The latter part of Briffa’s trees was deleted, because it didn’t match GISS temperatures.
The Deleted Portion of the Briffa Reconstruction « Climate Audit
As ugly as this was, it is worse than it seems. Briffa’s trees did match Hansen, 1981. The next graph overlays Briffa on Hansen, 1981 northern latitude temperatures. The match was almost perfect.
In order to create the hockey stick cheat, they had to do the GISS data tampering cheat first. The entire basis of the hockey stick is junk science.
The destruction of this data was done in a calculated fashion, by the world’s top climate scientists.
They did exactly what Wigley was suggesting, removing more than 0.15 C from 1940’s global temperatures. This tampering is what made the hockey stick possible. Graph below is normalized to 1978.
Another way of looking at this data is to normalize it to 1940. In this view you can see that they wiped out the post 1940’s cooling, and turned it into warming.
* Disclaimer : Mosher says that GISS temperatures are first rate science.
Government is only first rate science when it conforms to their preconceived conclusions.
Maybe Mosher meant first grade science.
Mosh Pup down to insulting First Graders now?!?!
Seems like all the warming took place when CO2 levels were low (prior to 1930). No warming at all after 1930. Their science is obviously very flawed.
Some cross checks:
Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover:
October http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201310.gif
November http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201311.gif
December http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201312.gif
January: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201301.gif
February http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201302.gif
and
March http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201303.gif
Koppen plant boundary movement:
http://www.sturmsoft.com/climate/suckling_mitchell_2000_fig2_3.gif
I like the plant boundary data because plants tend to be apolitical. But wait a minute–I thought plants and animals have been migrating northward.
Heretic!
There are measurements of CO2 levels before 1966 (see here http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm ) but most of these have been ignored because they do not support the AGW alarm theory. Instead the alarmist pseudo scientists have assumed a steady low base CO2 based on inaccurate proxies and guesses.
Please note that that around 1941 CO2 levels reached a peak (of around 380ppm) only slightly less than present and that this peak FOLLOWED the peak of temperature. Ice core proxy measurements show long term CO2 cycles lag long term temperature cycles by about 800 years. Actual CO2 measurements since about 1830 shows that CO2 changes always lag temperature changes on a daily, monthly, seasonal and short term cycles (eleven year and 60 year)
Steve, my post with links to NH snow cover got booted into a snow drift.
Make sure this gets to Steyn. He needs the help. It would be wonderful if Mann was forced to withdraw his lawsuit, or lose, because of solid science that PROVES what Steyn said as Truth!
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Oh dear. I get the feeling Mark Steyn may be requesting more disclosure than Michael Mann wants to disclose
Bonzer!
I think that there are more forces against Mark Steyn than he realises. It will be interesting to see what lengths some people will go to to avoid discovery.
That’s the thing about discovery – you must release it. Can’t hide behind FOI exemptions or commercial in confidence there. Mann and his associated universities have been fighting disclosure for decades. Now, it all comes out.
Unless they get another crooked judge who is blatantly
unfair to the defendant. Of course that should get overturned
on appeal eventually and if they stuck it out to the Supreme
Court is just might be thrown out on 1st Amendment grounds.
If an exception is made in Mann’s case on “Discovery’ then that can be used as ‘Precedence’ on all future cases.
No lawyer or judge is really going to want to go there. that is why Styen’s countersuit was such a brilliant move.
The best move for the courts is to toss the entire mess out. Otherwise you are looking at a contempt of court against Mann for not coughing up the information.
“There’s nothing hidden that won’t be revealed, baby!”
Stunned!
On the Iceberg principle – what we find out is only a fraction of the real problem.
I love it. Only 15% of the hockey stick “lies” above the water.
As the rest is a pink elephant – or it may as well be for all the sense it makes
I’ll forward to @MarkSteynOnline tonight if you haven’t already copied him Steve.
The truth behind Mann’s hockey stick!
‘They said the hockey stick was a fiction, because there was virtually no trace of the MWP. They accused Mann of using faulty data and dodgy statistics to rewrite history, The hockey stick still provokes strong reactions today, what is your reaction when you see that, the most famous graph in the world…[what a shame…it’s a scandal]…[this has been discredited]…[well the first thing is great dis-belief]…some even accused him of the ultimate scientific crime, fraud [If it’s fraud they should be in jail]…(I never expected the sort of attacks we were subject to)…[this was clearly and I’m going to say it bluntly, deliberately bent]…(if you {they} can’t win on the basis of science, you try to win on deformation, slander, rhetoric…which has no basis in fact)…M Mann was attacked in print and on the web…but while the sceptics were busy attacking Mann, other researchers were doing there own science, hunting for more proxies and using different methods to work out past temperatures…soon M Mann’s graph was joined by many others, all reconstructing the past 1000 years of temperature, the question was would they back up M Mann or prove him wrong? It might look confusing but this graph has a really clear message, the red line is M Mann original hockey stick graph, very flat and hardly any MWP…the other lines are the reconstructions done since, there is a big spread in other words scientists disagree about a lot of the temperature, that’s not really surprising, because working out the temperature for the last couple hundred years…but the crucial part…this is 1000AD…M Mann probably under estimated…what these lines all agree on…there is evidence nowhere in any period of past 1000 years that is as warm as the second part of the 20th century. In other words the end of the 20th is really unprecedented, once again the sceptical attacks has made this science stronger, we now have a whole hockey team of graphs, they make a very convincing case that global warming…really is unusual’ Dr Iain Stewart.
