In Briffa, 1998 – he reported that an apparent post-1960 divergence between tree ring density (thick solid line) and surface data (thin solid line) was likely due to some unknown anthropogenic effect like CO2 or acid rain.
eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Briffa_et_al_PTRS_98.pdf
He was correct that it was a Mann-made problem, but it had nothing to do with the trees or the “ecology.” The problem was that the surface data had been altered. The temperature graph below is from the 1975 National Academy of Sciences, and shows a 0.5C drop in temperature after 1940, and a large drop from 1960 to 1965.
The next graph overlays the 1975 temperature data (red) on Briffa’s tree ring data. (Note that the scale on the left of Briffa’s graph is not degrees C.)
Note that there isn’t any post-1960 divergence. The divergence only appeared in later NOAA/NASA data.
In 1978, NOAA was still reporting a 0.5C drop in temperature from 1960-1965, and a large drop from 1958-1976.
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493(1978)106<0755%3AGTVSMA>2.0.CO%3B2
But at some point later on, NOAA and NASA made the drop in temperatures nearly disappear. Now let’s look at the divergence between 1985 and 1992, the end of Briffa’s data. Briffa showed a small decline, while the “thermometer data” showed a large increase.
Which one was correct? Satellite data shows that the tree rings were correct. Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, causing a major cooling which was not seen in the fake surface temperature data.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
The “divergence” is due to data tampering by the hockey team, not some inexplicable change in tree behavior which magically occurred in 1960. This tampering led to the hockey stick and 15 years of wildly corrupt, irrational science.
In a rational field of science, people would suspect the half dozen data tamperers, rather than the 50 trillion trees.
The “decline” explained.
Yes, I do not expect any trolls to jump into this post!
Shock News: Despite rumours that he never published anything, Michael Mann’s papers have been found. They were found alongside Hansen et al 1988 – 2012.
http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/fraud-100-articles-published-in-science-journals-are-found-to-be-gibberish/
I suspect that there are thousands, not just hundreds. So much for pal review!
The complete lack of moral scruples by the adjusters of the data amounts to criminal activity. When are the perpetrators to be charged.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/02/this_winter_was_the_second_mil.php
-This winter was the second warmest since early records began in 1706, the KNMI weather bureau said on Friday. –
-The average temperature in December, January and February was 6 Celsius, compared with a normal winter month average of 3.4 Celsius. And the average temperature nationwide has not once dipped below freezing, the KNMI said. –
I’d guess that Elfstedentocht hasn’t happened this year. But it isn’t an annual event.
Last year we were very close to one (just days before a min. ice thickness 18 cm on the whole route of 200 km over canals and lakes); this year I have not seen any ice…
Sea climates suck.
Some places are warm, others cold. It’s called a weather pattern . There is nothing new about weather patterns at all.
In your next-to-last graph, the data cuts off at 1992, for both the surface temperature and the tree data. Does this mean that graph was created in or soon after 1992, or did you create it with the surface temp cut off to match Briffa’s end year? I ask, because it looks at first sight that the tampering that shows the divergence was started by 1992, and all the graphs you’ve shown above should have been known to scientists back then, and the tampering should have been readily identified, if anyone were honest and really competent (professionally concerned about scientific accuracy of the data) back then (which they were not, as I have been pointing out for the last 3 years, on the basis of my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison). I’m not questioning your work, I’m just interested in the possibility of narrowing down the point of time when the tampering first appeared. Your presentation indicates it was after 1978 and apparently before 1992. The rise in surface temperature shown around 1990 is then suspicious, and indicates the same time, around 1989-90, I have pointed out before in recent posts here (although your graph indicates it could have been 2 to 4 years earlier, 1985-86, as your red color bar obviously emphasizes). Did it start perhaps in 1988, the same year Hansen delivered his fraudulent, alarmist presentation to the politicians, where he infamously closed all the windows and turned off the air conditioning–or did he have to work himself up to that blatant fraud with a year or two of data tampering on the sly, to shore up his position?
Jones et. al 1998 showed no post 1940 NH warming
The credibility of ALL “science” has been wrecked for at least a generation. Its all a pack of lies that nobody believes (or can, or should believe) any longer. Science has destroyed itself by selling itself out to money and gone along with lies.
Bob,
“Science” as represented by “peer-reviewed science publications” is wrecked.
For a front row seat at the slow-motion head-on collision of “science” with reality, subscribe to this website:
http://retractionwatch.com/
They do yeoman’s work in monitoring the constant flow of fraudulent “science” published in “peer-reviewed” journals.
Reblogged this on The Firewall.
“In a rational field of science, people would suspect the half dozen data tamperers, rather than the 50 trillion trees.” Brilliant.
And they’d probably be referred to as out-liars!
A facial with that massage would be nice. Just exactly who are the data-tamperers lurking behind the fancy government acronym(s)?
Alrighty, this post is a real keeper. Thanks for the detailed sequence of graphs. Treemometers are accurate! Who knew?
Somehow, in Briffa’s world, CO2, nitrates and phosphates are not fertilizers which should cause faster tree growth, but “pollutants” which slow it? Wow! Somebody go tell all those farmers and horticulturalists that they’ve been doing it all wrong these past few centuries.
I was not going to bookmark any more threads, (sooo many) but had to bookmark this one. More meat in it!
Snake Mosher is taking you to task, as cryptically as usual, over at ClimateAudit.org, in relation to this post being linked to:
“Posted Mar 5, 2014 at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Reply
please. Goddard is clown. he’s looking at radiosone data in one of data citations. Here is the problem. You have a diligent person like Steve Mc making legitamate inquires into climate science and paleo work.
Then you have clowns like Goddard throwing FUD around. Guess what, people will over time associate Goddard with Steve Mc even though they are vastly different in terms of knowledge, honesty, and diligence. Goddard gives people who question climate science a bad name. He did the same thing over at WUWT which was why he was kicked off. Skeptics need to make the best arguments and focus on the best arguments if they expect to maintain credibility and be heard. Every time you point to Goddard as an example of good work or an example of an argument to consider you distract people from the best arguments. You fill their heads with the worst arguments, silly arguments, wrong arguments and you give support to people who claim all skeptics are nuts.”
http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/02/data-and-corrections-for-rosenthal-et-al-2013/#comment-496869
Mosher is still trying to figure out the mid-troposphere cold spot. ROFLMAO
Reblogged this on Climatism.