staunch natural disasters.

    could it be possible that we depleted the iron so much as to BE the one responsible for the move of the MAGNETIC POLES?

    No. ;-)

    ReplyReply
  25. Ditto
    I love that EXPLANATION,
    see, I never fear to look stupid,
    because it give me the right answer, from who I choose to ask
    who know more than other,
    thank you
    bye

    ReplyReply
  26. Ditto
    I found a good article in my news paper,
    title; DON”T BLAME GLOBAL WARMING FOR 2012 US DROUGHT ? RE
    WASHINGTON_ last year huge drought was a freak of nature, that wasn’t cause
    by man made GLOBAL WARMING, a new federal science study finds,
    the lack of moisture usually push up from the GULF OF MEXICO was the main reason
    for the drought in the AMERICAN HEARTLAND,
    dozens of scientists from the FEDERALS, different agencies looked
    into WHY FORECASTERS didn’t see the drought coming, the researchers concluded,
    it was so unusual and unpredictable that it couldn’t have been forcast,
    this is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years
    said MARTIN HOERLING a research meteorologist at the NATIONAL OCEANIC and ATMOSPHERIC
    ADMINISTRATION, ” CLIMATE CHANGE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT PART, IF ANY, of the event,
    RESEARCHERS FOCUS ON SIX STATES: WIOMING, KANSAS, NEBRASKA, COLORADO,
    MISSOURI, and IOWA, but the drought spread much farther and eventualy included two third
    of the lower 48 STATES, for the six STATES, the drought was the worst four months period for lack of rainfall since records started being kept in 1895, HOERLING SAID, he also said,
    the jetstream that draw moisture north from the gulf was stuck unusually north in CANADA,
    OTHER SCIENTIST have link recent changes in the jet stream to shrinking ARCTIC SEA ICE,
    BUT HOERLING and STUDY CO AUTHOR RICHARD SEAGER said those global WARMING CONNECTIONS ARE NOT VALID,
    HOERLING used computer simulation to see if he would replicate the drought
    using man made global warming conditions, HE COULDN”T ,
    SO THAT MEAN IT WAS A RANDOM EVENT,
    using similar method he was able to attribute increasing droughts in the MEDITARERRANEAN
    SEA REGION to clmate change, and found that greenhouse gases could be link to a small portion
    of the TEXAS 2011 heat wave,
    another scientist thought blasted the report, KEVIN TRENBERTH climate analysist chief at the
    national center for atmospheric research, a federallly funded university run research center said,
    the report didn’t take into account the lack of snowfall in the ROCKIES the previous winter and
    how that affected overall moisture in the air, nor did the study look at the how
    global warming exacerbated the high pressure system that kept the JETSTREAM NORTH
    and THE RAINFALL AWAY, he said.

    who’s to believe
    bye
    I could not shrink that all, although
    I skipped some small words,

    -_

    ReplyReply
  27. Steve says: 26

    @Ditto:
    Nice! The link is broken, and the first google result is a study declaiming the NASA one. Go figure eh?

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>