Now watch for yourself:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9jtVZ3RUCU
Ah, the troll from down under rears his ugly face in the north.
Facts, troll. Facts. Try some. You are not going to get very far with being Mann’s suppository.
Lmao
A true sophist, he thinks he can cancel facts with counter-demonstrations. For these people, discourse is everything. They live entirely on such surfaces.
and lotsa dancing. And drumming. Lotsa drumming too …
In other words. The scientists really don’t have a clue that AGW CO2 is causing any warming because the temperature data can be manipulated and interrupted depending on who is doing the study. Tell me why the left is pushing this BAD SCIENCE onto governments who are using this BAD SCIENCE to push forth regulations and agendas to tax the crap out of people based on BAD SCIENCE.
Read this: http://www.theglobalist.com/pascal-lamy-whither-globalization/
Note the word interdependence:
Then read this: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/copeland.htm
That should answer the question of Why? behind all this crap.
You don’t deserve it, Mr. blackadder, but I’m going to give you some advice.
Give up the Hockey Stick. It’s ridiculous! When you promote ‘evidence’ like this you reveal too much – about your capacities as well as your agenda. It’s like having your fly open and not noticing.
Of course, one of the problems sophists have is that they can’t discriminate between dubious claims that have some credibility and claims that are completely off-the-wall. For example, there’s the small matter of conflicting evidence. Do you really think there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age?
Incidentally, per your other-scientists-confirm claims, I recall an account on WUWT of some recent work by Briffa; guess what, no Hockey Stick!
In Blackadders case his fly is open and it revealed nothing of importance.
If you are in fact(I use the word ‘fact’ loosely because I know leftards don’t like it) Australian, then you are embarrassing the rest of us.
Reminds me of a scene in the movie STALAG 17 when HOLDEN.discovers who the real stoolie is and then is faced with the question of what’s he was going to do about it. The radical democatic left has completely ignored the scientific scam of the century revealed in the emails and just continues to steamroll the country into believing the POLITICAL SCIENCE SCAM.
Steyn is linking to this page.
http://www.steynonline.com/6080/if-a-tree-ring-temperature-falls-in-the-forest
This is simply fixing the data to support the narrative.
Exactly the same shenanigans is going on right now to explain away the hiatus in warming !
How did the glaciers melt from Yosemite over the thousands of years before the burning of fossil fuels.
And open up Prince William Sound, completely glaciated when Capt. Vancouver saw it in the 18thC.
huh.
since it was steve mcintyre and I who got hansen to release his code and since I have a record
of criticizing their approach for the past 6 years. I have to conclude you are deluded.
The problem Steve is that none of your work can be replicated. In this post you confuse the NH with global. and you have baselines wrong and you forget that none of the hockey stick studies use GISS. and you have the references wrong for the series they were discussing.
Giss does many things wrong. However, here is an experiement you can perform
1. Take the 20,000 US stations from GHCN daily.
2. Take the 7000 stations from GHCN Monthly. thats the set hansen uses
3. Remove all stations from Daily that are found in monthly.
Now you have 14,000 stations NONE of which are used by hansen or touch by hansen
None of which have adjustments because they are daily and NOAA adjustments apply to monthly
Next, use the methods developed by the skeptics jeffId and romanM.
Construct an average.
Guess what?
It will match GISS and HADCRUT.
Which version will match? The 1981 version, the 1999 version, or the 2014 version?
Damn it Steve! Jay Leno quits his job and they put in some Saturday Night Live has-been. Sheesh. If only everyone knew climate.
So, you’re saying that if I compare the USHCN-daily record (for any non-USHCN-monthly) station with a published, historical record of that station I’ll find zero (that is 0.0000°) `adjustments`?
Moshpup, still running with that no adjustments cause it is daily?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
His brain has turned to mosh !
What is the likelihood that every adjustment results in a cooler past and a warmer present?
How do you explain the comment that “It would be good to remove at least part of the blip”, and then – lo and behold – it’s gone? Is that how science is done? Sounds more like Enron accounting to me.
I hear crickets, but that’s just my phone ringing. Other than that the silence is quite deafening.
Plus the e-mail is from 2009.
“Now you have 14,000 stations NONE of which are used by hansen or touch by hansen”
Mosher’s arithmetic is as bad as his CO2 addition. 20,000 – 7,000 is 13,000.
(I know, I know, it’s “climate science” modeling.)
97% of climate scientists agree with his mathematics with 98% certainty. Weird… I know!!
No geran, Mosher is not stupid. THERE ARE ONLY 6000 STATIONS FOUND IN THE MONTHLY THAT ARE ALSO IN THE DAILY.
What Moshpit has to explain is the differences in the 3 versions of the GISS data set and why the continual cooling of the past.
Everything else is moot.
Don’t be ridiculous. All three versions are correct to within 0.01 degrees.
Virtually all previous climate science has been ruled out by previous climate scientists. This explains the ever increasing confidence.
Touche’ lol
Steven is very bright. But the problem that comes with that is over-confidence. The mistake is called “Muphry’s Law”.
Oops. By definition you just opened yourself up to Muphry’s Law. Note that this is not a criticism, just a warning.
Ah yes, Muphry’s Law. it used to be called “Murphy’s law” oh the ironing… 🙂
Hartman’s Law, get it?
Ole’ Murph was an optimist.
I’m sorry blackAdderthe4th but you know nothing about graphs that are presented as evidence as opposed to graphs used internally. Graphs are there to convey an impression and not facts and as I worked in QA for 30 years I can assure you it works 99 times out of 100.
The more times you correct the data, the better they are!
i hope you are being sarcastic
Haha, no. I’m being facetious. That, or it’s persiflage.
Reblogged this on CACA.
I have a regular member, on my forum named “Buzz”, who is a True Believer, because the Left is always correct. He just posted this Monday: http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-3546-post-240973.html#pid240973 . I do not have an answer for his accusation, and I do attempt to give both sides the benefit. For instance if Steve is guilty of shaving numbers, then what does this say about the other side?
Steve, could you address this for me? I’m not up to speed on what he is saying there, and cannot accurately answer.
But he has called you a fraud on it, and I really do wish to have the record set straight. Anyone else is also welcome to put in their 2c over there is they wish.
He is using the missing and altered data to prove that the missing and altered data is correct.
“This article is very misleading. Briffa’s and several other proxy temp reconstructions based on northern latitude tree rings have all shown that after about 1960 there is a problem that they don’t indicate the correct temps. It is called the divergence problem and it is well known and acknowledged among climate scientists. It is even discussed in 2 of the IPCC reports.”
It is also admitted that they do not know why there is a divergence b ut they mumnble about possible unknown anthrpopogenic causes. This moron Buzz then continues with his accusations as if it is meaningless and the temp reconstructions using faulty proxies and minimal representatives for the proxy that match the delusional hockey stick temps are not fraudulent. Again, the hockey sticks are ALL fraudulent as they use algorithms which SELECT data within the data sets that match the temp record. The flat “handles” are caused by using ALL the data available which averages out. If they used similar methodologies to select the individual proxies for the modern period there would be no BLADE to match the ADJUSTED temperature sets..
Specifics, upside down Tiljander sedximent records are not a problem of being flipped. It is a problem with the modern period being CONTAMINATED so that the early and current periods do not show a consistent record. Bristle Cone Pines were understood as NOT being an appropriate proxy by the Tree Ring experts, yet, Mann, Briffa, et. al. used them anyway. What is WORSE is that they used rings from trees which had their bark stripped which causes growth spurts again contaminating the record. So Strip Bark Bristle Cones are a totally BAD BAD BAD thing to base your reconstructions upon even without the data snooping to find just the individuals that best match one’s preconceptions. Then there is Briffa’s special one in a thousand, or more, tree that MADE his reconstruction without the Tiljander and SBBC frauds. Using so few proxies is meaningless as this data snooping means that they are picking only the rings that match their preconceptions WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVE THEIR SELECTIONS ACTUALLY REPRESENT A RESPONSE TO TEMPERATURE!!! Yes, NONE of the HSes are worth the paper or magnetic flux they are printed upon.
(did I forget to mention that the algorithms that snooped the data applied positive weighting to those proxies meeting the bias of the author??)
“Goddard’s comparison of this data to Hansen’s 1981 temp record is stupid for two reasons. First… Briffa’s study has data for all the way up to 1997. So why is Goddard using a temp record that ends in 1980? Its because he wants to hide the drastic divergence that happens after that. And second… Trees don’t grow in winter. So using a temp record that includes the winter is likely making it look like there is little divergence from 1960 to 1980 when there really is. There is a graph of this divergence in the Briffa study(plate 3) that is not misleading.
And that last graph that Goddard uses to suggest that the hockey stick is false is BS too. First… the two lines are different temp records. And second… the .2 degree difference wouldn’t make hardly any difference at all in what the hockey stick would look like.
Steven Goddard is a fraud.”
Really?? SG uses OFFICIAL temperature records. Is Buzz claiming that all the work that GISS, Hadcrut, NCDC, etc. has done over the years is fraudulent??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA